Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
1994 06-23
C~ MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AGENDA SPECIAL MEETING THURSDAY, JUNE 23, 1994 - 6:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING HELD JUNE 14, 1994: (APPROVED) PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING WITH A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR WATERBURY PARK SUBDIVISION NO. 5, BY RAMON YORGASON AND NUBBLE ENGINEERING: (CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW) 2. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR THUNDER CREEK SUBDIVISION BY FARWEST DEVELOPERS AND ROYLANCE AND ASSOCIATES: (TABLED UNTIL JULY 12, 1894) 3. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR SUN DANCE SUBDIVISION BY G. L. VOIGT AND NUBBLE ENGINEERING: (APPROVED PROVIDED DEVELOPER SUBMITS VARIANCE REQUEST) 4. PUBLIC HEARING: REQEUST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR ST. LUKE'S REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER: (CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSONS OF LAW) 5. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR ASHFORD GREENS SUBDNISION ANNEXATION AND ZONING WITH A PRELIMINARY PLAT: (APPROVED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW; TABLED PRELIMINARY PLAT UNTIL JULY 12, 1984) MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AGENDA SPECIAL MEETING THURSDAY, JUNE 23, 1994 - 6:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING HELD JUNE 14, 1994: -~PPrw~ 1. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING WITH A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR WATERBURY PARK SUBDNISION NO. S, BY RAMON YORGASON AND RUBBLE ENGINEERING: 2. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR THUNDER CREEK SUBDNISION BY FARWEST DEVELOPERS AND ROYLANCE AND ASSOCIATES: ~ ~ cv~c-~ J"~~ e °/''`"~`f ~ H"`' `~ uli~7u-h-t~ ~'or !ut i3 ,3e~ ~ . 3. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR SUN DANCE SUBDNISION BY G. L. VOIGT AND NUBBLE ENGINEERING: . ~~~ov2,~9~rcvi~e~(~devZ~oja-eti,~ub~yv~~a~u~iricA~ 4. PUBLIC HEARING: REQEUST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR ST. `p~ieS~ LUKE'S REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER 5. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR ASHFORD GREENS SUBDIVISION ANNEXATION AND ZONING WITH A PRELIMINARY PLAT: ~~Pro~e. f/~ $ c/G o~ a~~nwr'~,tf~-^'~,a ~~'~J" ~Lefl Aye I'~LamvnCrvCLG"f~y1~-+- fO e/C:_- ~ Ql~j'LC~C~~ Zox~J .~~ tpCa'rv~v~-.~~^-d°~'Y`ib~-s.~ w+..~ie ~jLce~ /Z'~' /~, CILi~(lGvn-GL ui~(iQ/~ti~"~ C`~~i~8z.~.Q u-a_e~ CITY CF ~+IERIOIAN ~ ~~ahh/yt.Gf ~ ~~~ 623.9¢ HCiB Or' TREAS{3nE ti'f-LLEY /J J ~3 Cis ~ icala~ (~ 6 ~ o o PrL IUIET~IDIAEl, IOAIi® 83642 PUBLIC MEETING SIGN-UP SHEET NA ~ ____-~____ -_ Y__-____~-~_~PHONE NUMBER:Y~Y~_-__-_ ---~ -- ~--5-~---- --- ----- -- - - ~~/- __fo©~ ~---------- - 1.~-~ .~' ~ . ~l.~~Q _ ~'~~, ~ ~~ fir- 3Z ~ ~ MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 23.,1994 The Special meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order by Chairman Jim Johnson at 6:00 P.M.: Members Present: Jim Shearer, Tim Hepper, Moe Alidjani, Charlie Rountree Others Present: Will Berg, Wayne Crookston, Gary Smith, Shari Stiles, Joe Simunich, Jahn Stanford, Wayne Forrey, Doug Houston, Dave and Shirley Fuller, Lynn Thomas, Ronald Thomas, Brian Smith, Ramon Yorgason, Mike Shrewsberry, Jim Merkle, Gary Fletcher, Dennis Stover, David Lewis: MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING HELD FOR JUNE 14, 1994: Johnson: Are there any corrections, deletions or additions? Alidjani: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion that we approve the minutes of Tuesday, June 14, 1994. Rountree: Second Johnson: There is a motion and a second to approve the minutes as written, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Johnson: Before we start our series of public hearings, as you are well aware we had a lot of, a considerable amount of material came in late. If you don't feel like you had an adequate amount of time to review that material make a judgement based on that, I would recommend that we table any item that you are unclear about or haven't had enough time to research. It is not giving us a reasonable amount of lead time to do our job properly. ITEM #1: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING WITH A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR WATERBURY PARK SUBDIVISION N0. 5, BY RAMON YORGASON AND RUBBLE ENGINEERING: Johnson: If there is a representative of the Applicant that would like to come forward and address the Commission would you please do so at this time. Brian Smith, 1280 South Ashley, Meridian, was sworn by the City Attorney. Smith: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission I see that the developer Mr. Ramon Yorgason has just arrived and would like to yield to him at this time. Ramon Yorgason, 5005 Star Place, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Meridian Planning & Zoning June 23, 1994 Page 2 Yorgason: I am glad to see that you start on time, we have phase 4 of our phase 5 of our Landover Subdivision is before you. It is a continuation of the earlier subdivision. The density will actually be a little less than the earlier subdivision because of the open space, we will have a large park. We will put a greenbelt along the South Slough and we will have a pressurized irrigation system that will continue on as part of the earlier pressurized irrigation system. I would be happy to answer any questions you may have. Johnson: Thank you very much, any questions of Mr. Yorgason? Alidjani: You mentioned a large park, how large is the park? Yorgason: I don't know the acreage, there are actually 3 parks, there are 2 parks in the first phases and this is an additional park. I am guessing an acre and a half. Alidjani: Are they connected together? Yorgason: No they are separated parks. Hepper. It says on your application that you are asking for r-4 designation, is that correct? Yorgason: Yes Hepper: And minimum square footage to meet the Rf1 would be 1400 square feet minimum, that is what our City Ordinance requires. Yorgason: Because I thought it would be a continuation of the first one. Hepper: No, that is the reason I brought it up because your previous phases have a smaller square footage. Yorgason: Right, we are the $,000+ square foot lots, but home size we have the variable sizes on our home sizes. Hepper: Are the previous phases R-4 or are they R-ti? Yorgason: I'm sorry 1 can't tell you, I don't know the answer to that right here. Hepper: Well, it shows on the little plat that we have here as being R-4, what is the minimum square footage of your other phases? Yorgason: They vary from 1100, 1200 and 1300 square foot homes. Lots are all 8,000 Meridian Planning & Zoning June 23, 1994 Page 3 square foot plus. Hepper: I don't know how we would handle this, you would have to resubmit for a different zoning district designation wouldn't he? Johnson: Well, he will have to apply for a variance from the Ordinance because the Ordinance is not going to let him go beyond 1400 square feet anymore. Crookston: Less than 1400 Johnson: That is what 1 tried to say. Yorgason: So, can we go ahead with this and then apply for a variance, is that the best way to handle it. Johnson: What we can do is make that a condition of whatever we do at this stage tonight. Any other questions of Mr. Yorgason? Hepper: Have you seen the comments try the City Engineer and the Zoning Administrator and the Ada County Highway District and all the other agencies? Yorgason: Yes I have Hepper: Are there any problems with any of those? Yorgason: I believe not, we have a couple that needs some attention, but we have talked to our engineer and it appears they can be handled okay. Johnson: Our Zoning Administrator's comments are dated today, so do you have those? Yorgason: I haven't seen any that came out today, the one's 1 saw were yesterday. Johnson: Okay, you would want to review those because it does include tha# square footage as well as some other things, there are 7 items in there. If you don't have a copy we will give you a copy. Anybody else have anything for the developer here? ff not then thank you, this is a public hearing is there someone else from the public that would like to address the Commission? Joe Siminuich, 955 West Ustick Road, was sworn by the City Attorney. Siminuich: i own the property to the west of this development. I think there is about 850 Meridian Planning & Zoning June 23, 1994 Page 4 feet of common fence line. 1 got a partial set of plans for this project and I would like for somebody to answer some questions here as to what type of stone drain there will be for these streets. Will it be into a sediment box or will be into the pond and where will be the location of the pond rf it is a pond. Also, there is one lot, it is an irregular shape, it is Lot 8 -Block 1, 1 was wondering what kind of a building can be put on that lot. Johnson: Is that all you have right now? Simunich: No, I have considerably more. Now (inaudible) irrigation ditch that goes through there and supplies approximately 90 acres below this development. On these plans there are no provisions to the irrigation. I'm sure Mr. Yorgason does an adequate job of irrigation because he is a prominent developer. But, now we have gone through the Lounsbary Property and I have a whole stack of letters, plans, changes and promises and it still hasn't gotten done. Thank you. Johnson: When you refer to the Lounsbary property, are you referring to a specific subdivision development and if so what is the name of it? Simunich: It is on Lansbury Lane, I think it is called Lansbury subdivision. But in any event I have some pictures here showing this pipe were promised it would be done, and this is what we ended up with. This is the backfill on the pipe. I would recommend in this subdivision that somewhere in the Planning & Zoning hearings that at least this will be done to the manufacturers recommendations. It is possible Mr. Yorgason may tum this over to somebody else and we have this kind of a problem. In the covenants of Lansbury Subdivision it states that it is the lot owners responsibility to maintain this irrigation. would like for anybody here that can tell me that a lot owner is going to go out if this pipe faits and repair it. I farmed the area where Vineyards was for 10 years and t was the one that repaired pipes and the adjacent subdivision when the pipe broke. The land owner tells me (inaudible) and you can dig a hole in my yard and fix my pipe and that is what 1 would do. Now, in the Lansbury Subdivision, it states, mairrtenance responsibility for irrigation, drainage crossing any lot is the lot owners responsibility unless assumed by an irrigation drainage entity. What does this mean, 1 would like to know, if somebody could tell me what this means. How is it enforced? Johnson: Well, the City of course doesn't enforce covenants, you know that. They are submitted as a matter of information. They are usually enforced by a homeowners association. But the City of course has their own guidelines as wall as the irrigation district as to easements, access and maintenance. We will address all of those when you are through with your comments. Simunich: The irrigation district does not enter into this because it is on a user lateral. Meridian Planning & Zoning June 23, 1994 Page 5 (inaudible) I know this does not involve this subdivision as yet, but this is what has happened on this other one and I think Planning and Zoning should be aware of it. If you take a look here and start thumbing through these covenants, (inaudible} to deliver irrigation water to individual lots within this subdivision. But if you look over here at the bottom of the sentence clear over in the corner it says no (inaudible). Here is the no over here (inaudible) it will not be detected, people will think they are going to get irrigation water. That is not the right place to start that sentence. Johnson: I don't know if that is a no or a number, but right now it looks like a no. Simunich: Don't' you think it could be deceptive? Johnson: WeII, yes, but we have a very astute City engineer that would have picked up on that, I will let him address that when you are through. Simunich: Mr. Yorgason is Johnson: Is this public record or do want them bads? Simunich: You can keep them, but it doesn't refer to this job it just refers to the previous job. It is the type of work that was done, and they continue to do that through March 22nd the work was still continuing in that fashion. And Mr. Yorgason has said he is going to supply irrigation water to these lots. 1 am just wondering from what source he intends to obtain the water. Right now we are on a location system on this ditch. At this time that is all I have, thank you. Johnson: Anyone else from the public that would like to address the Commission? John Stanford, 2880 Venable Way, Meridian, was sworn by the City Attorney. Stanford: My property is located due east or due west of the subdivision that Joe was just talking about, Lansbury Lane. That property has a culdesac in it and 1 asked at the time that the planning was approved that the culdesac be eliminated in order for my property to have access to another road other than Venable Lane. I was informed at that time that the Venable Lane would go clear through over here to Cherry Lane from Ustick Road to Cherry Lane. I am now told that this isn't the case. I am just asking the question. Alidjani: I have a question sir, is Venable Lane isn't improved road with cubs and gutters, black top or is it just a private lane. Stanford: It is a private lane. Meridian Planning & Zoning June 23, 1994 Page 6 Alidjani: Could you tell us approximately how wide the lane is? Stanford: At this point in time? Alidjani: 10 feet, 20, 30. Stanford: 30 feet Alidjani: Thank you Stanford: And also, I told the people that I was talking to at the time who was the City Engineer and also the Mayor that in order to bring Venable Lane clear through you are also going to have to cover a drainage ditch and they said no problem. I find myseff always (inaudible) directly across the slough from the property in question tonight. 