Loading...
1995 01-100 • MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AGENDA TUESDAY, JANUARY 10, 1995 - 7:30 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING HELD DECEMBER 13,1994: (APPROVED) FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR REZONE REQUEST FROM R-4 TO L-0 WITH A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT BY MICHAEL AND ANGELA DAVIES: (APPROVED) 2. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING REQUEST BY CAROL LOTSPEICH: (APPROVED) 3. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING REQUEST BY PACIFIC WATER WORKS CO., INC.:(APPROVED) 4. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST BY LYNN AND KENNETH SKINNER: (APPROVED) 5. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST BY CALLISON PARTNERSHIP: (APPROVED) 6. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR AVEST PLAZA BY AVEST LIMITED PARTNERSHIP: (TABLED UNTIL FEBRUARY 14, 1995) 7. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A 3,000 SQUARE FOOT DRIVE-THRU BANKING FACILITY BY AVEST LIMITED PARTNERSHIP: (TABLED UNTIL FEBRUARY 14, 1995) 8. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW AN APPROXIMATELY 172,000 SQUARE FOOT RETAIL/GROCERY STORE BY FRED MEYER, INC.: (TABLED UNTIL FEBRUARY 14, 1995) 9. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING FOR THE LAKE AT CHERRY LANE SUBDIVISION NO. 5 AND 6 BY STEINER DEVELOPMENT: (TABLED UNTIL FEBRUARY 14, 1995) 10. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR THE LAKE CHERRY LANE SUBDIVISION NO. 5 & 6 BY STEINER DEVELOPMENT: (TABLED UNTIL FEBRUARY 14, 1995) 0 0 11. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR REZONE FORM R-4 TO L-0 BY JAMES AND JEAN FULLER: (CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW) 12. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR PERMISSION TO CONSTRUCT A CONVENIENCE STORE/GAS STATION BY JAMES AND JEAN FULLER: (CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW) 13. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR AN ACCESSORY USE PERMIT FOR A FAMILY DAY CARE BY KELLY NESTEN: (CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW) 14. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW AN OFFICE USE BY BORUP CONSTRUCTION: (CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW) 15. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW PLANNED DEVELOPMENT - COMMERCIAL BY FRED LOTRIDGE: (CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW) 16. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A 12 CHILD DAY CARE FACILITY BY LYNN JONES: (CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW) 17. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR REZONE FROM R-4 TO R-8 AND L-0 BY MICHAEL GAMBLIN: (CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW) 18. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW AUTOMOTIVE REPAIR AND SERVICE BY LESLIE MIGNEAULT: (CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW) 9 0 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AGENDA TUESDAY, JANUARY 10, 1995 - 7:30 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING HELD DECEMBER 13,1994: 1. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR REZONE REQUEST FROM R-4 TO L-0 WITH A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT BY MICHAEL AND ANGELA DAVIES: �sff pn �avoe-a,6-P�- 2. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR ANNEXATI N AN ZONING REQUEST BY CAROL LOTSPEICH: a"rzgv-e l r "'rs Ok to 3. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR ANNEXATION AND /, ZONING REQUEST BY PACIFIC WATER WORKS CO., INC.: abol-vve 1;4 �f e/C parr ox rec©.zd�nv �'/c 4. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR CONDITIONAL USE _ PERMIT REQUEST BY LYNN AND KENNETH SKINNER: �aJI on bo C' /C 5. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST BY CALUSON PARTNERSHIP: A I?Qjj- Gh 6 6''/(L 6. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR AVEST PLAZA BY AVEST LIMITED PARTNERSHIP: 7. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A 3,000 SQUARE FOOT DRIVE-THRU BANKING FACILITY BY AVEST LIMITED PARTNERSHIP: �c/-i comm entt 8. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW AN APPROXIMATELY 172,000 SQUARE FOOT RETAIL/GROCERY STORE BY FRED MEYER, INC.: •A, - Fab. 14- 9. 4 9. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING FOR THE LAKE AT CHERRY LANE SUBDIVISION NO. 5 AND 6 BY STEINER DEVELOPMENT: 7'4, . wn t>71y�. p{'F-t f-7 i-'es�/�e� FeSl�t t7f/-/!� QPI'rova.e 10. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR THE LAKE CHERRY LANE SUBDIVISION NO. 5 & 6 BY STEINER DEVELOPMENT: 11. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR REZONE FORM R-4 TO L-0 BY JAMES AND JEAN FULLER: edy -'-" /w �a cpa e '11f < c/L 12. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR PERMISSION TO CONSTRUCT A CONVENIENCE STORE/GAS STATION BY JAMES AND JEAN FULLER: 6!dy attbi-ney 1b 1/`E e/L 13. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR AN ACCESSORY USE PERMIT FOR A FAMILY DAY CARE BY KELLYMTEN: 14. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW AN OFFICE USE BY BORUP CONSTRUCTION: My K,11161 ey % pr,epa�.e JI-f' ee% 15. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW PLANNED DEVELOPMENT - COMI ERCIAL BY FRED LOTRIDGE: ('/ /-,o ably y tv prepuce /f / C/C 16. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A 12 CHILD DAY CARE FACILITY BY LYNN JONES: L'i?-y a ny to /-lf" 9 e% 17. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR REZONE FROM R-4 TO R-8 AND L-0 BY MICHAEL GAMBLIN: , 18. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW AUTOMOTIVE REPAIR AND SERVICE BY LESLIE MIGNEAULT: CITY OF MERIDIAN 0 cl HUB OF TREASURE VALLEY 33 EAST IDAHO MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 PUBLIC MEETING SIGN-UP SHEET NAME: PHONE NUMBER: ----G------t--------------------r--! -_---o-/--✓------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------ �.SJCf{vcr—-- -- ------------------------ _G��J�---1w_i11L------ ------- ---------------- 16 91 n w i i t4, -�----------- ------------- ---- --------- 7 3---- C9iY OF MERIDIAN JAN 1 G FLUB OF TREASURE VALLEY 33 EAST IDAHO MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 PUBLIC MEETING SIGN-UP SHEET NAME: L_ _L-� ,n Q----------- —PHONE NUMBER_ 3-)-)-q7 ----- '- -----------------------------------------------------8 D y11------ ----------------���---ya--------- -- --- �E-------------------------------------------------- -------------------- 4 ------- 0 0 -- --- - -- The regular meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order by Chairman Jim Johnson at 7:30 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Tim Hepper, Charlie Rountree, Jim Shearer: MEMBERS ABSENT: Moe Alidjani: OTHERS PRESENT: Will Berg, Wayne Crookston, Bruce Freckleton, Shari Stiles, Kelly Nesten, Jamie Singleton, Ernest Hepper, Blanche Hepper, Les Migneault, R.L. Stucker, Kathleen Weber, Angela Davies, Norma Campbell, Tressie Snodgrass, Eileen Allison, Walter Andt, Keith Borup, Cheryl Botkin, Vernon Croft, Alice Rahan, J.R. Patey, Dale Hook, Richard Britton, Clark Burkett, Mr. & Mrs. John Longden, Judy Saunderson, Herbert Benn, Mr. & Mrs. Roger Allen, Mr. & Mrs. Lloyd Nelson, Steve Sweet, Mary Cahoon, Don Brian, Shari Mansayon, Karen Delaney, Larry Dirken, Wilma John, Barry Gwen, Cheryl Todd, Larry