1994 06-14
AGENDA
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
TUESDAY, JUNE 14, 1994 - 7:30 P.M.
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING HELD MAY 31, 1994:
(APPROVED)
TABLED AT MAY 10, 1994 MEETING: HAVEN COVE NO.S PRELIMINARY PLAT
BY S.I. DEVELOPMENT AND DAVID COLLINS: (APPROVED)
2. TABLED AT MAY 10, 1994 MEETING: FIRE LIGHT ESTATES PRELIMINARY
PLAT BY RUNNING BROOK ESTATES AND NUBBLE ENGINEERING:
(APPROVED)
3. TABLED AT MAY 10, 1994 MEETING: TURTLE CREEK SUBDIVISION
PRELIMINARY PLAT BY STEEL & SON AND JUB ENGINEERS:
(APPROVED)
4. TABLED AT MAY 10, 1994 MEETING: CANNA LILY ESTATES (FORMERLY
STATE STREET EXTENSION SUBDIVISION) PRELIMINARY PLAT BY
FLOYD AND VICTORIA MADSEN: (APPROVED)
5. TABLED AT MAY 10, 1994 MEETING: ARROWLEAF SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY
PLAT BY ROBERT GLENN: (APPLICANT PULLED APPLICATION)
6. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR HAVEN COVE NO. 5
SUBDIVISION: (APPROVED)
7. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR PINE MEADOWS
ANNEXATION AND ZONING: (APPROVED)
8. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR PRESTON'S ASPEN
GROVE ESTATES ANNEXATION AND ZONING WITH A PRELIMINARY
PLAT: (APPROVED)
9. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR BW INC. REZONE
REQUEST: (APROVED)
10. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR STACIE YBARRA
ACCESSORY USE PERMIT: (APPROVED)
11. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR HARTFORD SUBDMSION
ANNEXATION AND ZONING WITH A PRELIMINARY PLAT: (APPROVED;
PRELIMINARY PLAT TABLED UNTIL JULY 12, 1994 MEETING)
12. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR CHAMBERLAIN ESTATES
NO.2 ANNEXATION AND ZONING WITH A PRELIMINARY PLAT:
(APPROVED; PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVED)
13. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR FAWCETT'S MEADOWS
NO. 2 ANNEXATION AND ZONING WITH A PRELIMINARY PLAT:
(APPROVED; PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVED)
14. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR RAMBLE WOOD
SUBDMSION ANNEXATION AND ZONING WITH A PRELIMINARY PLAT:
(APPPROVED; TABLE PRELIMINARY PLAT UNTIL JULY 12, 1994)
15. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING FOR E.L.
SEWS BY E.L. BEWS AND WAYNE FORREY: (TABLED UNTIL
NOVEMBER 9, 1894 MEETING)
16. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING FOR THE
HOLLOWS BY BOND CAMPBELL: (CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIOINS OF LAW)
17. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING FOR NEB-i
COMPANY BY BILL GEYER AND RUBBLE ENGINEERING: (CITY
ATTORNEY TO PREPARE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF
LAW)
18. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING WITH A
PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR ASHFORD GREENS SUBDIVISION BY
BOISE RESEARCH CENTER AND RUBBLE ENGINEERING:
(CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE FINDINGS OF FACT AND
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW)
AGENDA
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
TUESDAY, JUNE 14, 1994 - 7:30 P.M.
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING HELD MAY 31, 1994: ~/'/°~'"~e`~'
1. TABLED AT MAY 10, 1994 MEETING: HAVEN COVE NO. S PRELIMINARY PLAT
BY S.I. DEVELOP/MENT AND DAVID COLLINS: ~, c ~ ~,p
C/r/~ra vC ~ {Zi vrn-aJ-LC i'e COQ--.-..¢_...a[nX~a-/'F'~- ~ ~ /`n"e'~./_ cam{"
2. TABLED AT M//A/Y 10, 1994 MEETING: FIRE LIGHT ESTATES PRELIMINARY
PLAT BY RUNNING BROOK ESTATES AND HUBBL~ ENGINEERING:
aZ /~~/.;•~~ -- f-PCOS~n~.•--aL~~vozo.5-Zz, -~L C' f r~y/'p'-nvr ~-ze.~~~
3. TABLED AT MA/Y 10, 1994 MEETING: TURTLE CREEK SUBDIVISION
PRELIMINARY PLAT BY STEEL & SON AND JUB ENGINEERS' ~~~~
ci~~rove ~ `'aIr ~gvJia..~r v~°cv~-Cfwt~°,.- ~ e~G ~'-
4. TABLED AT MAY 10, 1994 MEETING: CANNA LILY ESTATES (FORMERLY
STATE STREET EXTENSION SUBDIVISION) PRELIMINARY PLAT BY
FLOYD AND VICTORIA MADSEN:
5. TABLED AT MAY 10, 1994 MEETING: ARROWLEAF SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY
PLAT BY ROBERT GLENN: aP~~ r~~-^~`
6. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR HAVEN COVE NO.S
SUBDIVISION: a~oPr~~~ -L/f ~~ e/~ burr r`o ~~"-~~~-
/PCarnme.~Gla t-il~~ ~v C~/C' {t1- ~t~ioi'o/et.~
7. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR PINE MEADOWS
ANNEXATION AND ZONING: ~/~/>ro~e ~~~.~ clc /%'urf ~"
~~o-t-u,~e /~eco~a.u,,.cCa.~3v~-~ {~ C'/C ~t a~piave.~-
8. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR PRESTON'S ASPEN
GROVE ESTATES ANNEXATION AND ZONING WITH A PRELIMINARY
PLAT: app%o~er ~/'F ~c/C past ~f-v ~-ecoa,~.-~-cl~-ia~.-J
~ ~/e
9. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR BW INC. REZONE
REQUEST: a~~~~/e ~'/{ F' e~C ~ctsa to i-ecoy.,~e..~(.ef~v,.~r
-~ c' ~~'
10. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR STACIE YBARRA
ACCESSORY USE PERMIT: a-~/~~-~/e ~/-{' ~ c~~
~a is 7~ /-e c c~-~ r...~._c1~,fit~- f~ C~/C
11. FINDINGS OF FACTAND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR HARTFORD SUBDMSION
ANNEXATION AND ZONING WITH A PRELIMINARY PLAT:
~~~/-o v.C ~'~~ s` C'~L
~Ja 1r ~o v2 c o ". v+-~~c~o~.f~ o-~ to C~c -~u~- a p~oroz/u-~~
• •
12. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR CHAMBERLAIN ESTATES
N0.2 ANNEXATION AND ZONING WITH A PRELIMINARY PLAT:
w~pvovr ~/-F ~' c/L ~u sr recvm~,.d.~i.•~r fv C~c `'rave ~,af Olaf
13. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR FAWCETT'S MEADOWS
NO. 2 ANNEXATION AND ZONING WITH A PRELIMINARY PLAT:
~~prave ~~{ g C'/L ~~st Ynco-.~,~•~n~°Lfi'0~f ~ C'/G ~~icvY~sel.~/F
14. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR RAMBLE WOOD
SUBDMSION ~4N~VEXATION AND ZONING WITH A PRELIMINARY~ P/LnA~Tp
C~/J~JYove ~ f IX e~L pl(Ir I BCOr~-vr-Q~~~l7~J' -~ ~'lG 1 //L~~~tf
15. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING FOR E.L. '~"~y ~L
SEWS BY E.L. BEWS AND WAYNE FORREY:
~~~red uv~h7 ifr~c ~i5
16. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING FOR THE
HOLLOWS BY BOND CAMPBELL: ~:o,Z~isFkv~.~
u tltrv,.eJ lv P rePwu ~h.~.hJ f o~ {~ c t{
~ ..Paur-
17. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING FOR NEB-i
COMPANY BY BILL GEYER AND RUBBLE ENGINEERING:
(~i~ Gi~vNt~ ~v ~-te~pa~c.e ~rYwZ'ih~ro~frct ~(~C~.e.libhra~/cta,-
18. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING WITH A
PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR ASHFORD GREENS SUBDIVISION BY
BOISE RESEARCH CENTER AND NUBBLE ENGINEERING:
(~i~ C ~fdv~.e.~/ ~i ~-.e~~e ~ihGCih~ 0~' f C'JrzCC'uJ:c~, f
~~ /~cw
CITY ~~ ~IE~~D~AN ~ ~rahh,~9 ~ 20 ~y r~t5 .
HC~B ~E T~2EA5Ilr~E ~°A~LEY
~~ EAST ~~AHO Just- ¢~ /~ 9¢
I~IER9i3iQ~I, I[3AF1® 83642
PUBLIC MEETING SIGN-UP SHEET
NAME:
PHONE NUMBER:
~~~ ~~~~
- I7~
-~'~"-~ -------w~ `-Sh ~---------------------------------------~ '-S -- ~ y ~ 3 ----------------
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 14. 1994
The regular meeting the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission was called to order by
Chairman Jim Johnson at 7:30 P.M.:
Members Present: Charlie Rountree, Moe Alidjani, Jim Shearer, Tim Hepper:
Others Present: Will Berg, Wayne Crookston, Gary Smith, Shari Stiles, Wayne Forrey,
Alan Cavener, Thomas Geile, Bond Campbell, Jim Merkle, Mike Wardle, Mark and Janiz,
Dean Langley, David Turnbull, Archie Roberson, Ron Walsh:
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING HELD MAY 31, 1994:
Johnson: You have all read the minutes, are there any corrections, deletions or additions?
I would entertain a motion for approval.
Alidjani: I make a motion that we approve the minutes of May 31, 1994.
Rountree: Moved and seconded to approve the minutes as written, all those in favor?
Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Johnson: I want to thank Charlie for filling in for me that night
ITEM #1: TABLED AT MAY 10, 1994 MEETING: HAVEN COVE NO. 5 PRELIMINARY
PLAT BY S. I. DEVELOPMENT AND DAVID COLLINS:
Johnson: This item was originally tabled on February 8, 1994 and tabled right on through
on May 10, 1994.
Rountree: I have a question for Gary Smith on this. Are we finally complete in terms of
addressing your concerns on this preliminary plat?
Smith: Mr. Chairman, Commission members, the applicant's engineer David Collins is
incapacitated in the hospital as of today and he had been in conversation with me today
by telephone and assured me that all of the items that Shari and I had addressed in our
comments would be taken care of. He did resubmit another plat that has the contour lines
on them and other than that, my conversation with him has been by telephone and he
basically told me what I just relayed to you.
Johnson: How is your comfort zone?
Smith: I don't have any problem with it, he told me he would do this and obviously I am not
going to process the final plat until (inaudible). He has agreed to it verbally to mine and
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 14, 1994
Page 2
Shari's comments.
Rountree: Thanks Gary.
Johnson: Okay, what do we need to do here.
Rountree: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion that we pass a favorable recommendation on
this preliminary plat to the City Council conditioned on the developer addressing the
comments from City Staff.
Shearer: Second
Johnson: It is moved and seconded that we recommend approval based on conditions of
City Staff, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #2: TABLED AT MAY 10, 1994 MEETING: FIRE LIGHT ESTATES PRELIMINARY
PLAT BY RUNNING BROOK ESTATES AND NUBBLE ENGINEERING:
Johnson: Any questions, concerns, discussion regarding this item?
Hepper: Probably the same questions to Gary and Shari that we just had, are they
comfortable with everything that has been presented to them?
Johnson: Would you like those people to comment or Gary to comment?
Hepper: Please
Johnson: Same question Gary or Shari.
Smith: Mr. Chairman, Planning & Zoning Commissioners, the applicants engineer did
revise the preliminary plat and has resubmitted that to me and they have addressed those
items that I had questioned at the time of my review of the preliminary plat.
Hepper: At the time we had some questions about a homeowners association on the
landscape lots near the entrance and the width of the berm area, has that been
addressed?
Smith: Yes, they have shown that as a separate lot now and it is 20 foot in width.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 14, 1994
Page 3
Hepper: And the fence along the road will be built by the developer not by the
homeowners?
Smith: That would probably be part of, I don't know if this one is subject to the
development agreement but that is a condition of approval. I would expect that would be
included in that.
Hepper: I think it was at the time we were discussing it.
Smith: They have made the revisions that I had requested on the plat.
Johnson: Any other questions of the City Engineer? Entertain a motion.
Hepper: Mr. Chairman, I move that we recommend to the City Council that they approve
the preliminary plat for Fire Light Estates with the stipulation discussed, and that Shari's
and Gary's concerns lie addressed and that the developer be responsible for building
fence along the entryway and not the individual homeowners.
Rountree: Second
Johnson: It is moved and seconded that we recommend approval of the preliminary plat
based on the conditions so stated by Commissioner Hepper, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #3: TABLED AT MAY 10, 1994 MEETING: TURTLE CREEK SUBDIVISION
PRELIMINARY PLAT BY STEEL AND SON AND JUB ENGINEERS:
Johnson: Same situation, same procedure. Questions of either Shari or Gary Smith?
Alidjani: If they don't have a problem with it, that is the only question 1 have.
Smith: Mr. Chairman, Planning & Zoning Commissioners, the applicant's engineer Gary
Lee resubmitted the preliminary plat containing the requested revisions that I had in my
comments.
Alidjani: Thank you Gary.
Johnson: Anything to add to that Shari? No, thank you, we need a motion on item #3 as
well.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 14, 1994
Page 4
Rountree: Mr. Chairman, I move we pass a favorable recommendation onto the City
Council on this pre-iminary plat.
Atidjani: Second
Johnson: It is moved and seconded that pass a favorable recommendation to the City
Council for the Turtle Creek subdivision preliminary plat, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #4: TABLED AT MAY 10, 1994 MEETING: CANNA LILY ESTATES (FORMERLY
STATE STREET EXTENSION SUBDIVISION) PRELIMINARY PLAT BY FLOYD AND
VICTORIA MADSEN:
Alidjani: Gary, is there any problem with that item #4?