1 have 7 and a half acres out there so I have a concem on accessibility I guess and will maintain this concern. Johnson: Anyone else from the public like to come forward at this time? Seeing no one then I will close the public hearing, I won't close the public hearing 1 take that back and give Mr. Yorgason an opportunity to rebuttal. If you so desire do you want to address some of those things? Yorgason: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, typically as we go through the preliminary plat process we do not have all of our engineering complete. We do not do all of the engineering until we know that we can get a rezone and preliminary plat and then the engineering proceeds in an orderly fashion. So, I can't tell you all the specifics, I can tell you that the drainage will be handled in a manner that is acceptable to the City engineer. The roads will be put in in an acceptable manner to the Ada County Highway District, I felt that they would probably want Venable Lane going through but they tell us now that is not their intent, that is from ACHD. I expect if it did at some point in the future that would probably be a collector street, I don't know that would be the case but I expect it would be. And ff that is the case it would be reimbursable to the gentleman that testified with impact fees. It would probably be put in with impact fees ff they decide to put it in. I don't know if there are any other questions. Johnson: Well there are other items here, maybe you can comment on one is the drainage on site. Yorgason: Like I say, all the engineering questions, it has not been designed, we do not proceed until it is to the point that we know we have a project. It is a very costly process but we will, the drainage will be handled in a fashion that is acceptable to the City • • Meridian Planning & Zoning June 23, 1994 Page 7 engineer, the water source and the disposition of the water will be handled in that fashion. Johnson: Are you prepared to answer the question regarding Lat 8 -Block 1? Yorgason: That was a flag lot I believe, we are hoping to change that design so that there will not be a flag. It will probably require moving of the existing farm home that is there. It is a home that is probably I'm guessing 20 years old and we are exploring the possibility of moving that, having Huchstep or someone of that nature lift it up and move it to another lot and we can design those 2 or 3 lots right in that area which would make a lot better lots and eliminate that flag lot. That is our intent. Johnson: Dces anyone else have anything else they would like to ask of Mr. Yorgason? Thank you. Rountree: The question of irrigation water, 1 know you haven't done the engineering but what is your feeling about your position and how that will. be handled? Yorgason: It is my understanding that the irrigation districts now are providing so that they will provide continuous water to people that do these irrigation projects that is a real problem. Some of the cities are requiring pressurized irrigation, and Meridian is taking that approach. We have been putting in pressurized irrigation but the rotation is difficult. So, the irrigation companies are saying now that they won't be able to provide a small amount of water for a greater period of time. I don't know how that is going to work in all instances. Often times wells are dug and vre have done that on some occasions. The very first one we did was off of Cheny Lane and we were going to take water out of the ditch until we found out they had a rotation problem and so we are not able to use that. And then we ended up digging a well. So, there are lots of different options, it is difficult to get well permits. I understand but there are lots of different ways to handle irrigation companies, irrigations districts desire using their water in subdivisions so they are trying to make provisions where they can provide a continuous flow of water in a smaller amount, but for a continuous period of time. Rountree: How about the conveyance of water across the land to down end users? Yorgason: We will be piping that. Johnson: Any other questions from anyone? Thank you, any comments from staff, Shari Stiles or Gary Smith at this point? Anyone else from the public before I Gose the public hearing? 1 will close the public hearing. This is an item that would require findings of fact. Hepper. Mr. Chairman, I move that we have the City Attorney prepare findings of fact and Meridian Planning & Zoning June 23, 1994 Page 8 conclusions of law for this item. Rountree: Second Johnson: tt is moved and second that the City Attorney prepare findings of fact and conclusions of law for the request of annexation and zoning with a preliminary plat for Waterbury Park Subdivision NO. 5, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #2: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR THUNDER CREEK SUBDIVISION BY FARWEST DEVELOPERS AND ROYLANCE AND ASSOCIATES: Johnson: Would someone representing the applicant like to come forward and address the Commission. Mike Shrewsberry, 4619 Emerald, Suite D-2, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Johnson: Do you have any other copies of this? Shrewsberry: I have this one right here. The copy that I distributed is slightly a revised version of the originally concept plan for the subdivision reflecting comments of Meridian City Engineer as well as Ada County Highway District. The primary revision is the eMension of Gray Cloud Court through the subdivision to the south boundary line. Which was a site specific requirement of Ada County Highway District and it has been done on this latest version of the plat that you have before you. Correspondence is address of Mr, Smith's comments, we are in total agreement with those and sought to comply with all the items that he had addressed. Also, we have just been given the comments of Shari Stiles, the Planning & Zoning Administrator, we do have a question regarding item 9 of those comments regarding perimeter fencing. We would request that consideration b made for the south boundary of this property in the event of future residential development on current unplatted ground to the south. We have no object to fencng the other 3 directions and entering into a license agreement with Nampa Meridian Irrigation district regarding fencing of the Eight Mile Lateral. A variance request has been submitted to allow for fencing as opposed to tiling of that lateral, but we would request that flexibility be maintained on the south side to accommodate any future development. There is an irrigation ditch that does go along the south boundary of our properky. That ditch does flow to the west side of North Ten Mile Road, it will be piped, it will be in a dedicated easement to Nampa Meridian Irrigation district so there will be no disruption of irrigation facilities. And the transmission of water to water users utilizing that current ditch. There is also an Meridian Planning & Zoning June 23, 1994 Page 9 accommodation for a pump station site for Nampa Meridian Irrigation district to utilize for a pressurized irrigation system for this subdivision. If you have any other questions would be more than happy to address those at this time. Johnson: Thank you, any questions of the representative for the developer'? Crookston: I have one, the ditch that you want to fence, what is the name of that one do you know? Shrewsberry: tt is the Eight Mile Lateral is the one that we have a variance on so we can fence. Johnson: You have no problem with the 1500 square foot house size minimum? Shrewsberry: No sir no problem at all with the minimum square footage. Rountree: I believe the original annexation and zoning on this piece of property included that portion to the north, the Valeri Heights. That too has an irrigation delivery system that needs to be piped. Shrewsberry: If that is the case it will be done, Rountree: Need to point that out, that needs to be checked. That was a condition of the annexation. Hepper: Would you address the landscaping on the common tots out front. What type of landscaping do you plan on putting in? Shrewsberry: I don't know if the developers intent has advanced that far along, 1 would think they would just use those plants and trees that are conducive to survival in this climate. The lots would be maintained by the homeowners association and would be irrigated along with the rest of the lots through the pressurized irrigation system. Hepper: And there would be lawn and shrubs and trees. Shrewsberry: Yes sir. Hepper: 1 just want to point out that gravel does not constitute landscaping in my mind. Shrewsberry: Zero scape only goes so far. Meridian Planning & Zoning June 23, 1994 Page 10 Hepper: 1 think you also have a fence along the Ten Mile Road side and that would be put in by the developer? Shrewsberry: Yes sir. Hepper: That is all I have. Johnson: Anyone else? Thank you, this is a public hearing, would anyone else like to address the Commission on this application? David Fuller, 890 Ten Mile, Meridian, was sworn by the City Attorney. Fuller: Like I just stated, I own the property soukh of this development as it was Valeri Heights. I will read you my notes here and if you have any questions you can ask me back. At this time we oppose this development, and here are some reasons why. This was split just not to long ago as small acreage (inaudible) and now he wants to put a subdivision right between them and kind of in the middle of them. The first plan as you know before was more expensive homes and less density and that plan has been changed now. I would like to see that put on the board here if we ca~ld, you all have copies is there anything we can put on the scxeen? He did mention while he is getting that a pressurized irrigation system with the previous Valeri Heights situation they found out because of the rotation it was not practical. So, I don't know what he is working with on that on these minimum flows because with the flood irrigation rotation it take a full head to flood irrigate. So, the previous deal found a pressurized system when you split the head of water wasn't feasible. The last developer said that they would agree to put in a well to cover the irrigation problem. A question we can talk about here is if they are going annex this property or annexing through. This is a split acreage again or annexing the place just north of this proposed subdivision which is another acre or plus, am I correct there, the Bailey residence there? Shrewsberry: Annexation has been accomplished. Fuller: I am talking about the split, it doesn't show his property there, but it is split to the north and it says unplatted. There is a house there, I am wanting to know how many acres is that and why that house isn't being incorporated into the subdivision. It is on a well and septic and is being passed over. (Inaudible) I understand it is going to be an acre or 2. This is the other ditch they were talking about that runs over here (inaudible). Johnson: Is that under separate ownership or the same ownership? Fuller: This man owns this that is selling this piece. And f am wondering how you are Meridian Planning & Zoning June 23, 1994 Page 11 going to annex through this that doesn't meet city regulation to get to this piece of property. Johnson: Where is it contiguous there, point it out on the map for me please. Fuller: Well, it doesn't show you it is right here. (Inaudible) Johnson: So, it is already contiguous. Annexation has been done. Fuller: The whole parcel was annexed, at the last meeting of Yaleri Heights that was annexed. Talking about this ditch on the south, being as we own this section of property across here. I didn't quite follow what the plan was for this. Because in the one you sent out to my house it has 2 culdesacs, one here and one here and now you show a road going clear through dead ending there. Johnson: What you have to do is address your questions to the Commission and then we will give him an opportunity to answer when everybody else testifies. Fuller: The situation on the ditch being piped on the south, there is a 15 foot right of way, now to maintain that when that is piped we are concerned about if he is going to maintain that 15 foot right of way. The property line goes between 2 ditches and if you try to fence right up to the property Line without maintaining that, you can't maintain either one of the ditches is what I am trying to explain. My ditch happens to be concrete and pipe which the concrete can't be moved without disassembling it and relaying it. And it is on my property line, his property line that they are going to develop is right there and you can't get equipment in there that close to lay the pipe it has to be set open. I am asking for 15 foot right of way there not to be fenced in their backyards. What we talked about in the Valeri Heights program was to put up a fire proof fence which hi has mentioned he wants that left open and not to fence that with a fire proof fence along that existing farmland for fire protection of burning ditches and that kind of a thing when they agreed to in the Valeri Heights deal he want to leave that open. The way t study this new plat and being out there physically on the property 1 don't believe that this particular lot right here to the right of the screen I don't believe that particular lot is, the way it lays against the canal drain and against my ditches is actually large enough to accommodate a house. And I believe they need to come out and the surveyor was out today but I haven't been able to meet with these people, I have tried and called a couple of times but, if they they look at the land I think they will agree that the density there is not real practical. That is all 1 have, like I say we oppose it until we get some rebuttal and these questions are answered. Johnson: For the record what was the lot number there. Fuller: 13, I will give the developer a chance to rebut. Meridian Planning & Zoning June 23, 1994 Page 12 Johnson: Okay, anyone else from the public like to come forvvard at this time? Any comments then from the developer with respect to the questions presented? Shrewsberry: The redesign was prompted by site specific requirements by Ada County Highway District. They did not want 2 culdesacs they wanted one straight street to come through and accommodate inter-neighborhood connection for the future when the time when the property to the south will be developed. Up until that time the street will be barricaded with standard ACHD specification. The irrigation facilities on the south side will be piped they would be in an easement in Nampa Meridian Irrigation District standards. Whatever they specify as far as their access is concerned to it. If they do take a roadway we will work out some type of accommodation in order to make sure that the facility is properly maintained. The Lot 13 -Block 1 is as comprised 11,200 square feet so it does maintain the size, we treat that as a flag lot for development purposes. Any other questions? Johnson: What are the actual dimensions of that lot, how wide? Shrewsberry: Well, the lot is about 170 feet deep from front to back and the width averages about 70 feet, but it does go down to a flag and it has 30 feet of frontage on the street. Hepper: What is Lot 8? Shrewsbeny: Lot 8 is a 20 foot sewer access and whet the Zoning Administrator is asking for a pedestrian access corridor. We would have to bring sewer to the property on the northeast side of the Eight Mile Lateral from our direction in order for it to have gravity at all into the area. The Zoning Administrator just asked for it to double as a pedestrian access as well. Hepper: And the also Lot 5 down at the left hand comer. Shrewsberry: Lot 5 is a drainage retention area that we will design to have all the storm drainage to be retained on site within that area. Hepper: Would that be an open pond? Shrewsberry: It would be a swail that would be constructed to allow for quick percolation of any accumulations into the ground water the subsurface. Hepper: What are your thoughts on fencing that southern property line, t think he had a question about that. Meridian Planning & Zoning June 23, 1994 Page 13 Shrewsberry: The fencing itself I don't know if it is an issue it is just having some flexibility as to what type of fencing and could be used. Like we said that given the opportunity on the south side to develop it could well be that the fencing would become inappropriate and have to be removed and replaced with something else. We would request some flexibility on how it is treated. Hepper: Wouldn't that same thing apply to the north property line? Shrewsberry: We don't anticipate there being much in the way of development potential with its triangular shape and rather small size. We don't think it has the same for potential as the property to the south does. Johnson: Badc to that lot 13 for a minute, 1 don't mean to harp on it, that square footage figure you gave me does that include easement? Shrewsberry: No sir Johnson: That is exclusive of the easement. Anyone else have any questions? Thank you, anyone else from the public? Fuller. One additional comment on this Lot 13, the surveyor was ou# today and without those surveyors figures it appears to me that these are easements. When I walked this with the previous developer they were planning on, that Lot 13 where it comes out of the canal there they were going to come right up to the head gate and then tail that which is within 30 feet of the canal. Now without looking at the survey marker and stuff we can't really say whether that is going to do it or not. When 1 walked it to begin with they were talking about the easement. Johnson: This revised plat shows