Sale, Billy Ray Strite, Dave Husk, Steve Bradbury, Tim Mockym, Steve Hardstsy, Robert Unger, Ken Shelton, Steve Spore, David Oglesbee, Dorthy June Hook, Lee Hook, Jim Merkle, Larry Knop, Lynn Jones, Clifford Babbit, Mike Gamblin, Leslie Migneault: MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING HELD DECEMBER 13,1994: Johnson: Are there any correction, deletions or additions to these minutes? Rountree: Mr. Chairman, 1 move that we approve the minutes of our previous meeting. Shearer: Second Johnson: It has been moved and seconded to approve the minutes of the December 13th meeting, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #1: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR REZONE REQUEST FROM R-4 TO L-0 WITH A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT BY MICHAEL AND ANGELA DAVIES: Johnson: Any discussion or corrections to these findings of facts as prepared by the City Attorney? Entertain a motion for approval. Rountree: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion that the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts and approves these findings of facts and conclusions of law. Hepper: Second 0 0 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 10, 1995 Page 2 Johnson: Moved and seconded to approve the findings of fact and conclusions of law as prepared, roll call vote. ROLL CALL VOTE: Hepper - Yea, Rountree - Yea, Shearer - Yea, Alidjani - Absent: MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Johnson: Any recommendation you wish to pass onto the City Council? Rountree: Mr. Chairman, I move that the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends to the Meridian City Council that the property described in the application be rezoned from R-4 to Limited Office. And that the conditional use be granted with the conditions set forth in these findings of fact. Shearer: Second Johnson: Moved and seconded to pass as stated the recommendation onto the City Council, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #2: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING REQUEST BY CAROL LOTSPEICH: Johnson: Any additions or changes to these findings of facts and conclusions of law as prepared by the City Attorney? Entertain a motion. Hepper: Mr. Chairman, I move the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Meridian hereby adopts and approves these findings of fact and conclusions of law. Shearer: Second Johnson: We have a motion and a second to approve the findings of fact and conclusions of law as prepared by the Attorney, roll call vote. ROLL CALL VOTE: Hepper - Yea, Rountree - Nea, Shearer - Yea, Alidjani - Absent, MOTION CARRIED: 2 YEA, 1 NEA Johnson: Any recommendation you wish to pass onto the City? 0 0 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January10, 1995 Page 3 Hepper: Mr. Chairman, 1 move the Meridian 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 or assigns enters into a development agreement prior to issuance of a building permit or final plat, whichever comes first. And that the property only be developed as a commercial planned development or under the conditional use process. That if the applicant is not agreeable to these findings of fact and conclusions or is not agreeable with entering into a development agreement the property shall not be annexed. Shearer: Second Johnson: Motion and a second to pass a recommendation as stated onto the City, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: 2 YEA, 1 NEA ITEM #3: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING REQUEST BY PACIFIC WATER WORKS CO., INC.: Johnson: Is there any discussion, any corrections, any additions to these findings of fact? We need a motion for approval. Rountree: Mr. Chairman, I move the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission adopts and approves these findings of fact and conclusions. Shearer: Second Johnson: It is moved and seconded to approve the findings of fact and conclusions as prepared, roll call vote. ROLL CALL VOTE: Hepper - Yea, Rountree - Yea, Shearer - Yea, Alidjani - Absent. MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Johnson: Is there a recommendation you wish to pass onto the City Council? Rountree: Mr. Chairman, I move that we accept the recommendation as written in the findings of facts. Shearer: Second 9 0 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 10, 1995 Page 4 Johnson: It has been moved and seconded that we pass the recommendation onto the City as stated by the City Attorney, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #4: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST BY LYNN AND KENNETH SKINNER: Johnson: Any comments regarding these findings of fact and conclusions of law as prepared? We need a motion. Shearer: Mr. Chairman, I move the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts and approves these findings of fact and conclusions of law. Rountree: Second Johnson: Moved and seconded to approve the findings of fact as so written, roll call vote. ROLL CALL VOTE: Hepper - Yea, Rountree - Yea, Shearer - Yea, Alidjani - Absent MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Shearer: Mr. Chairman, I move that the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council of the City of Meridian that they approve the conditional use requested by the applicant for the property described in the application with the conditions set forth in the findings of fact and conditions of law. Hepper: Second Johnson: It has been moved and seconded that we pass the recommendation onto the City Council as stated, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #5: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST BY CALLISON PARTNERSHIP: Johnson: Any discussion or corrections to these findings of facts? Rountree: On page 5, Mr. Chairman, item 6, 1 believe the second line of item 6 should read "for deliveries nor shall it be allowed" instead of not. 0 9 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 10, 1995 Page 5 Johnson: Thank you, any other corrections? Any other comments? Rountree: Mr. Chairman, I move that the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts and approves these findings of facts. Hepper: Second Johnson: We have a motion and a second to approve the findings of fact and conclusions of law, roll call vote. ROLL CALL VOTE: Hepper - Yea, Rountree - Yea, Shearer - Yea, Alidjani - Absent. MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Johnson: Recommendation for the City Council? Rountree: Mr. Chairman, I move that the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission recommends to the City Council that they approve the conditional use permit. Shearer: Second Johnson: Moved and seconded that we pass a favorable recommendation onto the City Council as stated, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #6: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR AVEST PLAZA BY AVEST LIMITED PARTNERSHIP: Johnson: I will now open the public hearing. If there is a representative for the applicant present for the applicant would you please come forward and address the Commission at this time? Steve Sweet, 960 Broadway, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Sweet: I am here to represent the Avest Partnership, we have reviewed the stafrs recommendations. We