Smith: Mr. Chairman, Commission members, 1 received a small reduced copy of the plat,
it has been revised showing a longer culdesac. 1 think that was done at the request of the
Highway District to provide access to the lots that back up to Pine Street right now. I know
there was quite a bit of concern from this Commission at the public hearing concerning
access to the subdivision from Pine. I am trying to recall but I think the Commission
requested a letter be sent to the Highway District requesting that access, is that correct?
Johnson: That is the way I recall it, I know the feeling is that there is a curb cut already
existing there and that for fire and safety reasons that long culdesac situation there is not
desirable by the Commission or members of the City Council. 1 believe they would like to
see an access onto Pine there for those reasons and for other reasons including traffic.
Smith: Right, that is what I remember aril I had an opportunity to talk to Larry Sale today,
he mentioned to me that if the City feels strongly enough about that access going through
that he didn't feel the Highway District would have a problem requiring it.
Johnson: Yes, because that subdivision doesn't have a stub street going anywhere. Even
on those we approve at least there is a stub street for future development, but that would
be the end of it the way it is platted now.
Smith: The other item I had was providing sewer service to the property to the east of this
parcel. Mr. Madsen was in a week or so ago and talked to me briefly about it. As far as
1 can tell the sewer service to that parcel that is undeveloped between the Church and the
multi-family dwellings I think they are four-plexes or a series of duplexes, has to be into
this parcel. There is a possibility that the sewer could be built in 8th street to the north and
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 14, 1994
Page 5
connect to the line that serves the Church, but I am not familiar with what the exact size
of that line so I don't know if it is appropriate or not. But I did reiterate to Mr. Madsen that
we had to have a sewer line serve this parcel of ground and that it would probably be most
necessary to exit his subdivision with it.
Johnson: Any further questions?
Hepper. Yes, Mr. Chairman, there is a note on the preliminary plat here the small one that
we have that says notes, #3 homes will be a minimum of 1300 square feet and that is with
an R-4 zoning designation, that needs to be corrected to 1400 square feet minimum.
Johnson: Item #3?
Hepper: Yes
Johnson: Okay, that is kind of difficult to read, Okay, what did we decide here?
Crookston: I have a question for Wayne, if we would condition this that the access would
be provided on Pine wouldn't it have to come bade for a hearing or would the City's hearing
take care of that?
Crookston: Well, if there is a substantial change in the plat it needs to come back. The
plat is amended and it is a decision by the zoning administrator, but if it is significantly
amended it needs to come back.
Johnson: Well, it is his call as to whether it is substantial change?
Crookston: Yes, it is only it is her.
Johnson: What are you thinking Charlie?
Rountree: Well the applicant really is not going to get ACHD to change their position
without some kind of input from the City.
Johnson: I think that is true.
Rountree: My thoughts are something along the lines of having the Zoning Administrator
work with ACHD on the possibility of providing that access and that be a condition of
passing this onto City Council for approval.
Johnson: Well, I think you are right, but Gary indicated they were receptive if the City staff
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 14, 1994
Page 6
felt it was necessary.
Rountree: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion that we pass onto the City Council a favorable
recommendation conditioned on the City Zoning Administrator coordinating with ACHD and
the developer to provide access onto West Pine Street and amended the plat to indicate
1400 square feet as a minimum home size.
Shearer: Second
Johnson: It is moved and seconded that we pass on a favorable recommendation onto the
City Council conditioning 2 items access and square footage, all those in favor? opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #5: TABLED AT MAY 10, 1994 MEETING: ARROWLEAF SUBDIVISION
PRELIMINARY PLAT BY ROBERT GLENN:
Rountree: We have a letter that says that is being withdrawn.
Johnson: Read the letter.
Alidjani: This letter is to confirm our telephone conversation of June 13, 1994 concerning
the preliminary plat. Our client has decided to terminate this project. This project was
scheduled for action before the Planning & Zoning Commission on June 14, 1994. Thank
you for your assistance during this project. I look forward to working with you on other
projects in the Meridian area. Respectfully, Patrick Tealey.
Johnson: Thank you Mohammed.
ITEM #6: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR HAVEN COVE NO.
5 SUBDIVISION:
Johnson: Are there any points of discussion or corrections?
Alidjani: Mr. Chairman, I make the motion the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
hereby adopt and approve these findings of fact and conclusions of law.
Rountree: Second
Johnson: It is moved and seconded that we approve the findings of fact and conclusions
of law as written, roll call vote.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 14, 1994
Page 7
ROLL CALL VOTE: Hepper -Aye, Rountree -Aye, Shearer -Aye, Alidjani -Aye
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Alidjani: Furthermore, I make a motion that the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
hereby recommends to the Meridian City Council of the City of Meridian that they approve
the annexation and zoning as stated above for the property described in the application
with the conditions set forth in the findings of fact and conclusions of law and that if the
conditions are not met that the property be de-annexed.
Rountree: Second
Johnson: It is moved and seconded that we pass on a favorab-e recommendation onto the
City Council as stated, all those in favor? Opposed
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #7: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR PINE MEADOWS
ANNEXATION AND ZONING:
Johnson: Any discussion regarding these findings of facts? If there is no discussion or
comments I will entertain a motion on the findings of facts.
Alidjani: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion that the Meridian Planning 8 Zoning Commission
hereby adopts and approves these findings of fact and conclusions.
Hepper: Second
Johnson: It has been moved and seconded to adopt the findings of fact and conclusions
of law as prepared by the City Attorney, roll call vote.
ROLL CALL VOTE: Hepper -Aye, Rountree -Aye, Shearer -Aye, Alidjani -Aye
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Johnson: A recommendation for the City Council.
Alidjani: I make a motion that the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission hereby
recommends to the City Council of the City of Meridian that the they approve the
annexation and zoning as stated above for the property described in the application with
the conditions set forth in the findings of fact and conclusions of law (inaudible) no
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 14, 1994
Page 8
annexation request be passed until a development agreement including a commitment for
use and development is entered into.
Shearer: Second
Johnson: We have a motion and a second for a favorable recommendation to the City
Council as stated, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #i3: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR PRESTON'S ASPEN
GROVE ESTATES ANNEXATION AND ZONING WITH A PRELIMINARY PLAT:
Johnson: Any discussion regarding the findings of fact?
Rountree: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion that the Meridian Planning and Zoning
Commission hereby adopts and approves these findings of fact and conclusions.
Alidjani: Second
Johnson: We have a motion and a second to approve the findings of fact and conclusions
of law without any changes, roll call vote.
ROLL CALL VOTE: Hepper -Aye, Rountree -Aye, Shearer -Aye, Alidjani -Aye
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Johnson: Decision or recommendation you wish to pass onto City Council.
Rountree: Mr. Chairman I move that the Meridian Planning and Zoning hereby
recommends to the City Council of the City of Meridian that with compliance of the
conditions herein of these findings of fact and conclusions of law including an amended
plat request for one or more different zones, the consent of a delay in the annexation
process until a new plat is prepared, the request for new hearings on the amended plat
and if the Commission approves of the amended plat then the annexation and zoning
v~rould be in the best interest of the City of Meridian and the Commission would then
recommend approval of this annexation and zoning. If these conditions are not met the
property should not be annexed and zoned.
Alidjani: Second
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 14, 1994
Page 9
Johnson: It is moved and seconded to pass the decision or recommendation as written
onto the Gity Counci-, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: Alf Yea
ITEM #9: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR BW INC. REZONE
REQUEST;
Johnson: Entertain a motion for approval if no one has any comments.
Hepper: Mr. Chairman, I move the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission hereby
adopts and approves these findings of fact and conclusions of law.
Rountree: Second
Johnson: ft is moved and seconded to approve the findings of fact and conclusions of law
as written, roll call vote.
ROLL CALL VOTE: Hepper -Aye, Rountree -Aye, Shearer -Aye, Alidjani -Aye
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Johnson: Decision or recommendation for the City Council.
Hepper: Mr. Chairman, I move the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission hereby
recommends to the City Council of the City of Meridian that they approve the rezone
requested by the applignt for the property described in the application with the conditions
set forth in the findings of fact and conclusions of law and that the property be required to
meet the water and sewer requirements, Nampa Meridian requirements, Ada County
Highway District requirements, the Uniform Building Code, the Fire and Lrfe Safety Codes
and the other ordinances of the City of Meridian. That the applicant meet the requirements
of paragraph 10 of the conclusions regarding irrigation water and that the applicant meet
the 35 foot landscape setback required of the Meridian Comprehensive Plan.
Shearer: Second
Johnson: It is moved and second to pass a decision or recommendation onto the City
Council, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 14, 1994
Page 10
ITEM #10: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR STACIE YBARRA
ACCESSORY USE PERMIT:
Rountree: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion that the Meridian Planning 8 Zoning
Commission hereby adopts and approves these findings of facts and conclusions.
Alidjani: Second
Johnson: It is moved and second to approve the findings of facts as prepared by the City
Attorney, roll call vote.
ROLL CALL VOTE: Alidjani -Aye, Shearer -Aye, Rountree -Aye, Hepper -Aye
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Johnson: Decision for the
Rountree: Mr. Chairman, I move that the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission hereby
approve the accessory use permit requested by the applicant for the property described
in the application with the conditions set forth in the findings of fact and conclusions of law.
Shearer: Second
Johnson: It is moved and second to pass on the decision as prepared by the City
Attorney, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #11: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR HARTFORD
SUBDIVISION ANNEXATION AND ZONING WITH A PRELIMINARY PLAT:
Alidjani: I have some changes, there is some typing errors in the decision
andrecommendationn area. The last page, page 15, last paragraph (inaudible).
Johnson: Any other changes?
Rountree: Item #17 is a "net" "not".
Johnson: Any other changes? I will entertain a motion for approval of the findings of fact.
Shearer: Mr. Chairman, I move the Planning & Zoning Commission hereby adopt and
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 14, 1994
Page 11
approve these findings of fact andconclusionss of law.
Alidjani: Second
Johnson: Moved and seconded to approve the findings of fact and conclusions of law with
the 2 typos mentioned, roll call vote.
ROLL CALL VOTE: Hepper -Aye, Rountree -Aye, Shearer -Aye, Alidjani -Aye
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Johnson: Decision or recommendation to the City Council.
Shearer: I move the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission hereby recommend to the
City Council of the City of Meridian that they approve the annexe#ion and zoning as stated
above for the property described in the application with the conclusions set forth in the
findings of fact and conclusions of law. And that if the conditions are not met that the
property be de-annexed.
Rountree: Second
Johnson: Moved and second to pass a recommendation onto the City Council as stated,
all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #12: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR CHAMBERLAIN
ESTATES NO. 2 ANNEXATION AND ZONING WITH A PRELIMINARY PLAT:
Alidjani: I have a change on page 14, the same word, it should be City Council of the City
of Meridian instead of City Planning & Zoning Commission of the City of Meridian.
Johnson: Any others? Any discussion? Anybody care to make a recommendation?
Alidjani: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion that the Planning & Zoning Commission hereby
adopt and approve these findings of fact.
Shearer: Second
Johnson: We have a motion with a second to approve the findings of fact and conclusions
of law for Chambeflain Estates No. 2, roll call vote.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 14, 1994
Page 12
ROLL CALL VOTE: Hepper -Aye, Rountree -Aye, Shearer -Aye, Alidjani -Aye
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Johnson; Decision or recommendation to the City Council.
Alidjani: Mr. Chairman, I make the motion the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
hereby recommends to the City Council of the City of Meridian that they approve the
annexation and zoning as stated above for the property described in the application with
the conditions set forth in the findings of fact and conclusions of law. And that if the
conditions are not met that the property be de-annexed.
Rountree: Second
Johnson: Moved and second to pass the recommendation on as read, ait those in favor?
Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #13: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR FAWCETTS
MEADOWS NO. 2 ANNEXATION AND ZONING WITH A PRELIMINARY PLAT:
Rountree: Page 11, item 19, that "net" should be "not".
Johnson: Any other changes or typos?
Rountree: Mr. Chairman, 1 move that the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission hereby
adopts and approves these findings of fact and conclusions.
Hepper: Second
Johnson: We have a motion and a second to approve these findings of facts and
conclusions of law for Fawcett's Meadows No. 2 as written by the City Attorney, roll call
vote.
ROLL CALL VOTE: Alidjani -Aye, Shearer -Aye, Rountree -Aye, Hepper -Aye
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Johnson: Any decision or recommendation to the City Council you would like to make?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 14, 1994
Page 13
Rountree: Mr. Chairman, 1 move that the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
hereby recommends to the City Council of the City of Meridian that they approve the
annexation and zoning as stated above for the property described in the application with
the conditions set forth in these findings of fact and conclusions of law. And if the
conditions are not met the property be de-annexed.
Hepper: Second
Johnson: It is moved and seconded to pass a recommendation on as read, all those in
favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Rountree: Mr. Chairman, on this item #13 and the 2 previous items we haven't addressed
the preliminary plat have we and do we need to? I think we need to.
Rountree: Can we do that by consent after item #14 if city staff is comfortable with the
preliminary plats.
Johnson: Comment Ciry Counselor.
Crookston: You can do that.
ITEM #14: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR RAMBLE WOOD
SUBDIVISION ANNEXATION AND ZONING WITH A PRELIMINARY PLAT:
Hepper: Mr. Chairman, we have the same typo on page 13, Planning and Zoning
Commission should tie changed to Council.
Johnson: Any other changes or discussion regarding these findings of fact and
conclusions of law?
Hepper: Mr. Chairman, I move the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission hereby
adopts and approves these findings of fact and conclusions of law.
Shearer: Second
Johnson: Its been moved and second to adopt the findings of fact and conclusions of law
as stated, roll call vote.
ROLL CALL VOTE: Hepper -Aye, Rountree -Aye, Shearer -Aye, Alidjani -Aye
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 14, 1994
Page 14
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Johnson: Decision or recommendation to the City Council.
Hepper: Mr. Chairman, I move the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission hereby
recommends to the City Council of the City of Meridian that they approve the annexation
and zoning as stated above for the property described in the application with the
conditions set forth in the findings of fact and conclusions of law. And that if the conditions
are not met that the property be de-annexed.
Rountree: Second
Johnson: We have a motion and a second to approve the decision or recommendation as
written, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Johnson: Now we need to address those preliminary plats.