some easement there, that is to the northwest, that is why I wanted that answer. Fuller. And one more thing on the fencing flexibility, the reason that we, I like cedar fence best, but you have a farming community that you are coming up against to and cedar fencing just doesn't handle the fire protection with ditches and those types of things. The plan with the Valeri Heights deal was with the 15 foot easement to maintain that Nampa Meridian ditch that really isn't a Nampa Meridian ditch that is private ditch to be maintained. So I want to get that cleared up too, it isn't Nampa Meridian it meets the specifications but it is a private ditch to be maintained. I thought in the future with future development is that (inaudible) we could use that easement area for a bike lane between the subdivisions. Meridian Planning & ,Zoning June 23, 1994 Page 14 Johnson: Any comments from staff? Anyone else from the public, I will close the public hearing. Rountree: Mr. Chairman, 1 have a question for Gary Smith. Just to refresh my memory there has been some discussion about flag lots off of bulbs and off of tangent pieces of roadway. We have both of those situations in this subdivision, what was the resolve of that discussion? (End of Tape) Smith: First of all, my interpretation of a flag lot is that it needs to look like a flag. Secondly on culdesacs and bulbs, if it is flag lot it has a 30 foot frontage requirement according to the ordinance. If it is not a flag lot and it is on a culdesac or a bulb k has a 40 foot chord dimension requirement according to the Ordinance. Rountree: In your opinion does Lot 13 of this subdivision look like a flag? Smith: Not in my opinion no sir. Johnson: Anything else for Gary? Thank you Gary, this is a request for a preliminary plat, what would you like to do gentlemen? Rountree: My opinion is something needs to be done on that particular lot to get it to conform with the subdivision Ordinance, other than that it is fairly straight forward. Johnson: Well, if you would like to see a revision or condition something. Go ahead Gary. Smith: Mr. Chairman, Commission members, one thing that Shari and 1 noticed in the comments of Nampa Meridian Irrigation district they are requesting 30 foot of easement from each side of centerline and the applicant is showing 40 feet. If that indeed is 40 feet and is labeled that all the way through there and Nampa Meridian is correct in their request for 30 feet then they would pick up an additional 10 feet for the width of each one of these lots which would help in the square footage requirement, particularly on Lot 13. t guess that needs to be verified with Nampa Meridian but they did specify 30 feet in their comment sheet back to the Ciry of Meridian. Johnson: What kind of action would you like to take if any? Rountree: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion that we table this preliminary plat request until we see some additional options for the frontage on lot 13 -Block 1. Meridian Planning & Zoning June 23, 1994 Page 15 Shearer: Second Johnson: It is moved and second that we table this until we see further configuration on Lot 13 -Block 1 of Thunder Creek subdivision, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #3: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR SUN DANCE SUBDIVISION BY G.L. VOIGT AND RUBBLE ENGINEERING: Johnson: I will now open the public hearing, if a representative for the Applicant would like to come forward please do so at this time. Jim Merkle, 9550 Bethel Court, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Merkle: Before starting, I received Shari's comments at a late hour today and I prepared a written response to them which I have already given to her and I would like to give to the Commission. I am here this evening on behalf of G.L. Voigt the Applicant. Before getting into the specifics of the proposal I would like to refresh the Commissioners memory on this particular piece of property. This 96 acre annexation is one of what I believe is 3 or 4 pieces of property required for the St. Luke's annexation at the Eagle Interchange further to the east of this piece. The public hearing for those particular annexation and zoning applications was heard by the Commission on May 10th and the findings of fact were approved on May 24th with a recommendation of approval sent onto the Council. The City Council scheduled to hear this annexation and R-4 zoning request on July 5th. This project is located about midway between Locust Grove Road and Eagle Road on the south side of Overland. Tonight's preliminary plat application is for 298 single family residential lots on approximately 97 acres, that gives us a gross density of about 3 lots per acre, well within the requirements of the R-4 zone. The applicant is proposing lot sizes with minimum of 8,000 square foot as required. Some of the tots in the proposed subdivision most of them are between 8,000 and 10,000 square feet and some are in addition of 10,000 square feet. Home sizes will be a minimum of 1400 square feet as required by the R~ zone. Also there is a generous amount of landscaping provided along the common collector street coming into the project on both sides. Also a landscape park area being proposed for the use by the subdivision in the front of the project. Also, the green rectangle is a 4 acre parcel set aside for acquisition by the school district or the City for a future school combination park site. The applicant is proposing a reduction of the 80 foot lot width requirement to a 70 foot minimum width, this reduction is being requested due to the extent of the landscape open space and to set aside a portion of the school site and park site as requested by the school district and the city staff. This set aside for the school and park is one of 4 pieces that have to come together to provide that site, this is Meridian Planning & Zoning June 23, 1994 Page 16 approximately 4 acres, the school district wants 14 to 16 acres. This is 1/4 of that set aside. There are also significant off site costs associated with the development of this property not the least of which is the participation in the extension of the Five Mile Trunk sewer from north of the freeway under the freeway down to Overland Road to serve this project and also open up property to the east based upon the City's sewer faaiGty plan. As shown on the preliminary plat, this project will provide the major access into the center of the section and also feature a school park site. The other participants who are involved in the park site have access to the site but is through residential streets and we believe this will be the main access into the school and park site for uses in the future. We have added additional stub streets in 3 additional locations from the original submittal in accordance with requests of city staff and the Highway District. Today I received a list of comments from the Highway District which we have incorporated in our presentation and I feel we can meet these requirements in our final design. We have also completed the traffic study which was required which has been submitted to the City and the Highway District. The Highway District has reviewed and approved this study and they are using that to come up with their requirements. The streets within the subdivision are all proposed to be public streets built to the Highway district's standards 50 foot of right of way typical 36 foot street 5 foot sidewalks. Also the collector street probably a 1/2 mile of length from Overland down into the center section for the school this will have a landscaped 20 foot common area on each side maintained by the homeowners association. In addition to the front landscape on Overland and the park site and the 2 entrys. As I stated earlier sewer for this project will be to the Five Mile Trunk sewer which today is probably about a mile and a 1/2 northwest of this site, of Franklin. It is our understanding that the trunk line will be extended to a point about a 1/4 mile from the site north of the freeway this winter. Once that is in place from that location the applicant will be participating in the extending of the trunk sewer south under the freeway to Overland Road to serve this project. Water lines will be extended along Overland Road from the existing lines located west of the property. Regarding Gary Smith's and Shari Stiles comments, I have provided a written response to each of those persons and to each of you. The main couple items, I think we are in agreement with all of their comments, the main ones I would like to bring up. Gary's item #1 concerning the lot dimensions of R-4, wre are here tonight requesting a lot density transfer to allow a reduction of the width from 80 to 70. All the other requirements of the R-4 are being met wre are in excess of tot size, we are less than the density allowed in R-4 and square footage of homes, setback everything is in accordance with the R-4 zone. It is the 70 foot width we are requesting. Also, #8 of Shari's comments regarding the donation in lieu of set aside school and park site, we are agreeing with it if the donation of the school site is made a condition of approval of the preliminary plat as presented here this evening. Also, Shari's #9 comment concerning possible additional application, I would like some clarification from Shari since I just got these comments at 4:30. We are requesting this lot with reduction through the density transfer process and do not wish to have another application basically decide the Meridian Planning & Zoning June 23, 1994 Page 17 same issues we are talking about tonight with this preliminary plat application. Another piece of information I believe you have in your packet is a letter from the applicant to Dan Mabe of the Meridian school district, the letter responds to the comment in the school district's letter to the City. Basically stating the district could support projects without school sites being set aside and sufficient utilities being provided to the site. And this proposal tonight meets both of those criteria. to conclusion with the information I have presented tonight I would request that you approve this preliminary plat and if you have any question 1 would like to try and answer them and the Applicant is here this evening if you would like some questions answered of him. Johnson: Thank you Jim, any question of Mr. Merkle? Hepper: You said something about requesting a 70 foot frontage variance, I noticed several of these lots are down to 65 and I even see one that is 58 would you address that? Merkle: The proposal we have up here is for 70 foot frontage minimum instead of the 80 and the bulb or culdesac lots which is typical in the R-4 would have 40 minimum on the chord and that is what the proposal is for. Hepper: Okay, some of these that show on this plat that show 65. Merkle; They are 70 on this one, and that responds to some of the issues in Gary's comments when we got those comments we scrambled to get the information back to present to you, but they are 70 foot widths. Hepper. Does that density that you have figured, does that take into account the set aside land for the school? Merkle: The entire parcel is 97 acres and 298 by 97 is 3.07, it is the gross density of the entire parcel. Hepper: I have no other questions. Johnson: Wayne Crookston Crookston: My concern is not necessarily a question but a camment, my conenm with the request for the density transfer under our ordinances works in a Planned Unit Development, but unless you ask for the Planned Unit Development or you ask for a variance I don't think the Commission can act on that. Meridian Planning & Zoning June 23, 1994 Page 18 Markle: As 1 stated earlier I would like some clarification from Shari in her response to me it says, "Lot density transfer as described in the Comprehensive Plan could apply to this projectrf and only if the school site is donated not merely set aside." And that is wha# we are responding to. Crookston: Even with that, you are still going to have to have either a variance or apply for the Planned Unit Development. We don't have any ability to make a subdivision and say you are doing this so you can have that, you have to apply for that variance or have it treated as a Planned Unit Development which requires a conditional use permit. Markle: I would like to have Shari explain what her comments mean. Johnson: Okay, any other questions of Jim? Okay we witt get to that and give you an opportunity to come back. This is a public hearing, anyone else from the public like to address the Commission at this time? Seeing no one then Shari would you like to come forward and address that comment #9 or 10. Shari Stiles, 33 East Idaho, Meridian, was sworn by the City Attorney. Stiles: This comment comes from just what our zoning and development ordinance reads, a variance can be hard to get approved because it requires a hardship to exist. I think the Applicant is concerned that it cannot be done. The variance would not hold up the progress of this development because it is only heard by City Council. If Mr. Crookston, you think a variance is in order for this I would have no problem with that it is just that the Ordinance does allow a lot more leniency through a conditional use permit which is required for a Planned development. Crookston: I agree with that on the Planned Unit Development, these things are desired in fact, but under our ordinances they have to apply for the Planned Unit Development rather than just in the platting process or that a variance be requested and granted for those differences of the requirements of the R-4 zone. Johnson: In an effort to encourage of contributions by developers for parks and school sites doesn't the Comprehensive Plan suggest that trade offs for lack of a better would can be used in a development and what you are saying is you stilt have to go through the Conditional use permit in order to satisfy that. Crookston: Because of the Comprehensive Plan is a guideline and what controls development actually is the zoning ordinance and the subdivision and development ordinance. The Comprehensive Plan I don't think, it is stating what the desires are, but you have to meet the zoning ordinance and the subdivision and development ordinance Meridian Planning & Zoning June 23, 1994 Page 19 for the details. Johnson: And the other alternative is an variance which requires proof of hardship. Crookston: That is correct. Johnson: Is that the way you read it? Stiles: Yes Johnson: Anyone else from the public, Mr. Merkle do you have another comment? Okay, seeing no one then 1 will close the public hearing at this time. Is there any discussion? Rountree: Mr. Chairman 1 make a motion that we pass a favorable recommendation on this preliminary plat to the City Council provided the applicant submits a request for variance to be heard before the City Council. Shearer: Second Johnson: Its been moved and seconded, are you going to restrict it to a variance or are you using variance in a general term, because he could also come back with a PUD on a conditional use permit. Rountree: Wouldn't that have to be heard before us again? Johnson: it would, I just thought your motion was restrictive to the variance. Rountree: I suppose if they want to come back with a conditional use permit they can be re-heard before us anyway. It won't go to the City Council. Johnson: We have a motion on the floor with a second, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #4: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR ST. LUKE'S REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER: Johnson: 1 will now open the public hearing, is there someone representing the applicant that would like to address the Commission at this time. Gary Fletcher, 190 East Bannock, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Meridian Planning & Zoning June 23, 1994 Page 20 Fletcher: Chairman Johnson, members of the Commission, on behalf of St. Luke's Regional Medical Center we appreciate the opportunity to participate in this hearing this evening and request a conditional use permit. We have reviewed the technical comments of your police and fire department plus the Idaho Transportation Department, the Nampa Meridian Irrigation District, Central District Health Department and Ada County Highway Department. We accept these conditions with the exception of ACHD's site specific requirements #1 and 2, These 2 ACRD conditions reference Overland Road improvements inadvertently which are appropriate to the annexation request of Peck, Thomas and Wurst properties but not applicable to St. Luke's Conditional Use request. We respectfully request that you remove these ACRD site speck requirements from our conditional use permit. 