have some comment on the letter from Shari to the Commission. Johnson: What is the date of that letter please? Sweet: The date is January 8, 1995, it is to the Commission from Shari. It has 10 points 0 0 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 10, 1995 Page 6 which she addresses for the project. In addition to Shari's comments, we also have met with the Ada County Highway District today and have some modifications and additional agreements between the applicant and the Highway District. Mr. Larry Sale is here to answer those or verify those comments that I may make. I would like to go through the letter by Shari, condition 1 is that ACHD's technical review had included a request for Applewood to extend, following conversations today the Highway District is no longer requesting that connection. I should say the Highway District is agreeable to deleting that connection. The plat as submitted would delete that Applewood right of way extension. Item #2 addresses pedestrian access route along the eastern boundary, this is a cooperative project between the applicant and adjacent property owners. The applicant is desirous to cooperate with the City and help in bringing this about. We will work with the City and providing the path. I think as you recall there is a neighbor to the east who would also have to participate in this. For the record the applicant is agreeable to this matter. Numbers 3, 4 and 5, no comment. Number 6 the submit proposed restrictive covenants, that is part of the development agreement and we agree with that. Carol Street, we are presently in discussions with the Highway District on the alignment with the access to the site, the alignment with Carol. We would like to request that the commission make a recommendation with the conditions of the highway district to govern on this particular point. That concludes, we are in agreement with the findings, or with the recommendations with Shari and stand for any questions you may have on this. Johnson: Thank you very much, any questions from the Commission to the applicant? Rountree: You have seen the comments from the City Engineer as well? Sweet: Yes sir. Rountree: Do you have problems with any of those? Sweet: The letter I am looking at is January 5th, and we are in agreement with that, with the six conditions shown on that. Rountree: Actually there are 13, there are 2 pages. Sweet: Pardon me, 13. Hepper: How many access points will there be off Fairview and Locust Grove? Sweet: Along Locust Grove there are 3 shown and proposed, I believe, I will have to look at my sketch here. Along Fairview the Dixie Lane access with the Highway District has been dropped. We are presently discussing the four points along there as to whether they 0 0 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 10, 1995 Page 7 are going to be, actually whether there are going to be 3 or 2 full plus 2 right in and right outs. I am looking at Mr. Sale to see if he is going to give me a nod of the head in either direction. I got a smile that is good enough. Hepper: I know there has been some comment about the accesses on Locust Grove, are those cast in stone. Is that the Highway District that determines the number of accesses? Sweet: The Highway District has a policy that relates to frontage and number of access points. I believe that we are in agreement on Locust Grove on the number of access points. There is some discussion on the location of Carol, as I have said we would request your approval contingent upon an agreement with the Highway District on that point. Hepper: There are some residences on the other side that would be impacted by those, by those accesses. I don't know if it is possible or not but I would like to see one of those accesses eliminated but I don't know if it is possible or not. Going from the City Ordinance and ACHD recommendations. Sweet: The caution I would put to you is quite a bit of the traffic in the center will be using Locust Grove, if we start limiting the number of access points then we start having big conflicts with vehicles out in Locust Grove Road trying to get in. If we can disperse those I know we can get a better traffic flow out there. Johnson: Any further questions from the Commission? Thank you very much we will give you an opportunity at the end of the hearing if you would like to address some of the comments. Sweet: I appreciate the opportunity. Johnson: This is a public hearing, is there anyone else that would like to address the commission at this time? Robert Stucker, 1432 Carol Street, was sworn by the City Attorney. Stucker. It is mostly opinion so I don't know if this is going to be true or false. I have some comments, one is that something is going to go there sooner or later. The next one is that I bank in Meridian and buy my groceries in Meridian but for the large part or at least half I like to go to Boise or Nampa to spend my money. I would like to do that in Meridian. Two more comments, number 1 1 would like to see some kind of a buffer between them and the residents along Locust Grove and Carol. And the next one is that I would prefer not to have that aligned with Carol Street because I don't want people coming out of Fred Meyer and going over there to see what my house looks like. So, 1 would prefer not to have an 0 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 10, 1995 Page 8 entry/exit aligned with Carol Street. Those are my only comments. Johnson: Thank you very much, any questions? Anyone else that would like to come forward at this time? Mary Cahoon, 1875 North Locust Grove, was swom by the City Attorney. Cahoon: Like I said just a couple of seconds ago, I am right off of Locust Grove. I have many concerns, I have 2 small children. This is not an emotional issue, this is a factual issue that we are addressing here. I did submit a letter today, I did not receive proper notification regarding this meeting. I guess my neighbors received some certified letters regarding this particular hearing. I didn't receive the notification and I don't know if that makes any difference or not. A few of my concerns are since we live right off of Locust Grove as far as when we have visitors will they be able to park at the curb. I don't know, also I have a family. I have a chain link fence in front of my home, I know that you will be taking, it is going to be like 45 feet from the center line of the road, so you are going to take a portion of my front yard which isn't real nice. I don't really know how to deal with all of this as a homeowner. When I remove my fence I have a dog I have to worry about. How soon is the road going to be widened, is it going to be 5 lanes like you say. I don't know, the access in and out of my home is difficult right now with all the traffic that we have. When this comes to be, if you are going to put these entrances right at my front window or my bedroom window. The noise level is already really loud, how much louder is this going to get? I have a lot of concerns. Shearer: How far up Locust Grove? Cahoon: There is the floral place, there is the house right there by Carol, there is another brick house right after that, a duplex, not a duplex a 2 story house and then there is another house and then there is my house. Johnson: Are you finished? Cahoon: I