Rountree: As a group?
Johnson: If you wish.
Rountree: 1 have a question for Gary Smith and Shari Stiles before ws do. Have your
concerns with Hartford, Chamberlain Estates, Fawcett's Meadows and Ramble Wood
preliminary plats been addressed by the Developers to your satisfaction?
Smith: The Hartford is the subdivision at the (inaudible) corner of Ten Mite and Ustick.
I think the only thing that still is a question in my mind is how exactly is that going to be
severed. I talked to the property owner to the west side of Ten Mile Road north of Ustick
came into my office a week or so ago and was interested in the sewering of that property
also. And I haven't had as chance to talk to Mr. Merkle at Hubble Engineering but I did
want to pursue the possibility of constructing a sewer along the south side of Five Mile
Creek from where the interceptor crosses the Nine Mile interceptor crosses Five Mile
Creek. To see if we can get sewer back up that way to serve this property. I think this
gentleman to the west was agreeable to having a sewer line constructed along there.
Particularly of course it could serve part of his property. But, if everything else doesn't
work then the lift station is the last alternative. If we have to go to a lift station 1 want to be
sure it is placed somewhere along there is that is going to serve all the property so we
don't have 2 lift stations. But I guess that is the only gray area that I have with Hartford.
I think the other 2 Chamberlain and Fawcett's Meadows No. 2 all those items are easily
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 14, 1994
Page 15
addressed.
Rountree: And Ramble Wood?
Smith: Same thing, that would sewer from Hartford. And they would need to cross, I think
the name of the gentleman that lives there is Mr. Schaffer, they would need to cross his
property with a sewer line. I think all of those properties along there have to be looked at
as a unit for sewer service. Hopeful they can all sewer to the west to a point. That is
about all I remember.
Johnson: Do you have anything to add Shari Stiles?
Stiles: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, the only thing really that is in common for all of
these is that they would require a development agreement that would address all of our
concerns and those of the agencies including the bike paths and landscaping, license
agreement with Nampa Meridian Ircigation District and similar things that are called out in
the findings.
Johnson: How are we doing with development agreements, do we have some in force
now?
Stiles: No we do not.
Johnson: We still don't have any in force, do we have some pending?
Stiles: Yes, several.
Johnson: I thought we did but I had never seen a fiinal one yet. Anyone else have any
concerns on any of the 4 preliminary plats we are addressing here. In that case I will
entertain a motion.
Rountree: Mr. Chairman, I move that we table and recommendation on Hartford and
Ramble Wood subdivision until the situation with the sewering of those properties is
resolved and scheduling that to our next regularly scheduled meeting July 12, 1994.
Shearer: Second
Johnson: Any discussion on the motion?
Alidjani: I have a concern, I see Gary's concern, is there a way we can approve this
preliminary plat within the condition of the development agreement plus the concern that
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 14, 1994
Page 16
Gary has either for a sewer line or the lift station. Because if wB table it now what kind of
answer are we going to have later?
Rountree: Weli we pass onto the City Council something certain as opposed to something
in the air that at this point they don't know if they are talking about one or more lift stations
or being able to sewer across some other properties, apparently there are some options
there.
Alidjani: I understand that, but my concerns are is there enough time between now and
until they go in front of City Council that they can take care of those.
Rountree: They probably could have taken care of it before. It was a problem at the last
meeting.
Johnson: Is there any other discussion? Is that the end of the comments from staff and
the Commission.
Smith: Mr. Chairman, Commission members,( End of Tape) as far as passing on a specific
recommendation to City Council and I appreciate what Commissioner Alidjani is saying,
it hasn't been resolved how that would be sewBred or where the lift station might be
placed, but I don't think there is a problem with severing it so it would just be a matter of
one or the other. Of course it is the Commissioners decision as to how you want to pass
this along to the City Council. I am certainly not promoting speeding up any of these
developments because we have a tot of them to do, but in the same breath I don't know,
I think a decision can be reached in a short period of time with the developer and engineer
as to how these projects can be severed.
Rountree: Given the options you have available to sever the properties do those options
change the platting in terms of where a lift station may be located and the publics
opportunity to comment on that versus no lift station and having to sewer across another
property and the publics opportunity to comment on that?
Smith: On Ramble Wood it is not going to effect that one because it is going to sewer into
Hartford. The severing of Hartford it could affect, there could be a slight modification of
the lot arrangement there. The sewer line may exit the subdivision as presently shown,
it may go to the northwest corner and exit (inaudible) it would possibly get into an
easement adjacent to the subdivision boundary. I don't remember the exact layout of the
land out there but I think the northwest comer of that project is the lowest area and so the
sewer would probably come down the street, the most northern east-west street and exit
the subdivision through a common area lot similar to what happened on Park Wood
Meadows on Ten Mile road south of there. And get into a lift station at that point or cross
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 14, 1994
Page 17
Ten Mile Road into the property adjacent thereto and continue onto the west. I don't think
there would be, I guess it is kind of a round about long answer, but 1 don't think there
wrould be a significant change in the lot arrangement on Hartford regardless of where the
lift station may be or the sewer line may exit the subdivision. It won't exit the subdivision
in a public right of way, but it would have to exit through a common lot area.
Johnson: Gary, are you basically saying since our last tabling of this you haven't had any
specific discussion with the developer regarding the sewer?
Smith: I don't think so other than the property owner from across the street that came in.
Johnson: We are under advisement from the City Council and the Mayor you know that
if the time schedules aren't met the items addressed haven't been addressed by the time
of the meeting the 11th hour salvage thing is a thing of the past. If the "i's" aren't dotted
and the "t's" aren't a~ossed we are not going to proceed and that is basically the guidance
we are under at this point because we have plenty to do as you said. Leniency is not going
to be as prevalent as it was in the past.
Shearer. Mr. Chairman, I missed something on this Ramble Wood, it seems like at the last
meeting that the plat showed no road to the east to the property to the east of it and I think
there was something in ACRD that they said they wanted a road to the east, wasn't there.
I have not seen anything where they changed it
Johnson: Are you aware of anything on that?
Stiles: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, ACRD commented that if the City requires a access
to the east for sewer service purposes they would have no problem with that, but they
wouldn't require it.
Shearer: It was us that was requiring that then. We have been 2 or 3 weeks since these
were up before us last time and the things that were addressed at the last meeting
evidently haven't been addressed. I can't feel sorry for these guys going back through it,
they know there is a problem and you thing they would work it out with City staff and be
ready to go.
Johnson: Thanks Shari 1 appreciate it. There is a motion, is there any further discussion,
we have a second also. Hearing none we will vote on Charlie Rountree's motion, all those
in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Rountree: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion that we pass on a favorable recommendation
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 14, 1994
Page 18
to the City Council for preliminary plats on Chamberlain Estates and Fawcett's Meadows
No. 2.
Shearer: Second
Johnson: Moved and seconded to pass on a favorable recommendation for the preliminary
plats as addressed by Commissioner Rountree, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #15: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING FOR E. L.
BEWS BY E. L. BEWS AND WAYNE FORREY:
Johnson: I will now open the public hearing, if there is an applicant or someone
representing the applicant that would like to come forward at this time ptease do so.
Wayne Forrey, 52 East Franklin Road, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Forrey: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission I am here tonight representing Edward
and Shirley Bews the owners of the Bews property which is generally east of the Eagle
Road Interchange, which vwuld be on the north side of the Interstate between the
interstate and Franklin Road. I have a vicinity map I would like to hand out. The subject
property on the transparency is shown in green that is the property owned by Ed and
Shirley Bews. It is immediately east of the proposed St. Luke's Hospital site which is on
the east side of North Eagle Road. The brown that you see on that transparency is the
Department of Transportation Interstate right of way, Interstate 84. Several years ago Ed
Bews recorded a plan called Farmington Estates Subdivision and that is located on this
property, it has been recorded but never constructed. All of that green area show the 75
acre Bews ownership but the olive colored portion there is the Farmington Estates plat,
again never constructed. Ed believes and I do too now that we have had a chance to do
some master planning with St. Luke's Hospital that subdivision would not be compatible
with the proposed medial campus envisioned for that site. So, it is Mr. Bew's desire to
vacate that plat and work it out with any of the agencies that are involved. One thing that
would not be vacated is the well lot. There is a developed municipal quality well on the
property and that well lot would remain so that there is a passibility of getting that to the
City.
Johnson: When did that go through the County?
Forrey: I am thinking 1976 -1978 somewhere in there. The request of Mr. Bews for Mixed
Planned Use Development complies with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan, but right now
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 14, 1994
Page 19
your current zoning ordinance does not have a Mixed Use Zone.
Johnson: Correct.
Forrey: After Mr. Bews applied for this annexation request St. Luke's Hospital and Mr.
Bews got together and decided it was in good interest to jointly master plan the 2
properties. That shows a little better the relationship between St. Luke's Hospital site and
the Bews property. And now that both parties are negotiating on joint development and
even exploring the possibility of increasing the St. Luke's ownership, a transfer of property
between the 2 ov~ers the Hospital has asked that their site be zoned Health Service,
much like the Health Service zone in Boise or cities where there is a major medical
campus. Ed Bews submitted a letter today to the Commission asking for the same type
of zone, and we are in a little bit of a dilemma because the City doesn't have a Health
Service zone, this would be the first medical campus in the community. It is appropriate
to have that type of zone to give the medical community to develop all of those port uses
around a major hospital. So, there is a possibility that this would have to be tabled at
some level either at the Planning & Zoning Commission level until such time as a zone is
there if it is appropriate or the City Council level. Mr. Bews fully expects that is going to
happen and it is going to take awhile to develop a new zoning district.
Johnson: Right, we have a letter from him which 1 am sure you are familiar with, that
basically says the same thing. How was this advertised for tonights meeting.
Forrey: As Mixed Planned Use Development, but when I posted the property a week ago
on the notice on the posting I put Mixed Planned Use Development and possible Health
Service zone, I had both of those.
Johnson: Where do we stand Wayne with the difference there, the change? Does that
present a problem is my question?
Crookston: It really does because we don't have the zone in which it was initially
advertised, so we don't have an effective notice.
Johnson: We don't have either one of those zones at this point.
Crookston: That is correct.
Johnson: Well, I guess it is a good idea that he is agreeing to table this at this point. It
kind of confuses me when we advertise something for a zone vre don't have, I don't know
how we can do that, even though we have it in our Comprehensive Plan and we will have
that zone Ym sure, but we don't have it now.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 14, 1994
Page 20
Forrey: Just as a side note, how this was developed, St. Luke's applied for a Limited
Office zoning and now that their master plan is coming together, their master plan will likely
include many uses that are not allowed in the Limited Office zone and that was one of the
reasons that the hospital felt there should be a zone appropriate tq their medical campus.
And the Bews property a portion of that or perhaps all of it will be part of that medical
campus and that is why the letter today.
Johnson: Have you looked into the terminology, the description of that HS zoning?
Forrey: Yes
Johnson: And can you make some of that available to the City?
Forrey: Yes, in fact we submitted a 2 or 3 page synopsis.
Johnson: Of different approaches in different cities.
Forrey: Right, it was based on the Boise, and the hospital also has a consultant from
Boston that had one of the teaching schools hospitals in Boston that had a similar type
zone. We could find other and research others if you want. And just one last thing, the
property has been posted and I understand there is some confusioin or a dilemma here
we are willing to wait and let the City take time to see if the hospital zone or health service
zone vwuld be appropriate and take a look at that. The other option would be, I guess Mr.
Bews could request Commercial General that may cover some of the items. And then
lastly a development agreement should definitely be required in this situation and Mr:
Bews would agree to that. I would be happy to answer any questions.
Johnson: Mr. Bews is obviously a patient man he has waited since 1977 for Farmington
to develop.
Forrey: Mr. Chairman, one more thing, the area in brown 1 did speak with Mr. Larry
Strough with the Idaho Transportation Department District 3, that area in brown has a
separate legal description. His recommendation to Mr. Bews and to this Commission it is
not in writing yet but I believe a letter is forthcoming that the State would prefer that area
in brown to be zoned industrial. It complicates potential construction down the road or
overlay or staging of contractors in a public right of way when it is zoned commercial or
limited office or things like that. If it is zoned industrial then the State can get in there and
do maintenance and not have any potential conflicts with local ordinances which they are
doing right now.
Johnson: Okay, any questions for Mr. Forrey?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 14, 1994
Page 21
Shearer: You mean we have to have a zone in order to do construction on the road?
Forrey: I understand the State has had some conflicts in the transportation department
when the roadway is zone residential and they get involved in construction.
Shearer: What do you call it when we build a commercial building, is that industrial
because we bring a backhoe in, it doesn't make any sense.
Johnson: Well, there is some staging out there right now is what he is talking about
(inaudible) right to the south of that.
Shearer: Yes, but that is not a permanent thing that is construction, when any piece is
zoned you have to have construction, in residential (inaudible).
Johnson: Any questions of Mr. Forrey. Thank you Wayne, this is a public hearing, anyone
else like to address the Commission on this issue please come forward now. Seeing no
one then I will close the public hearing. I would suggest that we need a motion.
Rountree: Just for discussion there is not much we can do if we don't have the zoning.
Johnson: I believe it would be proper to table, you have to table it to a date certain.
Rountree: 1 am trying to get an idea of when we could address the amendments of the.
Johnson: We don't have a clue when we will have the zoning capabilities available. Do
you have any suggestions on that Wayne?
Crookston: The applicant could withdraw the application and either request ah
amendment to the zoning ordinance and propose it or the City could propose amendments
to the zoning ordinance which probably would inGude other items than this particular zone.
In which event if the applicant does not withdraw, you can table it to whenever because
you don't have sufficient to make a decision as to what to zone it, you don't actually have
an application fora particular zone that we have in our ordinance now. So, you can deny
it.
Johnson: It is actually an irregular application isn't it, because the application maybe
should not have gone this far because we do not have that zone.
Crookston: That is correct.
Johnson: But, here vve are. What is your thinking gentlemen, what would you like to do?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 14, 1994
Page 22
Rountree: Mr. Chairman, I move that we table this item and not having to have a date
certain.