1 believe Shari and maybe Gary both have had some communication with ACRD regarding that error. We understand that Shari has not submitted any new or additional comments pertaining to our revised phase 1 development and that Gary may have some comments here this evening which we have not had an opportunity to hear as yet. At the last hearing we participated in regarding this project you asked us for a comprehensive list of those items that would be included. We had that included as part of the site plan we submitted but also for purposes of clarity in your review. We have attached a list of the Tunctions and services that are planned to be included in this facility and would be willing to respond to any question you might have. We have a whole lot of people that are working on this project inGuding conditions, engineers and architects and consultants and look forward to working with your staff with respect to the design of the building. And would hope that you with this additional information could recommend the approval of our request so that we could proceed. Thank you very much. Johnson: Thank you Mr. Fletcher, we do have a recent submittal from Gary Smith our City Engineer with regards to your application and we can make a copy of that available to you if you would like, if you don't have that at this time. Any questions of Mr. Fletcher? Rountree: What is the time line for phase 1? Fletcher: We are going through our internal approval process at the hospital at the medical center along with the Planning & Zoning process and the annexation process. We understand that if things proceed as they are currently planned in terms of the schedule we would receive hopefully receive approvals through Planning & Zoning and annexation by the first of August. During July and August we would go through our final review process internally with our board, the intent would be to start this fall pending of course final or the completion of final plans with respect to utilities, sewer and water and so on which we are actively working with our engineers and the City as we speak. Johnson: Anyone else? Thank you very much we may wish to call you back. This is a Meridian Planning & Zoning June 23, 1994 Page 21 public hearing would anyone else from the public that would like to address the Commission on this issue? Dennis Stover, 1287 Oriole Way, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Stover: My question is I would just like to know from Gary what is included in phase 1, what services are going to be and what size of facility and at the same time as somebody that lives in that area I am all in #avor of this project. Johnson: Excuse me you are in favor? Stover: In favor yes, I just want to know what is in phase 1 etc. Johnson: We will ask Gary later, is there anyone else from the public that would like to come forward? Any staff comments? Is there anything you would like to provide with respect to what is going to be in Phase 1. Shearer: That is on the information that he handed us Jim. Rountree: The public might want to hear that Johnson: Well, I guess Mr. Shearer wants me to read that. This is phase 1 development list of sites uses we can make a copy of this available to the public. And I will list just categorically, walk-in urgent care, radiology, laboratory, breast cancer detection center, pharmacy, primary care, physician office space, ambulatory surgery (inaudible), administration, education, lobby circulation, drainage retention pond, automobile parking facilities, parking facilities for the disabled, fountain, waste enclosures, commuter park and ride facility tentatively under consideration, bus stop and shelter, monument sign, Barker Lateral access road and extensive landscaping and lighting. Those are kind of the general categories that would go in phase 1 as I understand it. Is there anything further on that or do you think that is sufficient? Fletcher: Sir, I believe that is sufficient. Johnson: Questions Crookston: Mr. Fletcher, as best I remember, it seems to me that when the annexation was done there was an indication that the St. Luke's property was going to be used in segments if you will, do you recall that. Like the hospital portion would be on one portion of the land and then other uses would be on a different portion of the land. Am I not remembering correctly? Meridian Planning & Zoning June 23, 1994 Page 22 Fletcher: Sir, I don't recall anything about that, essentially what we have done in planning this first phase we have looked at the entire property and although it is hard to say what will happen in the future certainly with the growth in population and the way health care is changing we tried to locate this building in a portion of the property that wouldn't compromise future development of the remainder of the ground, but obviously I think the future is unclear enough as it relates to what health care is delivered and what is going to happen with respect to the population growth. We can't be specific on how the remainder of the property will be built out if you will. We just tried to design this particular first phase in a way that didn't compromise future development. Crookston: Okay, I think that is what I was thinking of. What specific area if you can indicate to me are these lists of uses proposed to be located? Fletcher: Okay this is a 3 story building with a basement, the walk-in urgent care center, radiology laboratory, breast cancer detection center, pharmacy, primary care, administration would all be located on the first floor which is about 32,000 square feet. The second and third floor which are each 23,000 square feet would be exclusively al least we expect at this point would likely be all physician offices. Crookston: So, all of the uses that you have listed here are going to be in the building, other than your pond and things of that nature. Fletcher: Yes sir. Crookston: So, your conditional use request pertains almost exclusively to that portion of the land that is going to be used for your building, is that correct? Fletcher: Yes, it does, the only thing that probably 1 would qualify of that in response in saying is this commuter park and ride facility which ACHD has asked us to consider with them but I think Wayne maybe you can comment on that if you would please. But 1 think to answer your question affirmatively we are asking for the conditional use as relates to this portion of the property. As you know there have been some other discussions relative to the development of a Health Services zone and zoning ordinance and I think that will be something that will be considered in the course of the next few months, but as it relates to this project we are asking for a conditional use permit for the items - am talking about here within the confines of that site that you have seen on the plan. And the only thing I guess outside of that could be the park and ride facility. Crookston: The only thing that I am trying to do is certainly not restrict you in any way but to get an idea as to kind of a restriction and what land is going to be used for this conditional use. So that the other land is open and available for other uses. Meridian Planning & Zoning June 23, 1994 Page 23 Fletcher: 1 guess I would say that the land that is shown on the site plan is what we are going to use for these purposes. Crookston: Thank you Wayne Forrey, 52 East Franklin Road, Meridian, was sworn by the City Attorney. Forrey: Just to put an exclamation mark on Mr. Fletcher's comment on the site plan that you have a configuration of the phase 1 parcel and the Department of Transportation and Ada County Highway District are also working with Olson and Associates Architects, Roylance and Associates the engineers, I am assisting a tittle bit and getting the right access to meet all of the requirements of those folks. And that might enlarge that sight or change the configuration slightly but the uses will be the same. That is part of this master planning process to meet those conditions of the transportation agencies. So the park and ride lot may be a little larger or a little smaller depending on those negotiations how the outcome goes. So that site plan isn't specific in terms of that, but the uses are subject to the conditional use permit. Johnson: Thank you, does anyone have anything else? I will close the public hearing if I haven't already done so. Do you have a comment, I will reopen the public hearing. David Lewis, 1494 Tanager Way, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Lewis: I have several questions, one maybe Mr. Fletcher can address it, can we get a guesstamation or an estimation of the total square foot of the total building that is involved in phase 1? Can we have a time frame of construction when you commence when you complete? Can we have a cost associated with that or has that been determined, I'm sure it has been if you are bidding for these types of services. How is the sewer fine going to be served to the hospital site and I listened to the testimony prior to this for the G.L. Voigt which is on Overland and the Freeway is directly intertwined on this and depends upon that sewer line to make that development functional. Are they going to be delayed are they going to work hand in glove, are they talking to each other? I guess that is about it, if the questions can be answered l would appreciate it. Johnson: Thank you Mr. Lewis, does anyone else have anything? Mr. Forrey or Mr. Fletcher would you like to address any of those questions? Fletcher: I would be glad to, the size of the building the lower level is right at 23, 000 square feet, the first level is about 32,000 square feet plus or minus a few hundred here, the second is 23,000 square feet and the third floor is 23,000 square feet, so it is just over 100,000 square feet. As I indicated earlier we would like to start in the fall, pending Meridian Planning & Zoning June 23, 1994 Page 24 completion of the planning for the utilities and anything else that may come up. We would expect about a 12 month approximately a 12 month construction schedule. !n terms of the sewer what the question was related to, we don't want to hold anybody up. This is a project we are trying to proceed with as quickly as we can and we in good faith have been working with the City and engineers and others over the course of the last year now and have provided engineering assistance to the City to facilitate that design and try to bring it forward. I am not personally directly involved in that work and discussion I think probably Gary may be the best person to say how that is proceeding, but we have expressed interest in working with anybody and everybody who has a compatible need for utilities and I think we have done that through our engineers and with the City. But really the City is in as much a driver position as we have been and I think Wayne unless you have something to offer further I think Gary may be the best person, if it is pertinent to this particular request and in your action would probably be in the best position to respond to that. Johnson: Okay, did you want to respond to the other question regarding cost? Fletcher. Well, our best estimate at this point is that this would be in the neighbofiood of about $1 t1 million. Johnson: Thank you, Gary would you like to lend any information for the public and Mr. Lewis regarding sewer? Gary Smith, 33 East Idaho, Meridian, was sworn by the City Attorney. Smith: Mr. Chairman, Commission members, as far as the sewer extension is concerned I know that Roylance and Associates is working on the extension of the sewer at least plans for extension of the sewer. I've had some conversations with them concerning this extension, I have not seen any plans preliminary or otherwise. And I do know that there was a plan, small scale plan presented showing the approximate routing of the sewer line from where it exists now to a point where it would leave Five Mile Creek an extend to the east to serve the St. Luke's Hospital site. And other than that I am not familiar with any plans that have been developed. Johnson: And it is contingent on the other developments taking place is it not, the sewer line? Smith: The City is in a position, has been in a position to contribute some funds to the extension of the sewer line and 1 know there was a question initially as to where the funds would be contributed what length of line would be contributed and the contribution was to get the line started toward the interchange area. Other than the St. Luke's project and Meridian Planning & Zoning June 23, 1994 Page 25 Gary Voigt's projects, Thomas's on the other side of the interstate, I suppose I am leaving someone out but those have been the people that 1 can think of that wanted to see this sewer line extension made. And of course St. Luke's is kind of leading the charge as, don't know how many feet are involved off the top of my head, but it is a pretty good sized project. Shearer: Are the City's funds going to be re-cooped on late hook up fees. Smith: Yes Hepper: How is the capacity at the sewer plant for this project? Smith: That was one of my comments, I don't really know what to expect in terms of flow either sewer wise or water demand. So, those are 2 things that need to be investigated when we have some information available that we can use to enter into our computer models for both sewer and water systems to make sure that we don't have a problem with the capacities. The water system may need to be looped back to the west on Overland Road, there is a well out there in the adjacent area that Ed Bews owns that I understand he is agreeable to discuss sale of that well or gift of that well. I am not sure what the discussion would be like, but nevertheless there is a well with fairly good capacity in the immediate area that the City at least initially would be interested in. Johnson: Thank you Gary, anything to add to that Mr. Forrey? Okay, I will close the public hearing if I haven't already done it. Any comments or discussion? Rountree: Mr. Chairman 1 move that we have the City Attomey prepare findings of fact and conclusions of law on the requested conditional use permit. Shearer: Second Johnson: We have a motion and a second for the City Attomey to prepare findings of fact and conclusions of law for the St. Luke's Regional Medical Center request for a conditional use permit, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: Alt Yea ITEM #5: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR ASHFORD GREENS SUBDIVISION ANNEXATION AND ZONING WITH A PRELIMINARY PLAT: Johnson: Reading through these I just found one typo on page 12 which is a repeat of 2 or 3 words. Bottom of the page, for a conditional use permit under item #9 is repeated. Meridian Planning $ Zoning June 23, 1994 Page 26 Anybody else have any comments regarding the findings of fact? (End of Tape) Johnson: Is there any discussion or a motion regarding the findings of fact? What is your pleasure then? Shearer: Mr. Chairman, I move that the Meridian Planning ~ Zoning Commission hereby adopts and approves these findings of fact and conclusions of law. Alidjani: Second Johnson: It has been moved and seconded that the Meridian Planning