think so, 1 will breathe now. Johnson: Any questions? Crookston: Have you delivered the letter to the City? Cahoon: Yes, they received it today. Johnson: Any other questions? Thank you very much, anyone else from the public that 0 0 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 10, 1995 Page 9 would like to come forward? Don Brian, 2070 North Locust Grove Road, was sworn by the City Attorney. Brian: I could save us all a bunch of time if 1 can make a recording and send it to all of these meetings. My concern is I want to go on record as the same ditto that I have gone through all the other meetings on the water situation. I had conversations with the developers and they assured me they will take care of my needs, but I just want to be on record that nothing has been done yet as of our meeting last whenever the water went out last year. Something has to be done with that ditch that they terminated. The gentlemen earlier said that he is working in cooperation with the developers to the east, maybe they can work in cooperation and alleviate the ditch problem instead of pointing the other finger. I feel comfortable with the developer and what my dealings with him that he is going to do it but I just want to go on record and make sure it gets done before the water comes in next year. Also 1 had a question with what is going to happen with Dixie Lane, I haven't heard. Every time I see a new plat it is gone or it is added or it is made into a bike path or it has become some sort of a walkway. At one time when Kearney Meadows and the other developments back there that was an emergency access. The only reason why you let Kearney Meadows develop is because that was an emergency access for vehicles with break away ballards and a right of way through their lot lines back in that subdivision. What is going to happen with that, is that going to become part of the pathway? Where does that path go, when it comes past into their development does it go out to Fairview or does it come down to Locust Grove, is it involved with their development. Also, I don't know if this is the time to discuss it or not, but my property abuts the property that is not involved with this CUP at this time. I don't know what this is going to impact with the property between me and the shopping enter but, I guess my question is, is that going to have to go through an individual CUP, the undeveloped portion? Once they start developing this portion that the shopping center is going in are they going to provide any fencing or buffering to screen off all the construction garbage and (inaudible) the people and noise around the residential areas. I think that is all 1 have. Johnson: Okay Don, any questions for Mr. Brian? Anyone else from the public that would like to come forward? Shari Mansayon, 1555 Carol, was sworn by the City Attorney. Mansayon: I have a couple of questions. The question that the lady had before wasn't clearly answered. When is this 5 lane highway project is supposed to take place. Will this development be on City water or are they going to drill wells? City water and sewer? I do have a concern with the road alignment, in previous meetings that I attended with this Avest they were going to try and keep that intersection away from Carol Street. They were 0 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 10, 1995 Page 10 not too interested in providing any type of a buffer any higher than 2 feet. Those are my concerns. Johnson: Thank you Shari, anyone else? Cheryl Botkin, 1805 North Locust Grove, was swom by the City Attorney. Botkin: I have the same concern I am as the other woman said directly impacted on this. I am smack across the street from this development. I am 3 houses down from Fairview, so I am right across the street. My concern is the same thing, what is going to, we are all on, there are 4 of us that are on a well. Are we going to have sewer, is this going to be same type of thing. Also, I think there definitely needs to be a buffer there. I also have children, I am a little concerned that the traffic as has already been stated, there is considerable traffic now and I can't imagine what that is going to do to specifically those five houses along the road. I guess I just want questions answered that way. Johnson: Thanks Karen Blayney, 2000 North Applewood, was sworn by the City Attorney. Blayney: I do have some of the same concerns that Don has. My property, there is going to be a little bit of a buffer zone between me and the construction area. I do have some concerns about the noise and the dirt and everything when they are doing all this construction back there. One of my other concerns is there are probably a lot of gophers in that hayfield out there, I wonder if somebody is going to help me pay the fee to get rid of them when they decide to move to my back yard. Because I already have a problem. I would also like to see maybe just 2 accesses out onto Locust Grove because of all the traffic that is going to dump out there. That is it. Johnson: Thank you, is there anybody else that would like to come forward at this time? Larry Dirken, 2936 Waterbury Place, Boise, was swom by the City Attorney. Crookston: I think it would be appropriate, this meeting is not to answer questions. I am sorry, it is just a public hearing for the public to present their testimony. If you have questions you should get a hold of the developer or City staff. t am sorry but we don't answer questions at this time. I do say though if you do have questions ask them to the developer or the City staff. Please. Dirken: I am with the development group that is developing this parcel. I just thought it would be a good idea for me to make a couple of clarifications tonight for the audience 0 0 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 10, 1995 Page 11 here. I am not going to answer any questions but I just want to point out a few things so that everyone has a little better understanding on the berming, on the buffering and on the access points onto Locust Grove. On the overhead you can see on Locust Grove this is a site plan of a portion of the development. You can see we have landscaping along Locust Grove Road, that will screen the parking lot head lights and things from the residential areas to the west. The access points that we are proposing on Locust Grove are not aligning at this time with I believe that is Carol Street. We have done a traffic study for this project and submitted it to ACHD and the City. We are working with the recommendations of the traffic engineer and with ACHD on the access locations and the number of locations. The property to the west which would be the other side of Locust Grove we have met with those property owners and we have a special agreement with them. It's in a development agreement with the City that provides some berming on the west side of Locust Grove, we are providing an material for them and providing some money for them to do their own landscaping on their berming. I just wanted you to know that is an off site matter, it is in a development agreement between Avest and the City. In addition, in that development agreement, the matter of construction debris and fencing is handled and we are fencing the construction areas. I don't believe that is going to be a problem. So