Crookston: You do need to have a date certain.
Rountree: A date or a condition certain?
Crookston: It needs to be a date certain. It doesn't necessarily have to be the next
month, you just have to pick a date certain.
Johnson: It will come bads up on the agenda and we will address it at that time. You know
you are taking a minimum of 120 days to get that new zone.
Rountree: Mr. Chairman, 1 make a motion that we table this item until our regularly
scheduled meeting in November.
Johnson: Which is? The 9th
Rountree: Until November 9th, 1994.
Shearer: Second
Johnson: Moved and second to table this item until November 9, 1994, all those in favor?
Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #16: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING FOR THE
HOLLOWS BY BOND CAMPBELL:
Johnson: If there is a representative for the applicant or the applicant please come
fonrvard and address the Commission at this time.
Bond Campbell, 1150 East Ustidc, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Campbell: Somebody is going to have to help me out here.
Johnson: Basically you are giving us a quids run down of all that your application contains
and then we will ask you questions and then go onto the public, at the end of the public's
testimony if you wish I will give you an opportunity to rebut anything that came through the
testimony and want to address.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 14, 1994
Page 23
Campbell: The location of property is north of Ustick, 1/4 mile west of Locust Grove,
currently adjacent to Pheasant Pointe subdivision across the street. It is a 5 acre parcel,
I am requesting development of 9 lots, the smallest lot being 11,000 square feet, the
largest being over 20,000 square feet.
Johnson: Any questions of Mr. Campbell? Nine lot subdivision, I have 6 acres, is it 5?
Campbell: It is 6.25 total parcel an acre and a 1 /4 is my current property.
Johnson: You are actually developing 5.
Rountree: If you could get your lot minimum size up by a 1000 square feet you would add
a unique subdivision to the City of Meridian. We don't have an R-3 subdivision at this
point and that would be a first.
Campbell: A minimum up by a thousand?
Rountree: Yes that minimum size for that zoning is 12,000 square feet, just a comment
you are close at 11,000.
Campbell: I said my smallest lot was 11,400 but that doesn't include a 20 foot, it is the
closest lot to Ustick and there is a 20 foot easement that 1 am putting in there for
landscaping, it actually would be part of that lot so I vwuld be over 12,000 square feet with
my smallest lot, I would be 12,420 but 1 am not aware that is an R-3 versus R-4.
Johnson: That is a relatively new zone.
Shearer: You can have 12,000 in an R-4 too.
Johnson: Yes, that is right. Anybody else have any questions?
Hepper: What are your intentions with the out buildings there, are you going to leave
those and work around them?
Campbell: Yes, I am going to fence around my parcel and my property, actually I am going
to fence the entire parcel of property and leave the outbuildings and my building. 1 am
going to change by lot lines from where my current fence locations so that 1 add to the
developed property.
Hepper: Okay, you have some comments from Ada County Highway Department on some
road extensions, one to the north and one to the east.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 14, 1994
Page 24
Campbell: The comments from Ada County that I got, there were no commen#s that I saw
other than.
Hepper: Apparently you haven't seen these comments from Ada County Highway District,
is that correct?
Campbell: No, I was faxed probably 8 copies of comments from different agencies but this
particular list of comments 1 didn't see. And this is something that I discussed briefly with
Gary and Shari and that was whether or not I could come in with one street culdesac and
go back out with only 9 lots. And that was something I thought we could look at. l guess
ACRD has an idea of what I am going to do there but without seeing a preliminary plat
maybe they think I am trying to do smaller lots, tighter density.
Hepper: That is what 1 was wondering, do we need to address that now or when he brings
in the preliminary plat?
Rountree: I think the plat would be the time to address that.
Johnson: 1 think later.
Campbell: t don't know what justifies a preliminary plat, I'm sure a preliminary plat to be
official has to be engineered and have a certain amount of engineering. I have what I
consider to be a real rough preliminary plat, just basically lot layouts and what I foresee
with me tonight, 1 don't know if that will be of any help.
Johnson: We could look at but you are probably right in your statement about needing an
engineer to do it.
Hepper: Yes, for right now you are just looking for annexation and zoning, he is not asking
for anything on the preliminary plat. We can address that when we have the plat.
Johnson: Anybody else have any questions for Mr. Campbell. If not we will reserve the
right to call you back, anyone else from the public like to come forvvard and address this
application? Seeing no one then I will Gose the public hearing. Annexation and zoning
we need findings of facts.
Rountree: Mr. Chairman, 1 move vue have the City Attorney prepare findings of fact and
conclusions on this application.
Shearer: Second
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 14, 1994
Page 25
Johnson: Its been moved and seconded to have the City Attomey prepare findings of fact
and conclusions of law for the Hollows, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #17: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING FOR NEB-i
COMPANY BY BILL GEYER AND NUBBLE ENGINEERING:
Johnson: I will now open the public hearing, if there is a representative of the applicant
that would like to come forward please do so now.
Jim Merkle, 9550 Bethel Court, Boise, was swum by the City Attomey.
Merkle: I am here this evening on behalf of NEB-i Company, regarding a 9 acre parcel on
the southeast comer of Locust Grove and Fairview. The requested zoning is CG it is
Commercial General zone in the City of Meridian. My packet did not include any
comments from the Highway District or from the City Engineer. I only had Shari's
comments and I addressed a letter, it should have been put in your box addressing each
of her comments. If you want I can pass out the ACHD comments.
Johnson: We already have them. We also have Gary Smith's comments, we will make
a copy of those available to you if you don't have them.
Merkle: The applicant would agree with Gary Smith's comments, this is the first I have
seen them, but these 3 are acceptable to us.
Rountree: You have Shari Stiles's?
Merkle: Yes, and 1 provided a letter to you responding to each of those.
Johnson: We have that.
Merkle: The main one being the 35 foot landscape buffer she wants between the right of
way and the site. And what I was proposing at this point since vre don't have an intended
use set for the property, that your ordinance for the CG zone allows a 15 foot front setback
and that is what we are proposing just to respond to her comments.
Rountree: The Comp Plan indicates for streets coming into the City that they be 35 feet,
so I think that is where her comment is coming from I'm sure.
Johnson: Yes, I don't think it is her comment it is just that our Comprehensive Plan is
i
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 14, 1994
Page 26
requiring.
Merkle: Yes, I spoke to Shari about that and 1 understand that. I would like to answer any
other questions if you have them.
Johnson:. Any other questions for Mr. Merkle?
Crookston: I didn't follow all the conversation, you agree with the 35 foot setback?
Merkle: No, as stated in my letter we are proposing only 15 foot setback be required. If
the Planning and zoning Commission intends to require 35 foot that would be a condition
of approval. The ordinance only requires 15 foot.
Crookston: Thank you
Johnson: Any further questions?
Rountree: Do you have any tentative tenants?
Merkle: At this time no, 1 believe the applicant has met with Ms. Stites regarding a possible
site plan but as far as a tenant I do not know that right now.
Hepper: Is this piece of property contiguous to City limits.
Merkle: Based on Shari's first comment it is contingent upon the annexation of the
property to the north, once they are contiguous we are contiguous. And that is how we will
right our legal description.
Johnson: That is the AVest application?
Merkle: Yes sir.
Johnson: Thank you Jim, anyone from the public like to address this application? Seeing
no one - will close the public hearing. We need a motion.
Rountree: Mr. Chairman, I move we have findings of fact and conclusions of law prepared
by the City Attorney.
Alidjani: Second
Johnson: Moved and second to have the City Attomey prepare findings of fact and
• !
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 14, 1994
Page 27
conclusions of law, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #18: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING WITH A
PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR ASHFORD GREENS SUBDIVISION BY BOISE RESEARCH
CENTER AND RUBBLE ENGINEERING:
Johnson: A representative of the applicant or the applicant please come forward and
address the Commission at this time.
Mike Wardle, 9550 Bethel Court, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Wardle: Mr. Chainnan, 1 would like to put up an item for Commission review, this is the
same as was submitted in your packet and I believe you probably have all seen the large
plat. I don't know how to do this so that the folks in the audience can see it. May 1 use the
easel.
Johnson: You can use the easel or Mr. Merkle will hold it for you.
Wardle: It will be a little difficult for Mr. Crookston but hopefully vwe can refer to it and
those in the audience might be able to see and understand it a bit as wrell. This. is a long
awaited project, it has been many years since the first nine holes of the golf course were
developed. And as the subdivisions have gone along there is an sense of anticipation for
the balance. And through the application that you saw recently from the Steiner
Corporation for a portion of the area that lies just to the east of obviously what shows is
just a couple of portions of holes. That is the means of implementation of these other nine
hole segment of the goff course. There are 2 matters before the Commission this evening,
and I would like to handout just for the simple clarfication of what those 2 matter are. One
other, this is an excerpt from the zoning map.
Johnson: I believe we have this, this was in our packet.
Wardle: Yes, I don't know the history of why one small piece roughly 24 acres was not
annexed previously because it was under an ownership that we researched the ordinances
for annexations to the south and to the north and for whatever reason there was that
small, approximately 600 foot strip of land that was not annexed. The balance has been
annexed and is currently zoned R-4. The request that we have made if for R-4 as well.
However, we are also requesting consideration and approval of this project in preliminary
plat form with the consideration as a planned unit development far a number of stated
reasons and the letter of May 14, 1994 which 1 hope was in your packet. Essentially in
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 14, 1994
Page 29
of that parcel, the 24 acre parcel with an R-4 zone. We are requesting your
recommendation to the City Council as quickly as possible on the plat so that we can
proceed to construction plans and. final platting in order to get this project under
development. The issue here so that the City can begin construction of the golf course.
And we also as part of that recommendation ask that the elements of the planned unit
development be specifically noted and approved for recommendation. There are a couple
of comments that Mr. Smith had made that I would like to address and again, do you have
his comments in your packet. I don't have them but I took notes and would respond with
just areas of clarification or acception. Item #2, he asked about the design standards for
Ashford boulevard, what we are proposing would be a 12 foot islands down the entire
length as noted on the plat. With a 21 foot back to bade roadway section on either side
and that conforms to the Ada County Highway District requirements for a collector
standard with a separated travel way. There would be on the sides of those probably a 15
foot landscape buffer in areas where there are lots and not golf course where there is a
golf course, since that would be city ownership there would not be a buffer lot. That
greenway would extend to the right of way. He does note in item #3 concern for the
islands in the culdesacs those are not (End of Tape) the a,ldesac islands as he noted may
cause some difficulty with the fire department. We will worts with Mr. Smith to come up with
a standard for those so that they work for all parties concerned. Item #6 is one that does
cause some concern and there are some solutions. Interlachen Way as you are aware
does extend to this property and currently provides access to the club house. The traffic
study has been completed and was submitted to staff last week and a very brief meeting
was held last Friday with Shari Stiles the traffic analyst for Ada County Highway District
and the consultant that did the traffic study. The concern about having a direct and easy
connection of Interlachen into the heart of that project is that it would in fact serve as
literally the drain for the project. Now it is desirable to have access to the clubhouse for
residents in the area and there are 3 such connection points, again let me step to this for
a moment. The GotfView Estates subdivision to the south, it appears on our vicinity map
that we provided to Shari Stiles last week that maybe we missed it by a lot, but it is either
here or it is over one lot and that will be connected. We used a preliminary plat and scaled
it and apparently on or the other was not quite cbrh-ect. But there is a connection those
does come bads to Interlachen, there would be then connections around through the
Steiner property that tie into the existing roadway system. Interlachen Mr. Chairman is
right here. Now, what is intended or proposed is that there would be access into what may
be a town house or condominium project from both sides and there would be fire access
through it by perhaps some controlled means. We have not proposed a direct roadway
connection. If it is required, there is a way that we could do it but it would be very
circuitous and we would make as difficult as we possibly could again for the purpose of not
draining all of this project through Interlachen since all of the homes on Interlachen face
that street even though it was constructed to collector standards. I don't know that it is in
the Citys interest to make that an easy connection or the most direct connection. I think
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 14, 1994
Page 30
we can disperse the traffic and the traffic study does suggest that if we keep these types
of connections somewhat restricted.
Rountree: Why do you not have that same concern for Harbor Point Drive?
Wardle: It is more circuitous internally and would not be the same direct shot that.
Rountree: It is a direct shot to Ten Mile.
Wardle: Well, I believe it comes down around and then it makes a connection and then
a T intersection, I'd have to refresh my memory.
Johnson: That is Charile's backyard.
Wardle: In part we don't control that one the same way we do the others. That is the
connection out of our adjacent project and has been anticipated for in earlier plans a
number of years ago. Mr. Smith's comment item #7 did address the same statement that
I made earlier about the 80 foot frontages. He asked the question, that there is a great
deal of open space land given to the City for the golf course and we believe that some
trade offs are essential and having a lot that may be in the 70's rather than in the 80's
certainly is not going to diminish the qualities of life but it does afford a bit better return on
the number of parcels which were shown as 225 single family parcels in the preliminary
plat. I believe all of the other comments in Mr. Smith's are items that can be worked out
or have already been addressed and provided to staff and we will certainly make sure
those are done. k
Johnson: What are the approximate length of the culdesacs specifically the one there to
the southwest?
Wardle: 1 did not bring a scale, Gary do you have a scale because I haven't memorized
the lengths.
Johnson: In terms of our ordinance it is 450 length, it reburies a variance beyond that. I
just wanted to get an idea how far we are stretching that in terms of emergency response
and that sort of thing. It looks to me like the other one might exceed that if it scales out,
I don't know.
Wardle: There are at least 3 that so Mr. Chairman, the 2 to the north I believe both exceed
450 feet and certainly the one to the south.
Johnson: Did you have a comment with respect to Gary Smith's suggestion there that a
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 14, 1994
Page 31
stub street to the north be provided?
Wardle: We saw this, a stub street (inaudible) be provided, but 1 understand that there
has been one required just to the east from the Steiner property. Certainly if the City and
the Ada County Highway District feel that it is necessary and appropriate 1 am certain that
we will do so.
Johnson: Why don't you just point out the Steiner property for me. It is there where
nothing is, just a blank piece of paper.