i3< Zoning Commission adopt and approves these findings of fact and conclusions, roll call vote. ROLL CALL VOTE: Hepper -Aye, Rountree -Aye, Shearer -Aye, Alidjani -Aye MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Johnson: Recommendation or decision you would like to pass onto to the City Council? Shearer: Mr. Chairman, I move the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommend to the City Council of the City of Meridian that they approve the annexation and zoning of R-4 residential as stated above for the property described in the application wit fhe conditions set forth in the findings of fact and conclusions of law and that the applicant and owners be specifically required to the all ditches, canals and waterways. And install pressurized irrigation system as a condition of annexation. And that the applicant meet all of the ordinances of the City of Meridian, specifically including the development time requirements and enter into the required development agreement. That if the conditions are not met that the property not be annexed or be de-annexed if it has been annexed. Rountree: Second Johnson: We have a motion and a second to pass a recommendation so read onto the City Council, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Johnson: We have to address the preliminary plat. Meridian Planning & Zoning June 23, 1994 Page 27 Rountree: I have a question for the City Attorney on that issue that the conditions of the findings of facts impose that this be an R-4 and meet the requirements of an R-4 and as the preliminary plat has been presented to us it does not meet that. It actually has PUD, R-8 or in excess densities in it that would require variance of lot frontages. Just to point that out. Crookston: This is the same situation as the G.L. Voigt situation was concerned with, in the presentation that was made before the Planning & Zoning Commission there was I guess a request for consideration as a Planned Unit Development, but there has been no Planned Unit Development Conditional use application submitted to the City. The plat then would be contrary to the R-4 requirements which is the zone that has been request by the applicant. The plat then does not meet the R-4 requirements so you would need to address that situation. Johnson: Through the 2 avenues either a variance or a conditional use permit for a PUD. Shearer: Or redesign. Hepper: Is the ground for the golf course is that being donated to the City by the developer? Johnson: I understand that a portion of it is. Alidjani: Not by the developer, by somebody else. Hepper: So, in a PUD trade off that would not be a consideration since he is not the party that is giving the property to the City, is that correct. Johnson: If that is correct, I follow your thinking. In other words it is not his sacrifice if that what you are saying? Rountree: It is not a density transfer. Hepper: Well the previous one we were talking about trade offs and stuff but in this particular case I don't know exactly who is doing the giving to the Gity there, if it is not the developer I don't know that he should be reaping the benefits of it. Alidjani: I believe he is trying to have that part of his land development of the golf course but in fact he did not donate that land. So the number of those acres is going to be substantially higher than what (inaudible). Also he did not disclose how many acres or how many thousand of square feet or how and what is going to have for designated area ~~ Meridian Planning & Zoning June 23, 1994 Page 28 for smaller of the more higher density that he was asking for. Hepper: So the actual density may be different. Alidjani: That is right, a potion of the density of that area as it develops is going to be different than some other area. Also my understand on the telephone conversation that Wayne Crookston today is they are actually somewhat asking for R-4 and it should meet all the criteria of an R-4, but on the other hand they are really asking for R-8. Hepper: I guess I am really confused on what we are doing here. Johnson: Well, you brought up some interesting information, now what do you want to do with it? Crookston: The concem that I had in preparing the findings was certainly in large part addressed on the application for the preliminary plat because in their in the density statement it states that there are if I remember the numbers correctly, 215 lots I assume shown on the plat and then there is an additional I believe, as I remember the total number of residential dwelling units on the subdivision approval application was 441 and that they were using an acreage of 159 acres to determine a density of 2.85. But that includes all the land that is being donated by someone else to figure out the density that is not being built on. So, I questioned whether or not the actual density set forth in there of 2.85 is correct. It seems to me that if you take out the golf course property it is going to be substantially greater than 2.85. That was my concern with the density that was set forth in including land that was going to be used for golf course that is being donated by a third party. Johnson: Do you feel that the possibility that the density will exceed the R-4? Crookston: I don't know that, because it was figured at 2.85 with including the total area of 159 acres. Johnson: So, no one has put a scale to it. Crookston: I did not do a preliminary investigation of that. Johnson: I think that is an important point. On that preliminary plat what are the sizes of the lots that are shown? Crookston: It states in the preliminary plat application that they are in the nature of 7,000 square feet. Meridian Planning & Zoning June 23, 1994 Page 29 Johnson: Barely over the 6500 and not enough for the R-4, the R-4 is 8,000. Crookston: There are many lots that do not have 80 foot of frontage, they addressed this in their presentation. Johnson: I understand that, but I personally wasn't aware that the land was donated by another party. I just can't take any public testimony at this time, we would be glad to talk to you when we are through here. Crookston: The deed has already been accepted by the City for that golf course property. Johnson: Well, I think we have a responsibility to bring up our observations and information that we have and so that the City Council is aware that we are aware and everyone else is aware. We work within the framework that the ordinance is written and it is not our position to make concessions. Rountree: I have unanswered questions in my mind that 1 would like to see it tabled and get some of those questions answered. How the applicant is going to propose a development there that is going to meet an R-4 zoning requirement. I don't see how we can pass it onto to the City otherwise. Shearer: A question I has too is are we committing ourselves to these 2 pieces of property that are set up for higher density or by approving this are we committing ourselves to higher density down the road. Johnson: That is the section there that is designated for future townhouse development. Shearer. There were 2 sections and they were presented as not a part of this but wonder if we are kind of getting ourselves in a position where later on we will be forced to accept that without hearing it. And if that is the case we should consider if that is what we want to do now. Rountree: Well, in fact they were preliminary platted as an R-8 but no detail in terms of lot size or, it was presented as a PUD in those sections and encompassed by the preliminary plat. Crookston: I believe there is a statement in the application for preliminary plat that those land areas are reserved for higher density, as best I remember that was the wording used on the application for preliminary plat. Hepper: Through a conditional use permit. Meridian Planning & Zoning June 23, 1994 Page 30 Crookston: No, just says they were reserved. Rountree: That is how the plat would be approved, that is how we would recommend approval of the plat if we were to do that. Hepper: It seems like someone stated they would be bads to us for a conditional use permit at such time they were ready to something with those pieces of property. Shearer: They did say they would be back with a PUD for those at such time that they are going to develop, but if we approve the plat we may put ourselves in a position where we can't come bad< and refuse. That is what I am concerned about that we are not even considering those things at this time and then when they come back they will already be set up for higher density and if we decide at that time that we don't want higher density in their we are already committed. So, maybe we should be considering do we want higher density in those areas. Hepper: There is also a risk that the developer may not want to take is not knowing, he is working under the assumption that we will accept those at a higher density and if we don't it may jeopardize this whole project. I would prefer to have an answer on those before I proceed. Johnson: Any further discussion? Rountree: Mr. Chairman, I will move that we table recommendation for the preliminary plat until our next regularly scheduled meeting, I believe it is July 12th, provided that the developer can answer the questions of advancing this proposal with a variance, a conditional use permit or redesigned to make the plat consistent with our R-4 zoning. Hepper: Second Johnson: We have a motion and a second, is there any further discussion? All those in favor of the motion? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Johnson: Is there anything else before the Commission tonight? Rountree: 1 second your opening comments, we have to get a handle on that someway. Johnson: Yes we do, there have been proposals made in terms of numbers. 1 am personally not in favor of that, because that is kind of the quota approach. Because some Meridian Planning & Zoning June 23, 1994 Page 31 projects will take 2 or 3 days others will take 2 or 3 hours to work on. I don't think we can limit the number of applications to a specific number I think we just need a better handle on what is before us so that the information that we have to rely upon is in our hands at a minimum of 24 hours prior to our meeting and ideally 3 days. That last hour or at the time of the meeting is just insufficient, we just can't react properly and do the service that we are here for the public. Does anyone have any comments on that? Rountree: I agree, we are not getting sufficient time and I am not sure staff is either because we are continuing this embracing development and trying to be good guys. I think staff should develop some kind of a procedure to screen applications initially. If an application isn't complete on the last day that it is eligible to come in here than it should not be scheduled. Let it be bumped off the list until at least a minimum the next regularly scheduled meeting to give the staff an opportunity to tell the developers that you need this, this and this and if I don't get it by this date it is not going to get scheduled for the next meeting. So they have an opportunity to provide us their comments as well. Johnson: I think we have been very accommodating, we have held special meetings now for several months in a row in order to accommodate some of those things and keep the time frame short as possible. On the other hand I don't think we are doing the quality work that we should be doing because of late receipt of information. Hepper: No, I think that getting a preliminary plat here at the meeting at one of these particular items is just Johnson: There is no way that you have sufficient time to do a good job. Hepper: Well, to look at it when we are right in the middle of the meeting, they hand us a revised plat. Johnson: I think we got our comments on record, I think this Commission should have some input if there are some guidelines set and some rules put down as to dates of submission, cut off dates, etc. Rountree: I had a question for Wayne on that, the City can establish any kind of guideline they want, can't they, do they have to go through an ordinance process? Crookston: Well, I have indicated to Will that 1 am going to check that out and see what we can and cannot do. Rountree: If it takes an ordinance fine, but if the City can establish guidelines let's get going on it. Meridian Planning & Zoning June 23, 1994 Page 32 Johnson: I would hope we could do it on the guideline basis so that it would be flexible and we could change it more regularly other than have to go through the ordinance process and change an ordinance. It take a long time to do that. Hepper: Are we going to continue to have meeting twice a month? Johnson: I don't have a crystal ball but it is (inaudible) because we are not here until 1:00 in the morning, a smaller agenda. It is fair for us and the public that has to sit though long meetings. On the other hand we are not always available for the other meetings, and the difficulty I have had is trying to pick a date so that everyone can be here and we can have a quorum and go through that agenda for that evening. Hepper: The alternative would be to take them on a first come first serve basis and just limit them to a certain amount and certain time frame and if we can't get them in that meeting then they wait until the next one. Johnson: Well, we all know we can't gage the length of the meeting based on the number of items there is no way of doing that. Smith: Mr. Chairman, Commission members, first of all I want to apologize personally for the late arrival of some of the comments. I sympathize with your situation and understand your concerns and I have the same concerns myself. We as a staff, I as a staff member don't seem to have adequate time to prepare comments for you or for the City Council at the rate they are being placed before us, me. Shari is under a tremendous load and just in getting transmittals out for comments for applications that are coming in plus fielding all of the myriad of questions that she receives everyday that you can't just put them on hold you have to address that, she is having quite a time in doing that. The everyday functioning of City business is full time enough and trying to fit into that the review of all of the proposals and submittal coming before the City is taxing us to the limit. And I guess from my standpoint if we are going to continue at this rate then it appears to me that staff is going to have to be enlarged a sign cant amount. I don't have time for planning the big picture of the City of Meridian as far as sewer and water is concerned. My time now is spent reacting to these submittals, trying to get comments put together for you so that you can make decisions. And almost everything that 1 am able to do in terms of planning is being subcontracted outside ~nsultants. 