I thought it would be helpful to bring that up. That is it. Shearer: I have a question, in looking at your site plan it appears that most of the exits on Locust Grove comes out on approximately the lot lines of the houses across the street. So that it appears in this drawing to be that it doesn't line up with the houses, it lines up between the houses, is that correct? Dirken: I am not prepared to answer that, I don't know. If that is the case frankly it is coincidence. Shearer: That is what I wondered if these other lots were drawn to scale (inaudible). Dirken: You are talking the land to the west then? I really don't know. The landscaping area along the eastern edge of the property is a raised berm area. It will be a nice landscaping berm along there, also on Fairview along the front. Hepper: Is the berm on the west side there, is that a 2 foot high berm, is that what you said? Dirken: It isn't just a study, it depends on where you are measuring it from. It rolls and if you were to go from the elevation above the center line of Locust Grove I think it would vary from 2 to 6 feet depending on the location. Hepper. Would the landscaping on top of the berm that you have shown there would that Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 10, 1995 Page 12 be a solid screen landscaping or are those low lying shrubs? Dirken: They are low lying shrubs and trees, it is a combination. I don't know if you are familiar with the center that we developed in southeast Boise, there is an Albertson's and a Kmart over there, it is the same type of landscaping plan. Hepper: I think one of the big issues is the buffering for the houses across the road from head lights and of course noise and stuff. I just wondered if it would be possible to make that berm instead of a 2 foot minimum maybe a 3 or 3 1/2 foot minimum to try and block out the headlights as much as possible. Dirken: With our design we have addressed that as well as we can with the headlights. It has been my experience you are going to get some of that, but from the day the project opens it will be addressed as well as it can and as the landscaping matures. You can see it is a solid row of shrubs in there, I am really confident that the problem will get better and better as we go along. I just wanted to point out one other thing, the land to the north or parcel 2 you can see there is a loop road. There is a 300 foot distance from that loop road to the next property line. One of the gentlemen who stood up was talking about the irrigation water. There is 300 feet from that loop road to his house. This isn't the entire parcel this is just the shopping center portion of it. Crookston: Mr. Dirken, as I understood Mr. Sweet's testimony there were going to be 3 accesses to Locust Grove as I read this map I see 2. Dirken: Actually there are 3 (inaudible) Any other questions? Johnson: With respect to the notes on the preliminary plat that you have submitted we have in our packet it says in very fine ink here that Locust Grove berm shall have a planting screen 4 feet high and 4 feet wide. To screen from headlight glare I believe it says. Dirken: May I glance at that? Johnson: Sure, go ahead. (Inaudible) Dirken: That is very fine print isn't it. There is a large blueprint, do we have one of those here? (Inaudible) 0 0 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 10, 1995 Page 13 Dirken: I am going to walk over to the screen here. Are we clear that this is the berm that you are talking about on this side of the street here? Johnson: Yes Dirken: The elevation of that berm varies, it isn't just a straight plane, but the width of it from back of the curve to the inside of the parking lot would be about 20 feet in width as shown on the plans that we have submitted and in accordance with our development agreement. The elevation, it will flow to it, we think it looks better, the landscape architects (inaudible) it looks better if it rolls instead of just being a straight wall. The width from here to here is 20 feet give or take a few inches. I am not sure exactly where this is in the development, (inaudible). This is the west side of the street, this person standing in their yard across the street on the west side of Locust Grove. So people that were concerned about that, their backyards, they are going to have a berm here and then this is Locust Grove. The berm that we are building in the shopping center portion of the project it is a design that we have done successfully in southeast Boise. It has worked out very well, we have had many compliments from the immediate neighbors and the surrounding areas. It is the same type of design that we are doing here. It looked very nice when they opened and it has been open for a few years now and it is very attractive. We feel it is the best that can be done under the circumstances. Hepper. I guess t would like to hear from some of the property owners across the road on how they feel about that because I know that is one of the big issues. I don't understand why a 4 foot berm can be put on their side of the street but not on your side of the street. realize that. Dirken: We do have a berm on our side of the street. Hepper: Yes, but from what I understand it goes from 2 to 6 feet, it rolls up and down. Dirken: If you wanted an average (inaudible) the design is per the development agreement that the City and the elevations are per the development agreement that we have worked out with the City. Hepper: With the staff? Dirken: Yes (Inaudible) Dirken: We have an overhead that shows the berm on our project on the east side of 0 0 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 10, 1995 Page 14 Loucst Grove. Unfortunately it doesn't show up for the audience to see. I do have an 81/2 by 11 1 can pass. But it really, the head lights from cars parked up in that area, it really shouldn't be a problem for the people across the street. We have had meetings with the people across the street, the people from Avast that have, we just really feel that we have addressed that concern with them. Hepper: According to this the berm would be 4 feet wide, I realize it goes up and down, just so it is high enough to block out the head lights I think that is the major concern. Dirken: Particularly with the planting, I really believe that has been handled. Johnson: Are there any other questions? We would appreciate it if you would leave those overheads with us. Anyone else from the public like to come forward? Wilma John, 1845 West Carol, was sworn by the City Attorney. John: I have a major concern with, we live on Carol Street, with that access granted it is not exactly lined up, but it is lined up enough that we have a hard enough time getting (End of Tape) concern is, you said it was a 5 lane road that is going in. Are they going to put sidewalks down Locust Grove? Johnson: We will have Mr. Sale from ACHD address that before we leave tonight. John: The reason 1 ask this is because from my understanding Chief Joseph is changing over to a walk school which means there are no buses. At the present time our children our safety bussed to the school because we have one access off of our street and that is Locust Grove. So they are bussed from Locust Grove down to Chief Joseph, so when that stops where do our children go? How do