Wardle: Mr. Chairman, I believe you have at least addressed, I don't know if you approved
the preliminary plat for their project but I believe it was submitted and is preceding us
perhaps by a month. May I just ask one clamcation, and it does relate to, does the City
Planning & Zoning Commission have the authority under the PUD approval for
consideration of the reduction of lot frontages, the culdesac lengths and so forth, it is
unGear to us.
Johnson: Well, our City Council will answer that, I don't know if we have the approval or
not, but we make recommendations and suggestions to the City and they have final say.
Do you want to comment on that Mr. Crookston?
Crookston: I believe that I haven't looked at the PUD sections of our ordinance recently,
but I believe that under the PUD theory that is available it depends on.
Johnson: I think that is one of the reasons for a PUD.
Crookston: It is.
Rountree: (Inaudible) privately owned streets still have to meet ACHD's requirements.
Wardle: Yes, we understand that. One last plea Mr. Chairman, the plat itself, the first
phase that will be proposed for development and I would like to hand this item out is does
highlight that area. I have ident~ed the portion that is subject to annexation and zoning
the balance of it being zoned currently, we would request prompt action to pass on the
recemmendation for the preliminary plat with a recommendation to City Council so that we
can proceed to final platting and construction design for the highlighted area in the
greenish-yellow that will be the first phase. I don't know, uncertain as to whether or not
since the annexation and zoning does not affect that area that it has to go as one package
or if it can be separated and that the findings of fact and conclusions of law for that
annexation and zoning portion would follow or if perhaps they might be prepared and
provided to the Commission for your 23rd of June meeting. We would certainly request
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 14, 1994
Page 32
consideration of that. I would be happy to answer questions.
Johnson: I think the possibility of the June 23rd meeting is out because it is a special
meeting and we have to give proper notice and advertising of that meeting. Any questions
of Mr. Wardle?
Rountree: Who is going to maintain the landscape buffer on Ashford Boulevard?
Wardle: There will be a homeowners association created to take care of all of those
common areas that are not part of the golf course.
Rountree: I assume this in combination of the adjacent plat that is process we have 9
complete holes of golf?
Wardle: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Rountree, yes, we hope that there will be 9 complete holes.
The course has been reviewed for many months with City officals and Wally to assure that
it is compatible. it actually is enhanced a bit with slightly wider fairways, and spray areas
than the existing course, but not changing the character so dramatically that is like playing
night and day and creating a problem for desired play on one 9 versus the other. Mr.
Chairman, one thing that I did not address and I won't take much time, but there are 2
parcels as noted that will be subject to resubmittal in the future with some specific
development plan. That is the 2 golden parcels, town houses or condominiums, but are
shown so you are aware of possible plans that are forthcoming.
Johnson: Thank you very much, apparently Mr. Crookston has a question.
Crookston: Mike, on the handout that you just gave us that is marked in green and pink,
which is the area that is to be annexed, 1 didn't follow that?
Wardle: The area in the pink is that that is being annexed.
Rountree: How many phases and what is your time line?
Wardle: I suspect that Mr. Turnbull, President of the Brighton Corporation, Vice President
of the Boise Research Center that have the 2 ownerships will address that. We desire to
start yesterday, realizing that can't happen, I don't know haw many phases there will be,
but certainly a few as it goes through. But I do not honestly know how many.
Rountree: How does the phasing of the golf course come in with the establishment of the
subdivision?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 14, 1994
Page 33
Wardle: Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that the golf course properties will be
deeded to the City and even though development of the residential portion of this project
may come along the line that the City will be able to start development and construction
of the golf course this fall.
Hepper: I had another question for you to, it kind of slipped by me what you were referring
to about the medium density areas, what was your comment about those?
Wardle: They will be subject to a submittal of a specific project in the future that would
require design and approval of either a town house or condo project or a plat whatever is
applicable so those will come bads to you in some format in the future.
Hepper: That wrouldn't be part of this right now?
Wardle: It is simply acknowledgement that they are as part of this PUD knowing that it is
subject to future approval.
Johnson: Just for the record and for Wally's benefit since he showed up for some reason,
I am for night and day. I have a chance then if the course differs greatly in the second
nine.
Wardle: It will be different.
Johnson: This is a public hearing, anyone else from the public like to address the
Commission at this time?
Mark Janiziek, 26 North McDermot Road, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Janiziek: Mainly I have a concern, is a question more than testimony, I farm the ground
right across the road and our right of way for our delivery of our water comes right through
the middle of that. I was just wondering what they have proposed for the right of way for
the water coming through there?
Johnson: Our ordinance would require of course the access to be maintained and also
that those ditches be tiled. I don't know if there will be a variance because of the golf
course or not, I don't think that has been addressed has it?
Janiziek: How about the route for where the ditch will go, do you have any idea. What is
the plan for the ditch, is there any?
Johnson: I don't specially know that, t don't know if the developer knows that, if that is
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 14, 1994
Page 34
your question we will have them address tha# and also get Gary Smith's comments before
you leave. Do you have any other questions.
Janiziek: Yes, another thing too, I farm that on the other side of the road and we plan on
keep farming it there and what them to be aware that there will be aerial application and
regular farming practices going on across the road there. I would like them to be aware
of that. Another thing 1 have a concern with, when they get into these construction projects
and (inaudible) they have all kinds of wrapping materials and stuff that is scattered out
there and when we get ready to farm we have to get a crew and start picking trash before
we can start farming. 1 think they do a little better of a job keeping things cleaned up
around there and letting things just blow over there onto our property.
Johnson: That is a good point and ii a continuing problem, it is the responsibility of the
developer to keep that Gean. If you have a problem with that 1 would suggest you call Mr.
Berg at the City because we do have complaints in that area frequently. Anything else?
Janiziek: That is all I have,
Johnson: Anyone else from the public?
Dean Langley, 3185 North Black Cat Road, was svwrn by the City Attorney.
Langley: Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, Mr. Janizek has addressed a lot of
issues that were on our minds as well. Our family is operating as Langley Farms
Partnership does own the 100 acre parcel directly to the west across the road on Black
Cat. I also wanted to reiterate from his comments, we plan on a foreseeable future to
operate that as productive farmland and in addition to his comments about application of
herbicides and pesticides, seeing the recent conflict in Caldwell last year on bailing hay
and so forth, I know that there may be noise at various hours of the day and night. Of
course we don't have any objection to the development of the property as proposed tonight
but we do want to go on record as the fact that there will be machinery equipment on the
roadways and operating in the fields at different times during the day and or night. Also,
there will be dust, and subject to prevailing winds which is from the northwest which will
blow into the proposed development at times. The issue of the water supply was
mentioned previously as well, 1 did have the opportunity to meet briefly with Mr. Turnbull
last and they are seeming amenable to work out the particulars with route subject to
ordinances that you deal with and also the irrigation company and also our needs and
logistics there and of course Mr. Janizek's approval as the operator of the farm ground that
rents that from us. In conclusion, the issue of weed control, I was pleased to see that the
BRC in this last week have the weeds disced down, better late than never, it looks a lot
better. (Inaudible) such a large tract of land that since they are only going to be
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 14, 1994
Page 35
developing part of that, that there be a reminder or a statement about what ever your
regulations or mandate for the type of zoning that is there that there be some attempt at
weed control, and keeping the height down. I understand from conversation with the
Weed control here that there are spots of noxious weeds on the property as well as other
non-noxious weeds. And we spend quite a bit of money every year to keep weeds under
control on the west side there so we would appreciate some help that way. 1 know the
previous individual that farmed that had done a real good job of keeping that clean prior
to this time. That concludes my remarks.
Johnson: Thank you very much, we appreciate your comments and I think it is wise to get
those on the record regarding agricultural exposure and your continuing desire to do that.
What is your, you say you have 100 acre to the west, (inaudible) or where does your
property actually come in on that diagram.
Langley: Just the part that is shown here of course, but the property would start
approximately right here and on north to Ustick Road.
Johnson: Is Mr. Janizek to the south then?
Langley: No, he farms that ground for the family.
Johnson: Thank you very much, anyone else from the public?
David Tumbull, 12301 West Explorer Drive, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Tumbull: Since my name was evoked a few times I thought I would get up here and give
you the opportunity to ask any questions. To give a little bit of a background on what wre
have done here, we have been working on this project for quite some time. As you know
there was a previous concept plan approved for this project 15 or 20 years ago. When we
got involved in the project we did take a look at the existing golf course layout and weren't
comfortable with it and we did go outside to outside consultants and hire a golf course
architect and this is the plan that they have come up with. It has been reviewed with the
Mayor, with certain members of the Council, Max Yerrington in particular and Wally. We
feel like what we have here is a great improvement, in fact the original acreage I think that
was designed into the golf course was somewhere around 25 acres, I think we are closer
to 50 to 55 acres that is being dedicated for golf course grounds. The fairways are wider,
the spray zones are wider, I don't think it is just a slight difference, I mean vre don't want
to drastically alter the ambiance of the course but vre want to certainly make it more
playable and more enjoyable to play. That was our goal when vue started this project, it has
taken us quite some time to get all of these details worked out. We has hoped we had it
in and ready to go sooner. I know that the Mayor is anxious to start turning dirt on the golf
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 14, 1994
Page 36
course as w~ are anxious to deed the ground over to him so that he can do that. So
anything we can do to help expedite that so we can get approval on a plan so we can go
forward and deed the ground to the city for the golf course I think would be appreciated by
us as the developer and by the City. I think we would all like to see this project move
forward as quickty as possible. I wasn't quite clear Mr. Chairman as to your comment on
the 23rd, is there an advertising requirement for that meeting.
Johnson: Yes, according to our City Clerk we wouldn't have sufficient time to get it on the
June 23rd meeting because it is not a regularly scheduled meeting it is a special meeting
and we would have to properly advertise it.
Turnbull: You have to advertise findings of fact?
Crookston: No, just the meeting.
Berg: The agenda of the meeting. (inaudible)
Turnbull: Two times, it would have to be advertised 2 Fridays.
Johnson: The paper is actually printed on Tuesday, it comes out on Friday. I didn't know
that until the other day either.
Turnbull: Well, basically that is where we have come on the project, I appreciate the
concerns of Mr. Janizek and Mr. Langley concerning the fact that they farm to the west.
Fortunately the prevailing wind is from the west so if the trash blows it shouldn't blow into
their farm but the dust from their farm will blow into, and we understand those issues and
we understand the issue of conveying water and we will do that. It may not be along the
existing route but it will get to their property and we will not impede the flow.
Johnson: Any questions of David?
Crookston: Can you give me some kind of idea of what kind of homes are going to be
constructed?
Turnbull: 1 would say these are probably going to be in, and I have a hard time pinning
down exact dollar values but the lot prices 1 imagine are going to be started near $30,000
and going up into the mid-40's. You are talking about a multiplier of 5 times, so we are
probably talking between $140,000 and $200,000 plus homes for the single family homes.
Rountree: How about the condos and townhouses?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 14, 1994
Page 37
Turnbull: Well, the condos and townhouses are I think one of the reasons, we are going
to be designing something for the retirement community out there. I don't know that there
is much that the market, those people have been served and those older retired people
who plan to golf like to congregate the golf course, so we would like to provide something
in that type of a market where they can get rid of their maintenance headaches on a yard
and enjoy a golf course setting. 1 don't have any specific plans right now and obviously
we will be providing those for your approval. But that as we look at that area around there
it is typically all single family homes. if we can provide a place for the retired people that
is a benefit, places less of a strain on schools and they typically make good neighbors as
long as they don't get to crotchety.
Johnson: Any other questions for Mr. Turnbull?
Rountree: Do you have any problems with taking Harbor Point coming in from the west
and flipping it up around and then back into the subdivision and providing a culdesac or
stub street into the parking lot and the clubhouse and eliminating the through access.
Turnbull: I will step over to the board and see if I interpret you correctly. Flipping this and
culdesacing this?
Rountree: Yes, it doesn't look like you would lose any lots.
Turnbull: I would discuss it, I think it has been designed that way by number one the golf
course designer, and number 2 1 think there are going to be certain people on the
Commission I don't know but certainly on the Council that may object to that. I am not
opposed to looking at it, but.
Rountree: Well, t just find it tough that you are arguing to not bring Interlachen through,
is that you will drain the subdivision through that. And it is okay to drain it out through an
existing subdivision to the north.
Turnbull: That wasn't our argument that was the argument of Ada County Highway district.
understand where you are coming from, I am not opposed to looking at it, but there is
probably going to be a variety of opinions on it.
Rountree: No doubt.
Johnson: Thank you, any comments from City Staff, Gary Smith or Shari Stiles? Not at
this time. Anyone else from the public before f close the public hearing? Seeing no one
then t will close the public hearing. We have annexation and zoning and a preliminary
plat.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 14, 1994
Page 38
Rountree: Mr. Chairman, I will make a motion that wee have findings of fact and
conclusions of law prepared for this recommendation by the City Attorney.
Hepper: Second
Johnson: We have a motion and a second to have the City Attorney prepare findings of
fact and conclusions of law for the Ashford Greens subdivision, all those in favor?
Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Johnson: I have nothing further, do you have anything? Entertain a motion.
Rountree: I move we adjourn.
Shearer: Second
Johnson: Moved and seconded we adjourn, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:34 P.M.
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
~~~~
J ON, CHAIRMAN
ATTEST:
~~~ .
WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CI CL RK
~~'~;~l~tA~
HEFORE THE MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
INTERWEST DEVELOPMENT, INC.
ANNE$ATION AND ZONING
RAVEN COVE # 5 SUBDIVISION
MERIHZAN, IDAHO
FINDINOS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The above entitled annexation and zoning application having
come on for consideration on February 8, 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, being tabled to April 12, 1994, and then
being tabled to May 10, 1994, and then being tabled to the June 14,
1994, meeting, and the Commission having heard and taken oral and
written testimony and the Applicant appearing through its engineer,
David Collins, and having duly considered the matter, the Planning
and Zoning Commission makes the following:
FINDINGS 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 February 8, 1994, the first
publication of which was fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing;
that the matter was duly considered at the February 8, 1994,
hearing; and that the public was given full opportunity to express
comments and submit evidence; and that copies of all notices were
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 1
C,
•
available to newspaper, radio and television stations.