1 don't think personally that is a real healthy atmosphere, I think we lose a grasp of what we are really trying to do. After all consultants for the most part are very capable but you still have to be looking over their shoulder a little bit, you can't just turn them lose. So, anyway I am frustrated to a point, I know that Shari is and somedays you just want to run away and hide and whatever. I just wondered if there was someway either we lengthen the time that is allowed from point of receiving a submittal until it is heard by you folks or by the Council so that there is more time available Meridian Planning & Zoning June 23, 1994 Page 33 or we start, of if there is a possibility as Wayne mentioned he was going to took into that for Will, if there is a possibility to limit the number of applications that are received. But something has to happen. Shearer: We cut our meeting to once a month, why that takes care of the problem. Smith: Right, as long as you don't have an agenda that runs into (inaudible). Johnson: We don't like those because we don't function well after 10:30. Rountree: Is it fair to say Gary that you could deal with more projects if the applications were better or is that maybe over simplycation? Smith: I don't see the projects when they come in the door Shari does, so 1 know in some cases like for example final plats I may not get the second sheet to review which I need. So, I either have to call the consultant or say on my comments submit sheet 2 for review. As I mentioned to Wayne today 1 know that is going to tum some of these back and make them resubmit and it if the wait until the last day to submit it it wilt cost them a month to come back. But, after a while maybe it won't take too long maybe they will catch on that if they don't have these sutxnittals complete that this will happen then we will be right back in the same boat again, they will be submitting complete submittals and we won't have any reason to turn them away. Rountree: That is what 1 am saying is that if they are complete and a reasonable quality can you turn more around then say what you are doing now having to sort through them and wait for things to come for you to comment on and having to make phone calls and inquiries and assumptions and those kinds of things. Smith: It would help Berg: Would it buy you some time? Smith: I don't know that it would make all that much difference. It will help in terms of the reviewing these things. We get so many interruptions anyway during the day when you are trying to review these things. Johnson: That is why a lot of people in your business have gone to the quiet hour thing, no phone calls until 10:00 etc., because I don't know how you get time to do anything. They always have the open door policy without any restrictions is what negates productivity, there is no way you can do it. Meridian Planning & Zoning June 23, 1994 Page 34 Smith: We are trying to do that on my side where we have some deadlines or we are coming up against it I will tell my guys you are not here for 4 hours or whatever as long as the other guy is there that can help field the phone calls and then they can just shut their door and get busy and get the work done. So, we do try and do that I think we still have too much of an open door policy and we are too available, it is hard not to do that when you are a public servant you should be available. Rountree: Do you have a feel of how many projects you can handle in a quality manner in a given period of time, our established review period now and any suggestions in terms of numbers or Length of time for review that would assist you in making your job easier? Smith: I don't have a number for you. Johnson: It would appear to me that the projects are so different the 14 lot developments or 3001ot developments, I am not an engineer but I would assume you spend more time on a 300 lot development. Crookston: But not proportionately Johnson: Well, there are certain hoops that you jump through on alt of them, 1 understand that. Smith: But on a final plat for example I review every lot, each lot I don't check the boundary for cosures but 1 go around the boundary to make sure dimensions and bearings are on every line. And so the bigger the subdivision the more time it takes. A lot of time is spent checking adjacent subdivisions on final plats to make sure the plat is conforming with what is already of record. And most of the consultants are doing a good job there are a couple that require more hand holding but it is that way in every business. I really don't know the answer, I just, I hat a to bring a problem up 'rf I don't have a solution to offer but at this point 1 don't I just know that there is a problem. Johnson: Well, the answer is to get the fed to increase the interest 2 points so we won't have that problem any more. Smith: I don't want to go to 0 growth but it could sure slow down a little bit. Shearer: Do we need anymore of this on tape? Johnson: I don't think so. Shearer: I move we adjourn Meridian Planning & Zoning June 23, 1994 Page 35 Rountree: Second Johnson: We have a motion and a second, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:02 P.M. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) APPROVED: ~, - 9 HNSON, .AIRMAN ATTEST: WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CI CLERK • • OR~GI~IAL BEFORE THE MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RAMON YORGASON ANNERATION AND ZONING E 1/2 SE 1/4 NW 1/4, Section 1, T. 3N., R.1W., B.M., Ada County WATERBURY PARR SUBDIVISION ~ 5 MERIDIAN, IDANO FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The above entitled annexation and zoning application having come on for consideration on June 23, 1994, at the hour of 7:30 o'clock p.m. on said date, at the Meridian City Hall, 33 East Idaho Street, Meridian, Idaho, and the Planning and Zoning Commission having heard and taken oral and written testimony and the Applicant appearing through his engineer, Brian D. Smith, and having duly considered the matter, the Planning and Zoning Commission makes the following: FINDINOS OF FACT 1. That notice of public hearing on the annexation and zoning was published for two (2) consecutive weeks prior to the said public hearing scheduled for June 23, 1994, the first publication of which was fifteen (15 ) days prior to said hearing; that the matter was duly considered at the June 23, 1994, hearing; that the public was given full opportunity to express comments and submit evidence; and that copies of all notices were available to newspaper, radio and television stations. 2. That the property included in the application for FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page -1 annexation and zoning is described in the application, and by this reference is incorporated herein; that the property is approximately thirteen acres in size; the property is south of Ustick Road and East of Linder Road. 3. That the property is presently zoned by Ada County as (RT) Rural Transition and the proposed use would be for R-4 Residential type development; that the Applicant states in hia subdivision application that the subdivision lot size would be a minimum or 8,000 square feet; that there would be 46 lots in the proposed subdivision; that the Applicant in its subdivision application states that the minimum aquare footage of homes would be per the Ordinance; that there would be 3.16 lots per acre. 4. The general area surrounding the property is used agriculturally and residentially. 5. That the property is adjacent and abutting to the present City limits. 6. The Applicant is not the owner of record of the property but the owner of record Erlan J. Venable, has requested that the land be annexed and zoned. 7. That the property included in the annexation and zoning application is within the Area of Impact of the City of Meridian. 8. That the entire parcel of ground is included within the Meridian Urban Service Planning Area as the Urban Service Planning Area is defined in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. 9. That the Application requests that the parcel be annexed and zoned R-4 Residential; that the present land use of the FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page -2 property is for agriculture pasture and two houses; that the intended development of the property is for an R-4 single family subdivision which is consistent with the property to the east and south. 10. The Applicant's representative stated in the letter accompanying the preliminary plat application, which was submitted simultaneously with the annexation application, that there would be 2.04 acres of common area which is proposed to be maintained by the homeowner's association and that the subdivision was designed to maintain a corridor for the existing 21 inch sewer trunk line paralleling the Cresson Lateral. 11. That comments were received from various Meridian City Departments, from other governmental agencies, and other interested parties and they are incorporated herein as if set forth in full. 12. The Meridian Planning Director, Shari Stiles submitted comments which related mostly to the preliminary plat; in other annexation applications she has commented that a development agreement is required as a condition of annexation; such comment is equally applicable to this annexation application. 13. That two people testified on this Application; Joe Siminich commented that he owned the property to the west, that he had concerns over storm drainage, that there were no plans shown for the irrigation ditch, and that for irrigation he was on a rotation system and he wanted that recognized and protected; John Sanford testified but most of his comments related to Lounsbury Subdivision. FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page -3 14. That the property is shown on the Meridian Comprehensive Plan as being in a Single Family Residential area. 15. That in the Rural Area section of the Comprehensive Plan, Land Use, Rural Areas, Section 6.3, it does state that land in agricultural activity should so remain in agricultural activity until urban services can be provided. 16. That Meridian has, and is, experiencing a population increase; that there are pressures on land previously used for agricultural uses to be developed into residential subdivision lots. 17. That the property can be physically serviced with City water and sewer. 18. That the R-4 Residential District is described in the Zoning Ordinance, 11-2-408 B. 3. as follows: "R-4) Low Density Residential District: Only Single Family Dwellings shall be permitted and no conditional uses shall be permitted except for Planned Residential Development and public schools. The purpose of the (R-4) District is to permit the establishment of low density single-family dwellings, and to delineate those areas where predominately residential development has, or is likely to occur in accord with the Comprehensive Plan of the City, and to protect the integrity of residential areas by prohibiting the intrusion of incompatible non-residential uses. The (R-4) District allows for a maximum of four (4) dwelling units per acre and requires connection to the Municipal Water and Sewer systems of the City of Meridian."; that the R-4 zoning district requires a minimum of 1,400 square feet to be included in houses in that zone; that the Applicant's representative stated in the letter accompanying the application that the subdivision would comply with the Zoning Ordinance. 19. That the Meridian Comprehensive Plan, under Land Use, FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page -4 Residential Policies, 2.1U states as follows: "Support a variety of residential categories (urban, rural, single-family, multi-family, town houses, apartments, condominiums, etc.) for the purpose of providing the City with a range of affordable housing opportunities." 20. That the Meridian Comprehensive Plan, under Land Use, Rural Areas, 6.3 c., it states as follows: "Within the Urban Service Planning Area development may occur in densities as low as 3 dwellings per acre if physical connection is made to existing City of Meridian water and sewer service and the property is platted and subdivided . .' 21. That the Meridian Comprehensive Plan, under Land Use, Rural Areas, 6.4, it states as follows: "Residential development is allowed in the rural area provided that said development does not exceed the Rural Residential Agricultural density, unless it is inside the Urban Service Planning Area and City sewer and water is provided, then Low, Medium and High density residential may be considered. All residential development must also comply with the other appropriate sections of this plan." 22. That the Meridian Comprehensive Plan, under Housing, Housing Policies, at page 66, it states as follows: "1.1 The City of Meridian intends to provide for a wide diversity of housing types (single-family, modular, mobile homes, multi-family, town houses arrangements), ." "1.3 An open housing market for all persons, regardless of race, sex, age, religion or ethnic background." "1.4 The development of housing for all income groups close to employment and shopping centers should be encouraged." 23. That there is a population influx into the City of Meridian at the present time which has been going on for some time and is likely to continue; that the land is relatively close to Meridian and economic conditions are making it difficult to FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page -5 continue farming in the area. 24. That the City Engineer has previously submitted comment in different applications that a determination of ground water level and subsurface soil conditions should be made; that such a comment is equally applicable to this Application. 25. That in prior requests for annexation and zoning in this area the previous Zoning Administrator has commented that annexation could be conditioned on a development agreement including an impact fee to help acquire a future school or park site to serve the area and that annexations should be subject to impact fees for park, police, and fire services as determined by the city and designated in an approved development agreement; that such comment is equally applicable to this Application. 26. That in 1992 the Idaho State Legislature passed amendments to the Local Planning Act, which in 67-6513 Idaho Code, relating to subdivision ordinances, states as follows: "Each such ordinance may provide for mitigation of the effects of subdivision development on the ability of political subdivisions of the state, including school districts, to deliver services without compromising quality of service delivery to current residents or imposing substantial additional costs upon current residents to accommodate the subdivision."; that the City of Meridian is concerned with the increase in population that is occurring and with its impact on the City being able to provide fire, police, emergency health care, water, sewer, parks and recreation services to its current residents and to those moving into the City; the City is also concerned that the increase in population is burdening the schools of the Meridian School FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page -6 • District which provide school service to current and future residents of the City; that the City knows that the increase in population does not sufficiently increase the tax base to offset the cost of providing fire, police, emergency health care, water, sewer, parks and recreation services; and the City knows that the increase in population does not provide sufficient tax base to provide for school services to current and future students. 27. That pursuant to the instruction, guidance, and direction of the Idaho State Legislature, the City may impose either a development fee or a transfer fee on residential property, which, if possible, would be retroactive and apply to all residential lots in the City because of the imperilment to the health, welfare, and safety of the citizens of the City of Meridian. 28. That Section 11-9-605 C states as follows: "Right-of-way for pedestrian walkways in the middle of long blocks may be required where necessary to obtain convenient pedestrian circulation to schools, parks or shopping areas; the pedestrian easement shall be at least ten feet (10') wide." 29. That Section 11-9-605 G 1. states as follows: "Planting stripe shall be required to be placed next to incompatible features such as highways, railroads, commercial or industrial uses to screen the view from residential properties. Such screening shall be a minimum of twenty feet (20') wide, and shall not be a part of the normal street right of way or utility easement." 