they get to school, they have to walk down a major street. We are talking kindergarten through 5th grade here we are not talking high school kids or middle school students. I think these are major issues that need to be resolved before they start putting in the development. That is all I have to say. Johnson: Thank you, someone else had their hand up. Barry Gwen, 1515 South Carol Street, was sworn by the City Attorney. Gwen: Chairman Johnson and members of the Commission, 1 think what we are looking for as people that are going to have to live close to this development is a clear buffer between the development and the residences along Carol Street and along Loucst Grove. One of the concerns that we have was lights from the cars in the parking lot. And one of the recommendations was a 4 foot berm. I think that we need that 4 foot berm. Whether Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 10, 1995 Page 15 that berm oscillates up and down along and has a 4 foot minimum height or with the shrubbery and the soil in combination. If it is a solid shrub, not 10 years from now but in the date that they put this thing installed is has a 4 foot height to retain that light from the vehicles coming from the parking lot. I think that is what we are asking for. That is what we would like to see. Also, I have one more concern and that is the lighting on the parking lot itself. In other areas adjacent to us that have recently been developed a lot of lighting, the parking lot lighting and the lighting off the stores has been set so that it shines into the yards and into the back doors and into the front windows of the adjacent homes. We would like to see some kind of lighting screening or make sure that lighting is set so that those parking lot lights don't light it up like the middle of daytime out there. We want to have some sort of screening for our residences. Those are the 2 things that I would like to bring up. Thank you. Johnson: Thank you, is there anyone else that would like to address the Commission? Sheryl Todd, 1820 North 13th, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Todd: My main concern is with the property south of this development. Just a concern, if there is a possible solution great. Currently there is a proposed stop light through, that would be suggested or proposed on Fairview where the street which kind of would surround the development currently. One thing that Johnson: Excuse me, you lost me. Todd: Okay, if you look at the development plan, there is a proposed signal stop light and it would be east of Locust Grove and Fairview. Johnson: When you said around you kind of lost me, I see where you are talking about. Todd: The property directly south of the proposed project could very well tie into that proposed stop light and then divert traffic onto Wilson Lane. Which would be a positive way to relieve traffic from the proposed shopping center without necessarily having to go right straight onto Fairview but possibly divert across into the property next door and then divert onto Wilson Lane and then back over to Locust Grove. You will probably notice that at the mall currently in Boise there are a few diversions that allow for people to get traffic from the mall back onto Emerald or back onto Milwaukee etc. The way they have that proposed signal it would be wonderful to have that possibly moved even further east just because it would allow for a through traffic property and then it could be connected back to Wilson Lane. This is just as a concern for the property south of the proposed development. And just a positive way to plan for a diversion of traffic that could be connected back into Wilson Lane. I am not certain if you understand where Wilson Lane 0 0 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 10, 1995 Page 16 is in conjunction with this property, but currently if it was further east or further west either way it would go right next door to D & B or give enough room for a plat straight across from the proposed development. Right now it wouldn't allow for a very strong plat because it would be going directly through the property south of the proposed project. Is that clear? I am not showing you a plat map on the screen so I am concerned that you may not be able to see it. I will address my concerns with the developer and ACHD, thank you. Johnson: Is there anyone else that would like to come forward? Did you have a quick comment you wanted to add? Cahoon: The gentleman that was just up here from Avast he said that we had meetings prior to this about the berming and stuff. The only time I have been contacted was after I spoke here this evening the first. I just wanted to say that I haven't been contacted prior to this evening about that by them. And then I guess my one other thing I wanted to say was the loading docks for Fred Meyers if they could do it opposite where we are located. I know those trucks moving in and out are really noisy. If there was anyway possible that maybe they could do that on the opposite side of the building from Locust Grove I would really appreciate that too. That is it. Johnson: Thank you, is there anyone else? Botkin: I just want to say that I was never contacted either, this is the first I have heard of anything as far as berming or anything else. So when he says he has talked to the neighbors on North Locust Grove there are 2 right there that haven't' been contacted. Crookston: I have a question for you, Mrs. Botkin, is your property, does it abut or front on Locust Grove? Botkin: It is facing North Locust Grove. Crookston: Thank you. Johnson: Mr. Sale, could you come forward so we coudl ask you a few questions please? Larry Sale, 318 East 37th Street, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Johnson: Would you comment please regarding the planning to widen Locust Grove and also address the question whether or not there would be sidewalks? Sale: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, in connection with this development if it goes ahead the Highway District will cooperate with the developing in financing the 0 0 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 10, 1995 Page 17 improvements to the east side of Locust Grove Road from Fairivew Avenue to the north boundary of Mr. Brian's property to tie in with the existing improvements on the east side of Locust Grove Road. We will acquire right of way from the developer and from Mr. Brian and then finance those improvements with the exception of sidewalk from the impact fee revenue. The sidewalk will be constructed at the expense of the developer but will be installed. Sidewalk will also be installed along Fairivew Avenue. The completion of the improvements on Loucst Grove Road from Fairview to the end of the existing improvements on Locust Grove is currently included in the Highway District program for construction in 1998. 