2. That the property included in the application for
annexation and zoning is described in the application, and by this
reference is incorporated herein; that the property is
approximately 20.00 acres in size.
3. That the property is presently zoned by the county as R-T
(Rural Transition); that the Applicant requests that the property
be zoned R-4 and stated that the use proposed would be for proper
residential as dictated by the zone and submitted a proposed
preliminary plat.
4. The general area surrounding the property is used
agriculturally and residentially; that some of the property to the
north is platted for residential and some property to the north is
unplatted and vacant ground; that there is unplatted ground to the
west, east and south.
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;
the owners of record are Gerald L. Conrad and Joanne C. Conrad; the
Applicant, Interwest Development, Inc., indicates that it has an
option to purchase the property; that before the City can annex the
property, the owners of record must have requested the annexation
since this annexation and zoning application is not at the request
of the City of Meridian.
7. That the property included in the annexation and zoning
application is within the Area of Impact of the City of Meridian.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 2
8. That the parcel of ground requested to be annexed is
presently included within the Meridian Urban Service Planning Area
(U.S.P.A.) as the Urban Service Planning Area is defined in the
Meridian Comprehensive Plan; that the property is included within
an area designated in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan as existing
urban.
9. There were property owners appearing at the hearing;
Aloys Schlekoway testified that he was concerned on the access to
his property; Tom Geile testified that he owns the property to the
east and desired sewer and road access through this property and
that he thought the layout of the preliminary plat was "boxy".
10. That the Applicant indicated that the intended
development of the property is, as atated above, for single family
dwellings; in the subdivision application it is represented that
the lots would have a minimum of 8,000 square feet per and that the
houses would have a minimum square footage of 1,400 square feet.
11. The Applicant stated at the hearings that there would be
73 lots for single family dwellings, a 3.75 density per acre, that
the property would be bermed the same as along Cherry Lane and
there would be sidewalks and gutters.
12. 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.
13. That Meridian has, and is, experiencing a population
increase; that there are pressures on land previously used for
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 3
agricultural uses to be developed into residential subdivision
lots.
14. That the property can be physically serviced with City
water and sewer.
15. Meridian Police Department, Meridian Fire Department,
Meridian School District, Ada Street Name Committee, Central
District Health Department, Nampa Meridian Irrigation District,
Bureau of Reclamation, Idaho Power, and the Meridian Planning
Director submitted comments and such are incorporated herein as if
set forth in full. Also the Meridian City Engineer and the Ada
County Highway District submitted comments.
16. That the City Engineer, Gary Smith, commented, among
other comments, that the highest seasonal groundwater elevation
needs to be determined so that the bottom of building footings can
be set a minimum or 12 inches above that elevation; that there are
6 or so lots that do not appear to contain 8,000 square feet; that
a 10 inch water line shall be constructed along the projects
frontage on Pine Street; that the sewer and water mains shall exit
this projects north boundary in a public right of way in line with
the stub roadway shown on the previously approved preliminary plat
of Haven Cove; and that a 20 foot wide common lot access shall be
provided to the north in lieu of the 20 foot wide easement.
17. That the Planning Director, Shari Stiles, commented that
the landscape strip and bike path indicated to be provided in the
application needs to be detailed; that each lots needs to be 8,000
square feet exclusive of all easements; that a stub street to the
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 4
easterly boundary in line with Warrior Street needs to be provided;
and that irrigation relocations need authorization from the
appropriate irrigation entity.
18. The Meridian School District's comment on this annexation
request will accelerate the need for the District to construct
additional classrooms and/or adjust attendance boundaries.
Meridian schools do not have excess capacity; and it asked for
support of a development fee statute on new home construction or a
real estate transfer fee to help offset the costs of building
additional school facilities; the District has commented more
recently for an annexation which would be in the same elementary
school attendance zone that the subdivision proposed for the land
would mean 20 elementary aged children, 17 middle school aged
children and 20 senior high aged students; that Linder Elementary
School is at 1378 of capacity, Meridian Middle School at 1298 of
capacity and the Meridian High School at 1168 of capacity; went on
to state as follows:
"There is little opportunity to shift attendance boundaries
since the surrounding schools are also well over capacity.
Before we could support this subdivision, we would need land
dedicated to the district or at least made available at a
minimum price for a school site in this area. The site would
need water and sewer service available. In addition we would
need to pass another bond issue for the construction of
schools."
20. That the property is shown on the Meridian Comprehensive
Plan as being in a Single Family Residential area.
21. That the R-4, Residential District is described in the
Zoning Ordinance, 11-2-406 B. 3 as follows:
(R-4) LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT: The purpose of
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 5
the (R-4) District is to permit the establishment of low
density single-family dwellings, and to delineate those
areas where predominantly residential development has, or
is likely to occur in accord with the Comprehensive Plan
or 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) dwellings units per acre and requires
connection to the Municipal Water and Sewer systems of
the City of Meridian.";
19. That the Meridian Comprehensive Plan, under Land Use,
Residential Policies, 2.1U states as follows:
"Support a variety of residential categories (urban, rural,
single-family, multi-family, townhouses, 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, townhouses, apartments, condominiums."
"1.3 An open housing market for all persons, regardless of
race, sex, age, religion or ethnic background."
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 6
"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
continue farming in the area.
24. 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
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
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 7
r~
r~
provide for school services to current and future students.
25. 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.
26. 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."
27. That Section 11-9-605 G 1. states as follows:
"Planting strips 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."
28. 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;"
29. 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:
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 8
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."
30. 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 Council shall consider the Bicycle-Pedestrian
Desiqn Manual for Ada County (as prepared by Ada County
Highway District) when reviewing bicycle and pedestrian
pathway provisions within developments.
31. That the Applicant submitted an application for
preliminary plat along with the application for annexation and
zoning which application included a preliminary plat.
32. That proper notice was given as required by law and all
procedures before the Planning and Zoning Commission were 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
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 9
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 use application under Idaho Code, Section 50-
222, Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code, the Meridian City
Ordinances, 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 proposed 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, with the consent of the owners of the property, and is
not upon the 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).
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 10
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; 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; 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. The development agreement shall also address the landscaping
along Ustick Road, and maintenance thereof, by a mandatory home
owners association rather than the individual lot owners. The
Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions shall require the mandatory
homeowners association as a condition of annexation.
10. That the Applicant's property is in compliance with the
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 11
Comprehensive Plan, and therefore the annexation and zoning
Application is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan.
11. That the requirements of the Meridian City Engineer and
of the Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District, Meridian Fire
Department, Idaho Power, U. S. West, and the comments of the
Meridian Planning Director and City Engineer and these Findings and
Conclusion 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.
14. That proper and adequate access to the property is
available and will have to be maintained; that the house size of
1,400 square feet must be met.
15. That these conditions shall run with the land and bind
the applicant, the titled owners, and their assigns.
16. 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.
17. That if these conditions of approval are not met the
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 12
property shall be subject to de-annexation.
APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND
The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts and
approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions.
ROLL CALL
HEPPER
COMMISSIONER ROUNTREE
SHEARER
COMMISSIONER ALIDJANI
CHAIRMAN JOHNSON (TIE BREAKER)
VOTED=G/
VOTED
VOTED
DSCISION AND RECONNSNDATION
The Meridian ning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends
to the City Platt mmisaiea-of the City of Meridian
~'ourr i/
that they approve the annexation and zoning as stated above for the
property described in the application with the conditions set forth
in the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and that if the
conditions are not met that the property be de-annexed.
MOTION:
APPROVED: DISAPPROVED:
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 13
C
~ ORIGINAL
BEFORE THE MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
BOND CAMPBELL AND SHELLI CABA
ANNEXATION AND ZONING
NORTH OF USTICK AND WEST LOCUST GROVE ROAD
MERIDIAN, IDAHO
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The above entitled annexation and zoning application having
come on for consideration on June 14, 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 Commission having heard and taken
oral and written testimony and the Applicant, Bond Campbell,
appearing, and having duly considered the matter, the Planning and
Zoning Commission makes the following:
FINDINGS 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 14, 1994, the first
publication of which was fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing;
that the matter was duly considered at the June 14, 1994, hearing;
that the public was given full opportunity to express comments and
submit evidence; and that copies of all notices were made available
to newspaper, radio and television stations.
2. That the property included in the application for
annexation and zoning is described in the application, and by this
reference is incorporated herein; that the property to be developed
FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW/THE HOLLOWS Page - 1
is a 6 1/4 acre parcel; it is located at 1150 E. Ustick Rd. which
is north of Ustick, 1/4 mile west of Locust Grove and currently
adjacent to Rock Creek Subdivision; the development would include
9 lots.
3. That the property is presently zoned by the County RT
(Rural Transition); that the Applicant has requested that the
property be zoned R-4 Residential and stated that the use proposed
would be for R-4 Residential development.
4. The present land use has one single family residential
home and the remainder of the property surrounding the single
family residence is used for agricultural purposes; that the
Applicant's application for annexation and zoning stated that they
have approximately 6 1/4 acres to develop with 9 lots, the smallest
lot being 10,000 square feet and the largest being 15,000 square
feet; at the hearing, Applicant stated the smallest lot was 11,400
square feet and largest being 20,000 square feet; that Applicant
intends to fence the entire parcel of property.
5. That the property is adjacent and abutting to the present
City limits.
6. The Applicant's are the owner's of record of the
property, and have requested the annexation.
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 requested to be annexed
is presently included within the Meridian Urban Service Planning
Area as the Urban Service Planning Area is defined in the Meridian
FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW/THE HOLLOWS Page - 2
Comprehensive Plan.
9. That there was no testimony at the hearing other than the
Applicant's.
10. The Department of Health, the Nampa Meridian Irrigation
District, City Engineer, City Police Department, Nampa & Meridian
irrigation District, Meridian School District, Police Department
and City Fire Department did submit comments and such are
incorporated herein as if set forth in full.
11. The City Engineer, Gary Smith, commented that a legal
description needs to be written describing the property boundary
including the adjacent one half width of Ustick Road; that the
proposed 5 acre parcel has an approximate 100 foot contiguity to
the city limit line established by the annexation of Rock Creek
Subdivision; that water and sewer could be provided by extensions
of the 12 inch diameter main line in Ustick Road at the northwest
corner of the Howell Tract Subdivision.
12. That the Planning Director submitted a comment that a
development agreement was required as a condition of annexation and
that Applicant must work with Public Works Department staff to
ensure the property can be served by sewer and water in the near
future.
13. The Meridian School District's comment on this annexation
request was that the planned development will accelerate the need
for additional classrooms and/or to adjust school attendance
boundaries; that Meridian Schools do not have excess capacity and
nearly every school in the district is beyond capacity.
FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW/THE HOLLOWS 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 R-4, Residential District is described in the
Zoning Ordinance, 11-2-408 B. 3 as follows:
(R-4) LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT: The purpose of
the (R-4) District is to permit the establishment of low
density single-family dwellings, and to delineate those
areas where predominantly residential development has, or
is likely to occur in accord with the Comprehensive Plan
or 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) dwellings 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.
18. That the Meridian Comprehensive Plan, under Land Use,
Residential Policies, 2.1U states as follows:
"Support a variety of residential categories (urban, rural,
single-family, multi-family, townhouses, apartments,
condominiums, etc.) for the purpose of providing the City with
a range of affordable housing opportunities."
19. That the Meridian Comprehensive Plan, under Land Use,
FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW/THE HOLLOWS Page - 4
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 .
.'
20. 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."
21. 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, townhouses 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."
22. 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.
23. 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
FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW/THE HOLLOWS Page - 5
the city and designated in an approved development agreement; that
such comment is equally applicable to this Application.
24. 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
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.
25. 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
FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW/THE HOLLOWS Page - 6
in the City because of the imperilment to the health, welfare, and
safety of the citizens of the City of Meridian.
26. 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."
27. That Section 11-9-605 G 1. states as follows:
"Planting strips 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."
28. 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;"
29. That Section 11-9-605 R 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;
FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW/THE HOLLOWS Page - 7
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."
30. 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 Bicycle-Pedestrian Design Manual for Ada County (as
prepared by Ada County Highway District) when reviewing
bicycle and pedestrian pathway provisions within developments.
31. That proper notice was given as required by law and all
procedures before the Planning and Zoning Commission were 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 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 by the provisions contained in
Section 50-222, Idaho Code, Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code, the
FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW/THE HOLLOWS Page - 8
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 proposed 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 with the consent of the titled owners and the annexation
is not upon the 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
FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW/THE HOLLOWS Page - 9
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 Forrey, 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;
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. The development agreement shall also
address the landscaping along Ten Mile Road and Ustick Road, and
maintenance thereof, by a mandatory home owners association rather
than the individual lot owners. The Covenants, Conditions and
Restrictions shall require the mandatory homeowners association as
a condition of annexation.
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.
FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW/THE HOLLOWS Page - 10
•
11. That the requirements of the Meridian City Engineer,
Meridian Fire Department, U. S. West, and the comments of the
Meridian Planning Director and City Engineer and these Findings and
Conclusion 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; the Applicant shall
also determine the highest sesasonal ground water level and report
that to the City Engineer.
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.
14. That proper and adequate access to the property is
available and will have to be maintained; that the house size of
1,400 square feet must be met; that the minimum lot size shall be
11,400 square feet as represented by the Applicant.
15. That these conditions shall run with the land and bind
the applicant, the titled owners, and their assigns.
16. 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.
17. That if these conditions of approval are -Aet met the
Ao'r
FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW/THE HOLLOWS Page - 11
'~~ ~ ~
property shall be subject to de-annexation.
APPROVAL OF FINDINCiB OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts and
approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions.
ROLL CALL
COMMISSIONER HEPPER VOTED Af t-
COMMISSIONER ROUNTREE VOTED ///~~~ ~~~
COMMISSIONER SHEARER VOTED ~Zi~(~
COMMISSIONER ALIDJANI VOTED ~/
CHAIRMAN JOHNSON (TIE BREAKER) VOTED
The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends
to the City Council of the City of Meridian that they approve the
annexation and zoning as stated above for the property described in
the application with the conditions set forth in the Findings of
Fact and Conclusions of Law and that if the conditions are not met
that the property not be annexed, or if the property has been
annexed that it be de-annexed.