30. That Section 11-9-605 H 2. states as follows: "Existing natural features which add value to residential development and enhance the attractiveness of the community (such as trees, watercourses, historic spots and similar irreplaceable amenities) shall be preserved in the design of the subdivision;" FINDINGS OF FACT fi CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page -7 31. That Section 11-9-605 K states as follows: "The extent and location of lands designed for linear open space corridors should be determined by natural features and, to lesser extent, by man-made features such as utility easements, transportation rights of way or water rights of way. Landscaping, screening or lineal open space corridors may be required for the protection of residential properties from adjacent arterial streets, waterways, railroad rights of way or other features. As improved areas (landscaped), semi- improved areas (a landscaped pathway only), or unimproved areas (left in a natural state), linear open space corridors serve: 1. To preserve openness; 2. To interconnect park and open space systems within rights of way for trails, walkways, bicycle ways; 3. To play a major role in conserving area scenic and natural value, especially waterways, drainages and natural habitat; 4. To buffer more intensive adjacent urban land uses; 5. To enhance local identification within the area due to the internal linkages; and 6. To link residential neighborhoods, park areas and recreation facilities." 32. That Section 11-9-605 L states as follows: Bicycle and pedestrian pathways shall be encouraged within new developments as part of the public right of way or as separate easements so that an alternate transportation system (which is distinct and separate from the automobile) can be provided throughout the City Urban Service Planning Area. The Commission and Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider the Bicvcle-Pedestrian Desian Manual for Ada County (as prepared by Ada County Highway District) when reviewing bicycle and pedestrian pathway provisions within developments. 33. That proper notice was given as required by law and all. procedures before the Planning and Zoning Commission were given and followed. FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page -8 1. That all the procedural requirements of the Local Planning Act and of the Ordinances of the City of Meridian have been met, including the mailing of notice to owners of property within 300 feet of the external boundaries of the Applicant's property. 2. That the City of Meridian has authority to annex land pursuant to 50-222, Idaho Code, and Section 11-2-417 of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian; that exercise of the City's annexation authority is a Legislative function. 3. That the Planning and Zoning Commission has judged this annexation and zoning application under Section 50-222, Idaho Code, Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code, the Meridian City Ordinances, the Meridian Comprehensive Plan, as amended, and the record submitted to it and things of which it can take judicial notice. 4. That all notice and hearing requirements set forth in Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code, and the Ordinances of the City of Meridian have been complied with. 5. That the Commission may take judicial notice of government ordinances, and policies, and of actual conditions existing within the City and State. 6. That the land within the annexation is contiguous to the present City limits of the City of Meridian, and the annexation would not be a shoestring annexation. 7. That the annexation application has been initiated by the Applicant, who is not the titled owner, but the titled owner has requested the annexation and the annexation is not upon the FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page -9 • initiation of the City of Meridian. 8. That since the annexation and zoning of land is a legislative function, the City has authority to place conditions upon the annexation of land. Burt vs. The City of Idaho Falls, 105 Idaho 65, 665 P.D 1075 (1983). 9. That the development of annexed land must meet and comply with the Ordinances of the City of Meridian and in particular Section 11-9-616, which pertains to development time schedules and requirements, Section 11-9-605 M., which pertains to the tiling of ditches and water ways, and Section 11-9-606 B 14., which pertains to pressurized irrigation; that the Applicant will be required to connect to Meridian water and sewer; that the development of the property shall be subject to and controlled by the Subdivision and Development Ordinance; that, as a condition of annexation the Applicant shall be required to enter into a development agreement as authorized by 11-2-416 L and 11-2-417 D; that the development agreement shall address the inclusion into the subdivision of the requirements of 11-9-605 C, G., H 2, K, L and prior comments of the previous Planning Director, Wayne Forney, relating to the lack of adequate recreation facilities and that land set aside for a future park would be desirable, that the City is in need of land set- asides for future public service use, that a school site was not reserved; that the development agreement shall, as a condition of annexation, require that the Applicant, or if required, any assigns, heirs, executors or personal representatives, pay, when required, any development fee or transfer fee adopted by the City; FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page -10 that there shall be no annexation until the requirements of this paragraph are met or, if necessary, the property shall be subject to de-annexation and loss of City services, if the requirements of this paragraph are not met. 10. That the Applicant's property is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, and therefore the annexation and zoning Application is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. 11. That the comments and requirements of the Meridian City Departments and the other governmental agencies shall be met and addressed in a development Agreement. 12. That all ditches, canals, and waterways shall be tiled as a condition of annexation and if not so tiled the property shall be subject to de-annexation; that the Applicant shall be required to install a pressurized irrigation system, and if not so done the property shall be subject to de-annexation. 13. That the Applicant will be required to connect to Meridian water and sewer and resolve how the water and sewer mains will serve the land; that the development of the property shall be subject to and controlled by the Subdivision and Development Ordinance; that a determination of ground water level and subsurface soil conditions shall be made and reported to the City Engineer 14. That as a condition of annexation the house size of 1,400 square feet must be met. 15. That proper and adequate access to the property is available and will have to be maintained. FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page -11 16. That these conditions shall run with the land and bind the applicant and its assigns. 17. With compliance of the conditions contained herein, the annexation and zoning of R-4 Residential would be in the best interest of the City of Meridian. 18. That if these conditions of approval are not met the property shall be subject to de-annexation. APPROVAL OF FINDINOS OF FACT AND The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts and approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONER HEPPER VOTED 'l COMMISSIONER ROUNTREE VOTED COMMISSIONER SHEARER VOTED COMMISSIONER ALIDJANI VOTED CHAIRMAN JOHNSON (TIE BREAKER) VOTED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends that the property set forth in the application be approved by the City Council for annexation and zoning under the conditions set forth in these Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, including that the Applicant enter into a development agreement prior to an annexation and zoning ordinance being passed as that agreement is information that the Council needs to decide whether to pass an annexation and zoning ordinance or deny the application; that if the Applicant is not agreeable with these Findings of Fact and Conclusions and is not agreeable with entering into a development agreement, the property should not a annexed. MOTION: APPROVED: DISAPPROVED: FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Paqe -12 Roylance & Associates~A, Engins • Surveyors • Landplanners 4619 Emerald, Sulte D-2, Boise, Idaho 83706 Project No. 1529 June 23, 1994 Mr. Jim Johnson, Chairman City of Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission 33 East Idaho Street Meridian, Idaho 83642 Telephone (208) 33&7390 Fax (208J 336-7391 P~2 ~~~~ RE: Response to review comments, Thunder Creek Subdivision Preliminary Plat Dear Mr. Johnson and members of the Commission: Please allow the following to address the comments of Mr. Gary Smith, P. E. Meridian City Engineer, regarding the aforementioned subdivision: 1. This proposal seeks to utilize the R-4 Residential Zoning District designation as was approved for Valeri Heights Subdivision. 2. The uses of adjacent unplatted property has been added to the plat. 3. Block number designations have been added to the plat. 4. Benchmark information has been added to the plat. 5. The Eight Mile Lateral has been dimensioned with the centerline identified. 6. Lot 5, Block 2, has been designated as a drainage retention lot, and all storm drainage water shall be retained on the site. 7. [No comment necessary] 8. Existing irrigation ditch has been added to the plat. 9. Seasonal high ground water elevation can vary from 4 to 16 feet. Soils found on the site is classified as Purdam silt loam (0% to 2% slopes), which is characterized as deep and well drained. The site appears to be well drained; however, further investi- gation shall be made on the ground water table, elevations and limiting soil layers. 10. Existing water and sewer mains been added to the plat. 11. Proposed street lamp locations been added to the plat. The developer shall comply with the specific requirement stated by the City Engineer. 12. The developer and engineer shall comply with the specific requirements for sizing of water mains based upon the City Engineer's water system modeling. 13. The additional sewer facility has been added to the plat. Please note that a separate lot (Lot j~has been included for the use of Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District for the loca- tion of pump facilities for a pressurized irrigation system. In addition to these comments, West Grey Cloud Court has been extended to the south boun- dary of the site in order to comply with the site specific requirements of Ada County Highway District. ece~~~~ ~-23 - ~ ¢ The revised preliminary plat shall be presented at tonight's public hearing before the Planning and Zoning Commission. A copy has been attached to this correspondence. If you have any other comment or question regarding this matter, please call me at 336-7390. Sincerely, ~iKE': ~f~t;Uv'SBl~~1Z~t Mike Shrewsberry, Project Manager attachment I~C2il~~CL >: _ . . €e ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ s ~e56g o~ ~ ~ i€ @ ° e~ ~ og6°@ ~~ ~ Vii- ~~ a~~~sl~~~ g~~E € ~ ~ ~~s $%~~ i~ ~ ~pt~i3~~ ~ ~ g f (gig ' R i 5s ~ i~ g ~ ~ ..--^«r-- !% "~y~ a~ ~ 353 ~ i S ~ F F ~~ 5 ~ p ~ ~ 1 i ggE~ ~ v v~~~t r ~~~ ~ ~ ' F .. ' , i .. ~ n~ ~~ p ~ !~ ~~ t ~8~°m ~ I _ Z ~ o> °S~ D ~ • ! Z v;3~o> r~ W e ~ > /r / ~~~~ / P ~/ ~ G ~s~ 1 ~~~~ i ~ ~~ _ 3 ro ~~$ L $ V '~ ~Da PRCLIMINARY PLAT ~OOO ~ ` TNUNDiR ORQQK BUBDIVIBION ROYLANOH AND A880CIAI T~EB~~OOO 1 1 CnplnMrP $1lMyor~ landPlann~r~ ~ w M Y10 f W >oIb Ff WY Ndie 1llp/ ~-23-~~ ~~~~ • • ~~~NAL BEFORE THE MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION ST. LURES REGIONAL MEDICAL CSNTER CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT A PORTION OF THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF EAOLE ROAD AND I-84 MERIDIAN, IDAHO FINDINGS OF FACT AND The above entitled matter having come on for public hearing June 23, 1994, at the hour of 7:30 o'clock p.m., the Petitioner appeared through a representative, Gary L Fletcher, Executive Vice President, the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Meridian having duly considered the evidence and the matter makes the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions: FINDINOS OF FACT 1. That notice of a public hearing on the Conditional Use Permit was published for two (2) consecutive weeks prior to the said public hearing scheduled for June 23, 1994, the first publication of which was fifteen {15) days prior to said hearing; that the matter was duly considered at the June 23, 1994, hearing; that the public was given full opportunity to express comments and submit evidence; and that copies of all notices were available to newspaper, radio and television stations; 2. That this property has been requested by the Applicant to be annexed into the City of Meridian and zoned Limited Office (LO) which annexation and zoning has not yet been completed; the FINDING OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 1 property is described in the application which description is incorporated herein. 3. That the property is requested to be zoned LO, Limited Office, which requires a conditional use permit for development of a hospital which the application requests; medical, dental and optical clinics are allowed as permitted uses in the LO District; the Applicant's representative stated at the Planning & Zoning Commission Public hearing that there would be the following uses: Walk-in Urgent Care Radiology Laboratory Breast Cancer Detection Center Pharmacy Physician Office Space Ambulatory Surgery (Shell In Space) Administration Education Lobby/Circulation Drainage Retention Pond Automobile Parking Facilities Parking Facilities for the Disabled Fountain] Waste Enclosures Commuter Park and Ride Facility (Tentatively Under Consideration) Bus Stop and Shelter Monument sign Barker Lateral Access Road Extensive Landscaping and Lighting 4. That the Applicant's Conditional Use Application states under PLAN as follows: A plan of the proposed site for the conditional use showing the location of all buildings, parking and loading areas, traffic access and traffic circulation, open spaces,m landscaping, refuse and service area,m utilities, signs and yards."; and included with the Conditional Uae Application was a map of the PROJECT LOCATION, a lay out of the parking and building locations, FINDING OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 2 a listing of proposed uses in the building and the approximate square footages, a landscape plan and listing of the proposed landscape materials; the Application also states that the property for the conditional use is the northeast corner of Eagle Road and I-84 Interchange, a parcel containing approximately 37 acres; from the map attached to the comments of Ada County Highway District, it is apparent that the entire 37 acres is not going to be used for the conditional use; at the public hearing before the City Council the Applicant's representative also stated that construction would start this fall pending sewer, water and utilities availability. 5. That the Limited Office District is described in the Zoning Ordinance, 11-2-408 B. 7. as follows: (L-O) Limited Office District: The purpose of the (L-O) District is to permit the establishment of groupings of professional, research, executive, administrative, accounting, clerical, stenographic, public service and similar uses. Research uses shall not involve heavy testing operations of any kind or product manufacturing of such a nature to create noise, vibration or emissions of a nature offensive to the overall purpose of this district. The L-O District is designed to act as a buffer between other more intense non-residential uses and high density residential uses, and is thus a transitional use. Connection to the Municipal Water and Sewer System of the City of Meridian is a requirement in this district. 