1 can assure the improvements won't occur prior to that time, that date may slip although we understand the need for the improvements. Certainly it is a high priority project with the Highway District. The ditch that Mr. Brian mentioned will be properly replaced or piped or whatever is necessary for it in conjunction with that improvement. Anything else on that? Johnson: I don't think so, unless you have some comments regarding the alignment of the street of Carol Street and the number of accesses off Locust Grove and also the proposed signalization east of Locust Grove? Sale: The site plan proposes and the Highway District approves of a total of 3 access points to Locust Grove Road. The ring road as we call it is the northern most connection with Locust Grove Road and it is located directly across from, let me re -phrase that. The preliminary plat shows that road as located directly across Locust Grove Road from a lot line in the subdivision on the west side of Locust Grove. So it appears that headlights entering the street there will be between dwellings. Those lots are quite large and presumably there is a good separation from the dwellings to their property line. The second drive way is currently shown to mis-align Carol Street. The Highway District will require that driveway align directly with Carol for some very important safety reasons. Secondarily this will also eliminate the glare of headlights coming out of, that will be the prime entrance on Locust Grove road going directly pass the front of the store. That re- alignment will direct headlights down the street instead of into dwellings. The third access on Locust Grove Road as I look at the site plan also I think we are very fortunate our designer was very prudent or careful here, that driveway also appears to align with a property line on the west side of Locust Grove Road. Obviously there are some, there are driveways on the site that will also direct headlights toward Locust Grove Road and a few parking spaces that point at Locust Grove Road. Perhaps the landscape designer could take that into account and place higher elevations of the berm in front of those driveways that point west and it might alleviate the glare of headlights additionally. With regard to Fairview Avenue, if the lady who spoke discussing the location of the signal ever wants a job as a traffic engineer I think 1 can find her one, because the points that she addressed are very important considerations in the location of a traffic signal. And that is to locate a traffic signal so that proper sequencing of the lights are possible to move traffic through 0 0 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 10, 1995 Page 18 smoothly but secondly to create platoons of traffic with gaps in between so other vehicles can access the arterial from the side. First of all we don't want to have any traffic signals but if we have to have them we want to have them on, we prefer them to be on 1/3 mile intervals no closer together than 1/4 mile. So her point of moving the signal, let me back up and say there will be no traffic signal in connection with this project. It isn't warranted and we would not approve one in the location that it is shown. When a traffic signal is warranted it will be located no further west than the east boundary of this site which is the current Dixie Lane and preferably about 400 feet further east as the lady pointed out. There will be, let me point out that this next point is something with which the applicant has some significant disagreements with ACHD staff and I suspect that won't be resolved until the Highway District Commission meet on the application next week. ACRD staff is recommending that there be no more than 3 driveways on Fairview Avenue, 2 of those will be full service, the one closest to Locust Grove will be a right in and right out exit only. That is the driveway that serves the bank pad there on the comer. On that point there is no significant disagreement between the staff and applicant, there is disagreement, they prefer to have 4 driveways and we prefer that they have 3. As I pointed out we will not be able to forward official ACHD action to the City until next Thursday at which time the official action will be relayed to the City as based on what the Commissioners decide to do. Are there any other questions? Johnson: Only if you know what is going to happen to Dixie Lane since that was brought up. Sale: The applicant has proposed and we certainly support the provision of a pedestrian way from the northeast comer of this site down to about the mid -point of the east boundary Mere the entrance to the storage complex is and then that would be a pedestrian/bicycle access into this site. That access would not extend to Fairview and with that it would be our intent to discontinue any vehicular access from Fairview into what is now known as Dixie Lane. This may take some time to accomplish and will require the cooperation of landowners to the north. There is one parcel just at the northeast comer of this site which currently I think impedes the construction of any pedestrian way out of that residential area down the east boundary. I am sure as you read in our staff report candidly the highway district staff feels that it would be in everyone's best interest if Applewood were extended into the project. We, from our previous meetings we have had with neighbors and with the Commission here we understand the opposition of the residents to that and we drop that as a requirement. Although we feel that it would be still in the best interest of the neighborhood to have that connection but we are not making that requirement. There will be a provision for pedestrians and bicyclists to access this site from the residential area but not vehicles. Johnson: Thanks Larry, any questions from the other Commissioners? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 10, 1995 Page 19 Rountree: You talked about improvements on the east side of Locust Grove at the interchange, what is the timing here. Is the timing for the west side of that at the same time you stated for the rest, 1998? Sale: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Rountree, yes, the improvements on the east side will be in conjunction with the development of this site. The west side is currently programmed for 1998. Rountree: What do you envision the typical section for the roadway to be at that location? Sale: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Rountree, the cross section from Fairview up to the end of the existing improvements will be four driving lanes and one left turn lane, one continuous 2 way left tum lane. We can't afford to extend those improvements further north at this time. Probably some time in the future we will have to do so at least put in left turn lanes at Chateau. But at this time I am reasonably sure that we will live with the existing section from the north boundary of this property further north. It is essentially a four lane section there. Hepper: Is the need for widening Locust Grove generated by this project or will that be done anyway whether this project is done or not? Sale: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners Hepper, no, the need for Locust Grove is the residential growth the area has experienced. Hepper: So this is not the determining factor whether Locust Grove is widened or not? Sale: That is correct. Johnson: Any other questions? Thanks Larry, I appreciate that. Are there any comments from staff at this time? Is there anyone else from the public that would like to come forward? Roger Allen, 9647 West Pebblebrook Lane, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Alien: I just wanted to address one issue that