MOTION:
APPROVED: DISAPPROVED:
FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW/THE HOLLOWS Page - 12
~ • ORlGi~A~
BEFORE THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN
NEB-i COMPANY
ANNEXATION AND ZONING
LOTS 8 - 17 OF PLEASANT VALLEY SUBDIVISION,
EXCEPT THE NORTHERLY 12.4 FEET THEREOF
MERIDIAN, IDAHO
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The above entitled annexation and zoning application having
come on for consideration on June 14, 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 City Council having heard and
taken oral and written testimony and the Applicant appearing
through James C. Merkle, P. E., and having duly considered the
matter, the Planning and Zoning Commission makes the following:
FINDINGS 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 14, 1994, the first
publication of which was fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing;
that the matter was duly considered at the June 14, 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
annexation and zoning is described in the application, and by this
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 1
reference is incorporated herein;
approximately 9.1 acres in size.
that the property is
3. That the property is presently zoned by the county as R-8
residential; that the Applicant requests that the property be zoned
C-G General Retail and Service Commercial (C-G); that no specific
use for the property was presented but a letter accompanying the
application stated that the proposed use was for general
commercial .
4. The general area surrounding the property is used as R-8
County residential and the property on the north is agricultural
land zoned R-T by the County.
5. That the property is now adjacent and abutting to the
present City limits as a result of the AVest annexation, but the
property was not contiguous at the time of the filing of the
application.
6. That NEB-i Company is the Applicant; that Applicant does
not own the land; that the owner is Roger C. Crandlemire and he has
consented to the application and has requested this annexation and
zoning and the application is not at the request of the City of
Meridian.
7. That the Applicant's annexation and zoning application
was submitted with a letter that stated the present use of the land
is for pasture and farmland.
8. Ada County Highway District (ACHD) submitted comments and
such are incorporated herein as if set forth in full.
9. That Gary Smith, City Engineer, submitted comments and
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 2
they are incorporated herein as if set forth in full; the
Applicant's representative stated at the hearing that he had no
problem with the Engineer's comments.
10. That the Planning and Zoning Administrator, Shari Stiles
submitted comments and they are incorporated herein as if set forth
in full; that the Applicant's representative stated at the hearing
that he had a problem with the comment that a 35 foot landscape
setback was required and the Applicant was proposing as 15 foot
setback as required in the Zoning Ordinance; that the 35 foot
setback is a Comprehensive Plan goal for the entryway corridors to
the City, of which Fairview Avenue is such. The Planner also
commented that the annexation and land use request of C-G generally
complies with the current Comprehensive Plan; that no development
proposal has been received; that the legal description does not
appear to include all the area to the centerlines of adjacent
roadways and a revised legal incorporating these area areas need to
be submitted; that a development agreement is necessary prior to
annexation addressing the 35 foot landscaped setback, ;tiling of
ditches, pedestrian walkways,m ACHD right-of-way dedication, and
other City goals and requirements; and that depending on intended
use, conditional use permits may be necessary.
11. The Meridian Police and Fire Department Departments
submitted comments as did the Central District Health Department,
Nampa Meridian Irrigation District and U. S. West; that all such
comments are incorporated herein as if set forth in full.
13. There were no property owners appearing at the Planning
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 3
and Zoning hearing to make comments on the application
14. That the property included in the annexation and zoning
application is within the Area of Impact of the City of Meridian.
15. That the parcel of ground requested to be annexed is
presently included within the Meridian Urban Service Planning Area
(U.S.P.A.) as the Urban Service Planning Area is defined in the
Meridian Comprehensive Plan.
16. That the property can be physically serviced with City
water and sewer.
17. 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
and commercial.
18. That the following pertinent statements are made in the
Meridian Comprehensive Plan:
A. Under ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, Economic Development Goal
Statement
Policies, Page 19
1.1 The City of Meridian shall make every effort to
create a positive atmosphere which encourages
industrial and commercial enterprises to locate in
Meridian.
1.2 It is the policy of the City of Meridian to set
aside areas where commercial and industrial
interests and activities are to dominate.
1.3 The character, site improvements and type of new
commercial or industrial developments should be
harmonized with the natural environment and respect
the unique needs and features of each area.
1.5 Strip industrial and commercial uses are not in
compliance with the Comprehensive Plan.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 4
B.
1.6 It is the policy of the City of Meridian to support
shopping facilities which are effectively
integrated into new or existing residential areas,
and plan for new shopping centers as growth and
development warrant.
1.8 The City of Meridian intends to establish a Design
Review Ordinance which will foster compatible land
use and design within the development, and with
contiguous developments; and encourage innovations
in building techniques, so that the growing demands
of the community are met, while at the same time
providing for the efficient use of such lands.
Under LAND USE
1. EXISTING CONDITIONS, Page 21
Commercial and retail areas are established along
major arterials, (East First Street, Cherry Lane,
Fairview Avenue, Franklin and Meridian Roads) and
include small commercial center and individual
businesses. Uses include retail, wholesale,
service, office, and limited manufacturing.
2. GENERAL POLICIES, Page 22
The following land use activities are not in
compliance with the basic goals and policies of the
Comprehensive Plan:
a. Strip commercial and strip industrial.
b. Scattered residential (sprawl or spread).
3. COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY CENTERS, Page 25
a. In all cases, the locations of Commercial
Activity Centers should be guided by
performance and developments standards. These
standards consider, among other aspects:
1. Traffic Volume and Type
2. Trip Generation
3. impacts on Arterial Street System
4. Proximity to Other Commercial .Development
5. Impacts on Neighborhood Residential Areas
6. Accessibility of Site
7. Parking Demands
8. Pedestrian Circulation
9. Available Utility Systems
10. Aesthetics (Design Considerations)
11. Use Impacts Upon Other Adjacent Uses
12. Internal Circulation Design
13. Drainage
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 5
4. COMMERCIAL POLICIES, Page 26
a. 4.6U Community shopping centers will be
encouraged to locate at arterial intersections
and near high-traffic intensity areas.
b. 4.7U Community shopping centers must be
planned for future integration of adjoining
residential uses.
5. MIXED-PLANNED USE DEVELOPMENT, Page 28
Mixed-use Area at Locust Grove Road and Fairview
Avenue Plus Area North of Fairview Avenue.
These areas are within Ada County, but nearly
surrounded by the City of Meridian. The area is
characterized by large rural lots, and a sparse
development pattern. In order to stimulate planned
development in these areas, the following policies
apply:
a. 5.16U All development requests will be
subject to development review and conditional
use permit processing to ensure neighborhood
compatibility.
b. 5.17U A variety of coordinated, planned
and compatible land uses are desirable for
this area, including low-to-high density
residential, office, light industrial and
commercial land uses.
c. 5.18U Existing residential properties will
be protected from incompatible land use
development in this area. Screening and
buffers will be incorporated into all
development requests in this area.
d. 5.19U A planned community shopping center
is anticipated near the Locust Grove
Road/Fairview Avenue intersection.
C. Under TRANSPORTATION, Page 42
1. Existing Conditions
a. Cherry Lane/Fairview, East of Meridian Road,
is listed as a principal arterial
b. Locust Grove Road is listed as a Minor
arterial.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 6
D. Under COMMUNITY DESIGN, at Page 71
1. Entryway Corridors
c. Fairview Avenue (East entrance).
2. Entrance Corridors Goal Statement - Promote,
encourage, develop and maintain aesthetically
pleasing approaches to the City of Meridian.
3. Policies, Page 71
a. 4.3U Use the Comprehensive Plan, subdivision
regulations, and zoning to discourage strip
development and encourage clustered, landscaped
business development on entrance corridors.
b. 4.4U Encourage 35-foot landscaped setbacks
for new development on entrance corridors. The
City shall require, as a condition of development
approval, landscaping along all entrance corridors.
4. Neighborhood Identify Goal Policies, Page 72
a. 6.4U Limit the conversion of predominantly
residential neighborhoods to nonresidential
uses, and require effective buffers and
mitigation measures through conditional use
permits when appropriate nonresidential uses
are proposed.
19. That in the Rural Area section of the Comprehensive Plan,
Land Use, Rural Areas, page 28, it states as follows:
"Land covered by this policy section has characteristics which
generally allow for agricultural and rural residential
activity due to the existence of irrigation systems, soil
characteristics and relative freedom from conflicting urban
land uses. Where community growth creates pressure for new
development, it must be recognized that agricultural land can
no longer economically continue to be identified or used as
agricultural land to the exclusion of orderly. city growth and
development."
20. That Section 6.3, of the LAND USE section of the
Comprehensive Plan, states that land in agricultural activity
should so remain in agricultural activity until urban services
(municipal sewer and water facilities) can be provided.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 7
•
21. That Section 6.3, of the LAND USE section of the
Comprehensive Plan, states as follows:
"Existing rural residential land uses and farms/ranches shall
be buffered from urban development expanding into rural areas
by innovative land use planning techniques."
22. That the property is included within an area designated
on the Generalized Land Use Map in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan
as a commercial area; that the commercial area is in an area .that
is listed as Mixed/Planed Use Development area.
24. That the requested zoning of General Retail and Service
Commercial, (C-G) is defined in the Zoning Ordinance at 11-2-408 B.
11. as follows:
(C-G) General Retail and Service Commercial: The purpose of
the (C-G) District is to provide for commercial uses which are
customarily operated entirely or almost entirely within a
building; to provide for a review of the impact of proposed
commercial uses which are auto and service oriented and are
located in close proximity to major highway or arterial
streets; to fulfill the need of travel-related services as
well as retail sales for the transient and permanent motoring
public. All such districts shall be connected to the
Municipal Water and Sewer systems of the City of Meridian, and
shall not constitute strip commercial development and
encourage clustering of commercial development.
25. That Section 11-2-409, ZONING SCHEDULE OF USE CONTROL, B,
Commercial, lists commercial uses allowed in the various zoning
districts of the City; that Shopping Centers, Community, are not
listed as allowed uses in the General Retail and Service Commercial
(C-G) district; that Shopping Centers, Neighborhood, are not listed
as allowed uses in the General Retail and Service Commercial (C-G)
district; that individual department stores, retail stores,
restaurants, and storage facilities, indoors or outdoors, are
allowed uses in the C-G district; that planned commercial
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page B
developments, are an allowed use in the C-G district.
26. That Planned Development is defined in 11-2-403 B, at
page 20 of the Zoning Ordinance booklet, as follows:
"An area of land which is developed as a single entity for a
number of uses in combination with or exclusive of other
supportive uses. A PD may be entirely residential,
industrial, or commercial or a mixture of compatible uses. A
PD does not necessarily correspond to lot size, bulk, density,
lot coverage required, open space or type of residential,
commercial or industrial uses as established in any one or
more created districts or this Ordinance."
and a Planned General Development is defined as follows:
"A development not otherwise distinguished under Planned
Commercial, Industrial, Residential Developments, or in which
the proposed use of interior and exterior spaces requires
unusual design flexibility to achieve a completely logical and
complimentary conjunction of uses and functions. This PD
classification applies to essential public services, public or
private recreation facilities, institutional uses, community
facilities or a PD which includes a mix of residential,
commercial or industrial uses."
27. That under 11-2-409, ZONING SCHEDULE OF USS CONTROL, B
Commercial, Planned Commercial Development, is a permitted use in
the C-G district and Planned Unit Development - General, is an
allowed conditional use in the C-G district.
28. 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
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 9
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
District which provide school service to current and future
residents of the City; that the City knows that the increase in
population, and the housing for that 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.
29. 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 lots in the
City, because of the imperilment to the health, welfare, and safety
of the citizens of the City of Meridian.
30. 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."
31. That Section 11-9-605 G 1. states as follows:
"Planting strips 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."
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 10
•
32. 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;"
33. That Section 11-9-605 R 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."
34. 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 Council shall consider the Bicycle-Pedestrian
Design Manual for Ada County (as prepared by Ada County
Highway District) when reviewing bicycle and pedestrian
pathway provisions within developments."
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 11
•
35. That 11-9-607 A, of the Subdivision Ordinance, states in
part as follows:
"The City's policy is to encourage developers of land
development and construction projects to utilize the
provisions of this Section to achieve the following:
1. A development pattern in accord with the goals,
objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan;
5. A more convenient pattern of commercial, residential and
industrial uses as well as public services which support
such uses."
36. The Comprehensive Plan, recently adopted, does state that
in the Mixed-Use Area at Locust Grove Road and Fairview Avenue
development requests will be subject to development review and
conditional use permit processing to ensure neighborhood
compatibility.
37. That proper notice was given as required by law and all
procedures before the Planning and Zoning Commission and City
Council were 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 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 City Council has judged these annexation, zoning
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Paqe 12
and conditional use applications under Idaho Code, Section 50-222,
Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code, Meridian City Ordinances,
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 Council 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 proposed 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 with the consent of the property owner, and is not upon
the 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, and Section 11-9-605 M., which pertains to the tiling
of ditches and waterways and 11-9-606 14., which requires
pressurized irrigation.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 13
10. That the Applicant's proposed use of the 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 City adopted the Comprehensive Plan at its
meeting on January 4, 1994, and has not amended the Zoning
Ordinance to reflect the changes made in the Comprehensive Plan;
thus, uses may be called for or allowed in the Comprehensive Plan
but the Zoning Ordinance may not address provisions for the use; it
is concluded that upon annexation, as conditions of annexation, the
City may impose restrictions that are not otherwise contained in
the current Zoning and Subdivision and Development Ordinances.
12. The Applicant has not stated or represented its intention
is to development, which is of concern to the Commission; it is
therefore concluded, as a condition of annexation and zoning, that
any use or development of the property shall only be allowed as
conditional uses.
13. That it is concluded that the City could annex the
property and zone it C-G but once the property was zoned C-G, the
Applicant could place many different uses on the property without
additional approval from the City other than building permits,
which limits the control that the City should have over the
development and the uses of the property due to the mandates of the
Comprehensive Plan.