6. That the use proposed by Applicant of a hospital is a use specifically permitted in the Limited Office District of the Zoning Schedule of Use Control, 11-2-409, as a conditional use. 7. That the property to the north is used for residences, the property to the east is vacant or agricultural ground, the property to the south is owned by the Applicant and farther south is Interstate I-84, the property to the west is used for rural FINDING OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 3 residences and agricultural ground. 8. That sewer and water is not available at this time and will require extension and construction of the Five Mile Trunk Sewer Line and extension and construction of water lines to service the property all to be performed by the Applicant. 9. That the City Engineer, Gary Smith, commented as follows: "Water service to this project will need to be provided by an extension by the applicant of a 12 inch diameter water line presently being planned for extension in Eagle Road from Florence Steer south to Commercial Court by Nelson/MCAlvain. The water demand will need to by provided by St. Lukes and this demand will need to be analyzed by our facility plan computer model for impact on the City's water system. It may be necessary to loop the water system via Overland Road to the west and/or involve an existing or new well for supply. Fire protection and a reliable supply of water will be needed for this project. Sewer service to this project will be by applicant extension of the Five Mile Creek Interceptor sewer. Based on wastewater flow information provided by the applicant, it will be necessary for us to analyze the down stream sewer pipe capacity with out facility plan computer model. It is my understanding that Roylance Associates, PA is in the process of preparing preliminary engineering plans for this extension. I have also been advised that it may be necessary for the hospital wastes to receive some type of pretreatment prior to discharge to the public sewer. On-site improvements will need to made in compliance with the city ordinance requirements for such things as: -Parking spaces (number and layout). -parking area lighting. Landscaping. Parking area and building roof storm water runoff disposal. Fencing. 10. That Shari Stiles, Meridian Planning and Zoning Administrator, commented that the project generally complies with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan, that a site plan at a minimum of 1" = 100' should be submitted showing all buildings, parking and FINDING OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 4 loading areas, traffic access and traffic circulation, open spaces, landscaping, refuse and service areas, utilities, signs and yards, that Eagle Road from Victory Road to Fairview Avenue is designated as a bike route, that the Barker Lateral that runs through this property will need to be tiled and that coordination with the appropriate irrigation district is required to ensure a satisfactory system. 11. The Meridian Fire Department commented that as long as all codes are met the Fire Department will not have a problem with this permit and that they would have more runs because of the alarms; that the Central District Bealth Department commented that the stormwater management shall not degrade water quality and documentation shall be provided that demonstrates this. 13. That two people appeared to testify regarding the Application; that Dennis Stover questioned what was going to be included in phase one of the project; David Lewis wanted to know the square footages, cost, start and end and question whether the Applicant was working with other developers on utilities. 14. That in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan at page 18, under Economic Development Goal Statement it is stated as follows: "Meridian seeks to stimulate, encourage and give preference to those types of economic activities and developments which provide for the employment of Meridian citizens and area residents, and reduce the need for people to commute to neighboring cities for work."; that at page 19 of the Meridian Comprehensive Plan, the Policies for the Economic Development Goal Statement are listed and the following are pertinent to this Application: FINDING OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 5 1. The City of Meridian shall make every effort to create a positive atmosphere which encourages industrial and commercial enterprises to locate in Meridian. 2. It is the policy of the City of Meridian to set aside areas where commercial and industrial interests and activities are to dominate. 3. The character, site improvements and type of new commercial or industrial development should be harmonized with the natural environment and respect the unique needs and features of each area. 15. That the parcel is shown on the Meridian Comprehensive Plan Generalized Land Use Map as a Mixed Use/Planned Use Development area; that on Page 22 of the Meridian Comprehensive Plan it is stated, in part: "The land use element is based upon these objectives: 1. Mixed-planned uses along the I-84 corridor, which are attractive and compatible with high-volume traffic corridors. 4. Planned mixed uses along I-84, Franklin Road, U. P. Railroad. and Fairview Avenue corridors." 16. That in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan, at page 27 under the Mixed-use Areas Adjacent to I-84 and Overland Road, it states: "In order that compatible land uses and efficient use of the land might occur, this corridor is anticipated for a variety of planned, compatible mixed uses. Probable mixed uses for the areas could be commercial, combined medium-to-high density residential, open space uses, tourist lodging, industrial, office, medical, and related land uses."; the statement, while pertaining to Overland and the Interstate, is equally applicable to the areas adjoining the Interstate on the north side. 17. In a letter submitted to the Commission at the public hearing, the Applicant stated that it had reviewed the technical comments of the Police and Fire Departments, plus the Idaho Transportation Department, Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District, FINDING OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 6 Central District Health Department and the Ada County Highway District; that it accepted the conditions with the exception of ACHD's Specific Requirements #1 and $2 because they reference Overland Road and therefore not applicable to St. Lukes. 18. That proper notice has been given as required by law and all procedures before the Planning and Zoning Commission have been given and followed. CONCLUSIONS 1. That all the procedural requirements of the Local Planning Act and of the Ordinances of the City of Meridian have been met including the mailing of notice to owners of property within 300 feet of the external boundaries of the Applicant's property. 2. That the City of Meridian has authority to grant conditional uses pursuant to 67-6512, Idaho Code, and, pursuant to 11-2-418 of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian; 3. That the City of Meridian has authority to place conditions on a conditional use permit and the use of the property pursuant to 67-6512, Idaho Code, and pursuant to 11-2-418(D) of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian, Idaho; 4. That 11-2-418(C) of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian sets forth the standards under which the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council shall review applications for Conditional Use Permits; that upon a review of those requirements and a review of the facts presented and the FINDING OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 7 conditions of the area, the Planning and Zoning Commission concludes as follows: a. The use, would in fact, constitute a conditional use and a conditional use permit is required by ordinance. b. The use should be harmonious with and in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan, if the requirements in these Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are met, but the Zoning Ordinance requires a conditional use permit to allow the use of a hospital. c. The use apparently would be designed and constructed, to be harmonious in appearance with the intended character of the general vicinity, especially since there is no development in the vicinity other than rural residences. d. That the use would not be hazardous nor should it be ' disturbing to existing or future neighboring uses. e. The property does not have sewer and water service available and the Applicant must extend that service to its property. f. The use would not create excessive additional requirements at public cost for public facilities and services and the use would not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. g. The use would not involve a use, activity, process, material, equipment or conditions of operation that would be detrimental to person, property or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic or noise. h. That sufficient parking for the property and the proposed use will be required and the parking ordinance shall be met including the preparation of a parking plan and landscaping. i. The development and uses will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural or scenic feature of major importance. 5. That the comments of the City Engineer and the Planning & Zoning Administrator must be met and complied with; also as a condition of the conditional use the Applicant shall meet all of the requirements set forth in the annexation of the property. FINDING OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 8 6. The requirements of the Ada County Highway District must be met, except for the Site Specific Requirements #1 and #2 which pertain to Overland Road; that the requirements of the Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District, Central District Health Department, Meridian Police and Fire Departments, shall be met. 7. That all ordinances of the City of Meridian must be met, including but not limited to, Zoning Ordinance, Subdivision and Development Ordinance, Uniform Fire Code, Uniform Building Code, Life Safety Code, Uniform Electrical Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, Uniform Mechanical Code, and all parking and landscaping requirements, which parking requirements, as a condition of the conditional use permit may be expanded to make sure that there is enough parking. 8. That it is further concluded that the conditional use permit, if granted by the City Council, shall not apply to the entire 37.45 acres, but only to that land shown in the lay out submitted by the Applicant and as depicted in the drawing submitted with the ACHD comments. 9. It is further concluded that the landscaping layout submitted with the Conditional Use Application shall be met and complied with, unless the Applicant elects to expand and improve the landscaping. 10. It is further concluded that the drawing submitted by the Applicant, drawn by Olson & Associates Architects. P. A., shall be met and complied with, unless the Applicant elects to expand and improve upon it; that the drawing shows that the building will be FINDING OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 9 three stories in height and it is concluded that a condition of the conditional use should be that the Applicant meet with any requirements of the Fire Department, which may include equipment, land for a satellite fire station, and water supply. 11. It is finally concluded that with compliance with these Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, that the conditional use would be in the best interest of the City of Meridian. APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS The Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts and approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions. ROLL CALL: COMMISSIONER HEPPER VOTED COMMISSIONER ROUNTREE COMMISSIONER SHEARER VOTED COMMISSIONER ALIDJANI VOTED CHAIRMAN JOHNSON (TIE BREAKER) VOTED The Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council that the Conditional Use Permit requested by the Applicant for the property set forth in the Application to be used for the medical facilities be approved under the conditions set forth in the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. FINDING OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 10 MOTION: ~ APPROVED: DISAPPROVED: FINDING OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 11 190 East Bannock ~.\ Boise, Idaho ..~ l,.~,. St Luke s 83712 p~,.,,,~' 20a~a6-2222 ~ ~ ~ ~y~• K+~ ~ ~t~ Edwin E. Dahlberg PreslOeM 23 June 1994 Mr. Jim Johnson, Chairman Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission 33 E. Idaho Ave. Meridian, ID 83642 Dear Chairman Johnson and Commission Members: On behalf of Saint Luke's Regional Medical Center, I want to thank you for scheduling our Conditional Use Permit hearing this evening. We look forward to becoming part of the Meridian health care community. We have reviewed the technical comments of your Police and Fire Department, plus the Idaho Transportation Department, the Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District, Central District Health Department and the Ada County Highway Department (ACRD). We accept these conditions with the exception of ACHD's site Specific Requirements #1 and #2. These two ACRD conditions reference Overland Road improvements which are appropriate to the annexation requests of the Peck, Thomas and Wurst properties -but not applicable to the St. Luke's Conditional Use Permit request. We respectfully request that you remove these two ACRD site specific requirements from our Conditional Use Permit. We understand that Shari Stiles has not subnvtted any new or additional comments pertaining to our revised phase one development request. We have not yet reviewed comments from Gary Smith, but possibly we will have them at tonighYs hearing and we will be pleased to review them at that time. Our master planning team has met with Mayor Grant Kingsford and Shari Stiles to review our request for a future Health Services Zoning District to allow multiple related uses within the medical campus. Mayor Kingsford and Shari Stiles suggested that we provide a list of phase one site uses to the Planning and Zoning Commission to be included in our Conditional Use Permit. Attached with this letter is a listing of the uses we anticipate in phase one development. We are also requesting that our Conditional Use Permit allow a fifty (50) foot building height. MOUNTAIN STATES TUMOR INSTITUTE • IDAHO'S HEALTH INFORMATION RETRIEVAL CENTER • ANDERSON CENTER • ANDERSON PLAZA MEDICAL BUILDING ST. LUKE'S MEDICAL OFFICE PLAZA • MOUNTAIN STATES SURGERY CENTER • AFFILIATED WITH THE IDAHO ELKS REHABILITATION HOSPITAL MEMBER OF THE VOLUNTARY HOSPITALS OF AMERICA (VHA) SvSTEM VHA i-PCe~t,.~~c 6- 23,x¢ As you can see from our permit application, we will be developing a world class planned medical campus in Meridian. We look forward to working with you. ii cerely, St. auk 's Regional Medical Center Gary .Fletcher, Executive Vice President ~- c~ivecC ~ -23 - ~¢ i ~oqz ~~~. ~.~~~ 190 East Bannock ~ ~ ~~ ~~~~~~ Boise, Idaho 83712 per,, 208-386-2222 ~ ~ r .cyb~~ ~IC~~ ~ef Edwin E. Dahlberg Pres~eem ST. LUKE'S REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER WEST ADA FACILITY LIST OF SITE USES - PHASE ONE DEVELOPMENT Walk - in Urgent Care Radiology Laboratory Breast Cancer Detection Center Pharmacy Primary Care Physician Office Space Ambulatory Surgery (Shelled In Space) Administration Education Lobby/Circulation Drainage Retention Pond Automobile Parking Facilities Parking Facilities for the Disabled Fountain Waste Enclosures Commuter Park and Ride Facility (Tentatively Under Consideration) Bus Stop and Shelter Monument Sign Bazker Lateral Access Road Extensive Landscaping and Lighting MOUNTAIN STATES TUMOR INSTITUTE IDAHO'S HEALTH INFORMATION RETRIEVAL CENTER • ANDERSON CENTER • ANDERSON PLAZA MEDICAL BUILDING ST. LUKE'S MEDICAL OFFICE PLA2A • MOUNTAIN STATES SURGERY CENTER • AFFILIATED WITH THE IDAHO ELKS REHABILITATION HOSPITAL MEMBER OF THE VOLUNTARY HOSPITALS OF AMERICA (VHA) SYSTEM VHA