14. That it is concluded that since the Comprehensive Plan,
under LAND USE, Mixed-Use Area at Locust Grove Road and Fairview
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 14
Avenue, in 5.16U, states that all development requests will be
subject to development review and conditional use permit processing
to insure neighborhood compatibility, and since the City should
have control over any uses that are to be placed on the land, it is
therefore concluded that development of the parcel of land is
conditioned on being developed as a Commercial Planned Development,
which is allowed in the General Retail and Service Commercial (C-G)
district, or under the conditional use permit process.
15. Therefore, it is concluded that the property should be
annexed and zoned General Retail and Service Commercial (C-G), but
only capable of being developed as a planned commercial development
or under the conditional use permit process.
16. That, as a condition of annexation and the zoning of C-G,
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, among other things, the
following:
1. Inclusion into the development of the requirements of 11-
9-605
a. C, Pedestrian Walkways.
b. G 1, Planting Strips.
c. H, Public Sites and Open Spaces.
d. K, Lineal Open Space Corridors.
e. L, Pedestrian and Bike Path Ways.
2. Payment by the Applicant, or if required, any assigns,
heirs, executors or personal representatives, of any
impact, development, or transfer fee, adopted by the
City.
3. Addressing the subdivision access linkage, screening,
buffering, transitional land uses, traffic study and
recreation services.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Paqe 15
4. An impact fee to help acquire a future school or park
sites to serve the area.
5. An impact fee, or fees, for park, police, and fire
services as determined by the city.
6. Appropriate berming and landscaping.
7. Submission and approval of any required plate.
8. Submission and approval of individual building, drainage,
lighting, parking, and other development plans under the
Planned Development guidelines, including plans for the
storage units.
9. Harmonizing and integrating the site improvements with
the existing residential development.
10. Establishing the 35 foot landscaped setback required
under the Comprehensive Plan and landscaping the same.
11. Addressing the comments of the Planning Director, Shari
Stiles.
12. The sewer and water requirements.
13. Agreeing that the Meridian Comprehensive Plan is
applicable to the land and any development.
14. Traffic plans and access into and out of any development.
15. And any other items deemed necessary by the City Staff,
including design review of all development, and
conditional use processing as required under the Meridian
Comprehensive Plan.
17. That Section 11-2-417 D of the Meridian Zoning Ordinance
states in part as follows:
"If property is annexed and zoned, the City may require or
permit, as a condition of the zoning, that an owner or
developer make a written commitment concerning the use or
development of the subject property. If a commitment is
required or permitted, it shall be recorded in the office of
the Ada County Recorder and shall take effect upon the
adoption of the ordinance annexing and zoning the property, or
prior if agreed to by the owner of the parcel. "•
that since the above section states that the development agreement
shall take effect upon the adoption of the ordinance annexing and
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 16
zoning the parcel and since no development agreement has been
agreed on, or even discussed, it is concluded that the development
agreement is information that the City Council needs prior to the
final action on the annexing and zoning applications, which is the
annexation ordinance, and therefore pursuant to 11-2-416 F 2. the
City Council may desire to continue the matter from meeting to
meeting until the development agreement is executed by all
necessary parties.
18. That it is concluded that the annexing and zoning of the
property is in the best interests of the City of Meridian, but it
is concluded that there shall be no annexation until the
requirements of these Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are
met and the annexation and zoning is conditioned upon meeting the
requirements of these Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.
19. That the requirements of the Meridian Police Department
Meridian City Engineer, Ada County Highway District, Meridian
Planning Director, Central District Health Department, and the
Nampa ~ Meridian Irrigation District, shall be met and addressed in
a development agreement.
20. 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 pressurized irrigation shall be
installed and constructed, and if not so done the property shall be
subject to de-annexation.
21. That the Applicant will be required to connect to
Meridian water and sewer and resolve how the water and sewer mains
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 17
will serve the land; that the development of the property shall be
subject to and controlled by the Subdivision and Development
Ordinance and the development agreement.
22. That these conditions shall run with the land and bind
the applicant and its assigns.
23. With compliance of the conditions contained herein, the
annexation and zoning of General Retail and Service Commercial (C-
G), would be in the best interest of the City of Meridian.
24. That if these conditions of approval are not met, the
property shall not be annexed.
APPROVAL OF FIRDIN(~S OF FACT AND
The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of the City
Council of Meridian hereby adopts and approves these Findings of
Fact and Conclusions.
ROLL CALL
COMMISSIONER HEPPER
COMMISSIONER ROUNTREE
COMMISSIONER SHEARER
COMMISSIONER ALIDJANI
CHAIRMAN JOHNSON (TIE BREAKER)
VOTED
VOTED
VOTED
VOTED
VOTED
•'i
ti's
,1,1
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Paqe 18
• !
ON
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 enters 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 be annexed.
MOTION:
APPROVED: /~"' ~'~' DISAPPROVED:
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 19
~- ~ ~ 1
BEFORE THE MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
BOISE RESEARCH CENTER. INC.
ANNE%ATION AND ZONING
SW 1/4 OF SECTION 3, T.3 N., R.1 W., B.M.
EAST OF BLACK CAT ROAD
MERIDIAN. IDAHO
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The above entitled annexation and zoning application having
come on for consideration on June 14, 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 Commission having heard and taken
oral and written testimony and the Applicant appearing through ita
representative, Mike Wardle, and having duly considered the matter,
the Planning and Zoning Commission makes the following:
FINDINGS 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 14, 1994, the first
publication of which was fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing;
that the matter was duly considered at the June 14, 1994, hearing;
that the public was given full opportunity to express comments and
submit evidence; and that copies of all notices were made available
to newspaper, radio and television stations.
2. That the property included in the application for
ASHFORD 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 25 acres in size; it is located on the south side of
Black Cat Road between Ustick and Cherry Lane; the parcel is part
of a parcel of property that was annexed by the City over fourteen
years ago that is intended to be developed into 225 single family
lots and portions of the entire parcel of approximately 159 acres
are reserved for a medium residential area. That the property to
be annexed is only a small portion of the Applicant's entire
proposed development.
3. That the property is presently zoned by the County RT
(Rural Transition); that the Applicant has requested that the
property be zoned R-4 Residential and stated that the use proposed
would be for R-4 Residential development and a planned unit
development.
4. The present land has been used for agricultural pursuits.
The Applicant submitted a preliminary plat of the entire parcel and
stated that they have a density of 2.85 dwelling units per acre;
that the density was figured including the land that is going to be
donated to the City for an additional portion of the golf course
and medium density residential area calculated at eight dwelling
units per acre; that the Applicant stated in the preliminary plat
application that the minimum square footage of lots was 7,000
square feet as a planned unit development, that the minimum square
footage of the structures was undetermined, that the dwellings
would include single family, and townhouses, condominiums or
ASHFORD FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 2
cluster housing; that there would be a home owners association but
no covenants were submitted; sprinkler systems would be provided;
that all streets are proposed to be built to ACHD standards; and
that the Applicant stated in the plat application that the value
range would be $125,000.00 and up.
That at the hearing the Applicant's representative stated that
they wanted consideration as a planned unit development, that the
golf course presented a significant amount of open space and that
presented several considerations in terms of design that are
different and unique, some of which were the length of the cul-de-
sacs, lengths of blocks, approval of lots less than 8,000 square
feet, length of street frontage not being 80 feet, and access to
lots by private drives; that the representative kept referring to
a planned unit development but no application for a conditional use
to approve a planned unit development has been submitted and the
land for the golf course addition would not be open for general use
by the residents
5. That the property is adjacent and abutting to the present
City limits.
6. The Applicant is the owner of record of the property.
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 requested to be annexed
is presently included within the Meridian Urban Service Planning
Area as the Urban Service Planning Area is defined in the Meridian
Comprehensive Plan.
ASHFORD FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 3
9. There were no property owners in the immediate area that
testified objecting to the Application.
10. City Engineer, Gary Smith, commented that there were many
lots shown on the proposed preliminary plat that do not have 80
feet of street frontage, there were many lots that do not have
8,000 square feet, and that whether or not this project can be
served by the City's existing water supply system will need to be
determined through use of the water facilities model and that a new
well may be necessary. That Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District
commented that its water courses and easements need to be protected
and recommended that irrigation water be made available to this
development.
12. The Central District Department of Health, the Nampa
Meridian Irrigation District, City Engineer, City Police
Department, Idaho Power, Ada County Street Name Committee, U. S.
West and City Fire Department submitted comments and such are
incorporated herein as if set forth in full; that the Ada County
Highway District and Meridian City Planner may submit comments and
if it does those comments will be, and are, incorporated herein as
if set forth in full.
13. That the property is shown on the Meridian Comprehensive
Plan as being in existing urban area.
14. 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.
ASHFORD FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 4
15. 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.
16. That the property can be physically serviced with City
water and sewer, if the Applicant extends the lines to meet City
Ordinances.
17. 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: The purpose of
the (R-4) District is to permit the establishment of low
density single-family dwellings, and to delineate those
areas where predominantly residential development has, or
is likely to occur in accord with the Comprehensive Plan
or 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) dwellings 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 and a minimum lot size
of 8,000 square feet.
18. That the Meridian Comprehensive Plan, under Land Use,
Residential Policies, 2.1U states as follows:
"Support a variety of residential categories (urban, rural,
single-family, multi-family, townhouses, apartments,
condominiums, etc.) for the purpose of providing the City with
a range of affordable housing opportunities.";
that the area surrounding the Applicant's property is developed,
and is being developed with R-4 Residential; that Meridian has a
substantial amount of land zoned R-8 and land used for apartments.
ASHFORD FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 5
19. 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 .
20. 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."
21. 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, townhouses 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."
22. 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
continue farming in the area.
23. 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
ASHFORD FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 6
comment is equally applicable to this Application.
24. 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.
25. The Meridian School District submitted comment in prior
annexation requests, and such is incorporated herein as if set
forth in full; its comment was that there is no excess capacity in
the schools of the District and that residents of the new
subdivision could not be assured of attending the neighborhood
schools; the School District asked for support for a development
fee or a transfer fee to help offset the costs of building
additional schools.
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
ASHFORD FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 7
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
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 strips 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."
ASHFORD FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 8
30. That Section 11-9-605 B 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;"
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 Bicycle-Pedestrian Deaian Manual for Ada County (as
prepared by Ada County Bighway District) when reviewing
bicycle and pedestrian pathway provisions within developments.
ASBFORD FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 9
33. That proper notice was given as required by law and all
procedures before the Planning and Zoning Commission were 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 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 by the provisions contained in
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.
ASHFORD FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 10
6. That the land within the proposed 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 the titled owner and the annexation is not upon
the 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, R, L and prior comments of the
previous Planning Director, Wayne Forrey, 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-
ASHFORD FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Paqe - 11
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;
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. The development agreement shall also
address the landscaping along Black Cat Road, and maintenance
thereof, by a mandatory home owners association.. The Covenants,
Conditions and Restrictions shall require the mandatory homeowners
association as a condition of annexation.
The development agreement should also address the items
requested by the Applicant relating to the length of the cul-de-
sacs, length of blocks, lots less than 8,000 square feet, street
frontage not being 80 feet, and access to lots by private drives.
Also, if the Applicant desires to gain the advantages of a planned
unit development it must apply for a conditional use permit-€e~~
as required by 11-2-409 A, as the City
cannot grant those requests without them being presented as a
variance or under a conditional use permit for a planned unit
development.
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.
ASBFORD FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 12
11. That the requirements of the Meridian City Engineer,
Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District, Meridian Fire Department,
Meridian Police Department, Idaho Power, U. S. West, and the
comments of the Meridian Planning Director, when submitted, shall
be met, and, if appropriate, addressed in the 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 proper and adequate access to the property is
available and will have to be maintained; that the house size
required in the R-4 District of 1,400 square feet must be met and
that the lot size of 8,000 square feet must be met, unless
Applicant applies for a variance from that requirement or submits
a conditional use application for a planned residential unit
development.
14. That the Applicant shall, as a condition of annexation
determine the highest level of seasonal groundwater.
15. That these conditions shall run with the land and bind
the applicant, the titled owners, and their assigns.
16. 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.
17. That if these conditions of approval are not met the
ASHFORD FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 13
property shall not be annexed or shall be subject to de-annexation.
APPROVAL OF FINDINOS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts and
approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions.
ROLL CALL
COMMISSIONER HEPPER
COMMISSIONER ROUNTREE VOTED
COMMISSIONER SHEARER
COMMISSIONER ALIDJANI VOTED
CHAIRMAN JOHNSON (TIE BREAKER) VOTED
ASHFORD FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 14
DECISION AND
The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends
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 with the 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 a pressurized irrigation system as
conditions 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, and that if the conditions are not met that
the property not be annexed or be de-annexed if it has been
annexed.
MOTION: L
APPROVED: DISAPPROVED:
ASHFORD FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 15
~ , ORIGINAL
MERIDIAN PLANNING $ ZONING COMMISSION MEETING: June 23.7994
APPLICANT: BRIGHTON CORPORATION AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: 5
REQUEST: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR ASHFORD GREENS SUBDMSK)N
AGENCY COMMENTS
CITY CLERK:
CITY ENGINEER:
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR:
CITY ATTORNEY: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
CITY POLICE DEPT:
CITY FIRE DEPT:
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: f L-I ~S o 'L
MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: ~ I ~ ~~ ~~ ~ I
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: ~Qi ~ ~~ r,~^~
,~' U
ADA COUNTY STREET NAME COMMITTEE: ~~ (J P~u ~ ~~ `1 , ~/~~
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: r SS Cj ~ v -~'1 ~~
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: ~~ ~~(/~~ ~J~~~i ~ ~d,,,~l ~ ~~~
SETTLERS IRRIGATION: ~ (~~ ~ ~ ~ ~J
I G (~/
IDAHO POWER: ~ ~ , ~,~ J ~"
US WEST: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ I`~
~t`~-
iNTERMOUNTAIN GAS: ~~'' S
~, I ~~
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION: ~ n ~,~