has come up and I don't mean to be doing our traffic planning here before this Commission. Several of the residents have been discussing Carol Street and the alignment there into the shopping center. I have been involved in this project over 2 1/2 years now. Some of the gentlemen that are working on it now in terms of engineering and architecture and so forth did not have some of that background. So I thought that just very quickly I would state that from very early discussions with the neighbors and I might add that we had 2 general public not hearings 0 0 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 10, 1995 Page 20 but meetings right here in this hall and invited over 90 neighbors to those meetings for the very purpose of discussing their concerns and primarily along Locust Grove because that is where the residents are. And from the very beginning there was a concern expressed that the folks in Doris Subdivision which is Carol Street in Meridian preferred that the alignment into the shopping center not line up and go directly into the shopping center. I think that was voiced at several of those hearings and probably at our earlier P & Z meetings on our annexation and zoning applications. While Larry is here and I had the opportunity this afternoon to discuss just briefly with Dave of Fred Meyer the possibility of off -setting that alignment with Carol Street 125 feet. What I would like to do Larry is just, I know that you have discussed it in a lot of different ways if that were to be moved 125 feet to the south which would make it closer to the Key Bank that we have been referring to, is that something that then comes within the (inaudible) of the requirements of ACHD or is that an alternative that we can consider to try to accommodate those in Doris Subdivision. Johnson: If you would like to answer that go ahead Larry, if you do you (inaudible). Sale: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, I won't rule that out but it would probably conflict with the, we have some pretty severe set -backs from Fairview for that first driveway. I won't rule it out as something that can be evaluated. Allen: That is fine, I think our engineers have addressed that issue and I believe that we fall within the proper distances required by ACHD from Fairview Avenue. The only reason I am pursuing this is because there has been some discussion in the back and it seems to be a major issue and is something I thought we might be able to clear up here. But basically then you are saying if we meet the setbacks from Fairview and we are 125 feet south of Carol that would be an alternative that we could talk about then next week. Johnson: I think what he said was he wouldn't rule it out. (Inaudible) Allen: That is the only comments I had unless you have questions? Johnson: Anyone else that would like to add something to the meeting? Something we haven't heard. Mansayon: I believe if I am not misunderstanding here that this ditch, the first I have heard of it is to be abandoned and I take it this is the ditch on the edge of my property that is going to take a 4 foot berm. Who is going to pay for covering this ditch and putting the the in or whatever they are going to do with it? And who is going to move my well? Stucker: Something I want to request and I appreciate their trying to work with us. I still 0 9 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 10, 1995 Page 21 want to keep my shopping dollars in Meridian if I can. I want to do it with as least disruption to the neighborhood as I can. If that can not be realigned I request simply that they make provisions (inaudible) double speed bumps something to keep the traffic out of Carol Street. Anything they can do, I would prefer to see it re -aligned and I think most others do too, but if it can't be done at least help us out with what you can. Johnson: Thanks, I appreciate that. Is there anyone else before I close the public hearing here? Wayne, I need your guidance and would like you to let us know either now or soon about the letter of notification. I have concern with that, if somebody did not get property notified I would like to know why. Crookston: If there were people within 300 feet of the out boundaries of the project for the plat, if those people were not notified 2 things are a possibility. One is that the applicant get a hold of those people to see if they will waive their rights to notice, the other thing is that we re -notice this hearing and hold this hearing again. I think that we need to determine before a decision is made what the Ada County Assessors office which is the office that we use to determine the ownership of the property, who those owners were and who should have been notified. Johnson: I would like to see the list of notification at some time soon and see what we have got. Do you have that with you, is it by address as well? Hepper: Wayne, if they weren't notified but they were aware of the meeting and they showed up at the meeting does that (inaudible) to be noted? Crookston: It can yes, if they are here then they are aware of it. Johnson: What address are we talking about specifically with Mary Cahoon, that is what I am talking about. Clarke Burkett, 2041 North Applewood Place, was sworn by the City Attorney. Burkett: I have lived at this residence going on 3 years now in October and I get my tax thing at the right address but so far I have never gotten a letter from the original developer until i asked for one. I have that here in my file. Then the other day I get word from my neighbor, I just live across the street from it and I thought maybe 1 was just too far away but it is only 70 steps from my property line. Then I came down and talked to Mr. Berg and he didn't know how this would happen through the Assessors office or who. He gave me copies of the meetings that are coming up that is what I have with me. I don't know what route to go, I called Avast and I talked to Mrs. Weber and she didn't know who to get this from either. Are the developers supposed to get these addresses from the tax office or 9 0 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 10, 1995 Page 22 what. I did have one of them brought to my door last, a week ago last Saturday but the mailman wouldn't give it to me because it was addressed to the former owner. He hasn't been here for, Mr. McGuire is in Provo, Utah. Maybe ha has been getting my mail I don't know. Johnson: Is Mr. McGuire or Mr. Burkett on that list? Crookston: I was looking for Mrs. Cahoon. (Discussion Inaudible) Crookston: All that the City can do is be guided by the Assessor's records, that should be the most up to date record as to who is the owner of the property, that is what we use that is what we will check on. If there are property owners that are in residence there but are not holders of the deed they would not show on those records and our ordinances do not require that they be notified because they are not deeded owners. Burkett: Where would the tax bill go then, I get that. Crookston: That can be done a couple different ways. Burkett: I am sure, there is a mortgage company in Ohio that I send a check to every month and 1 am sure they wouldn't let me live there if it wasn't in my name. Crookston: We will have to look into it. Shearer: Wouldn't you say Wayne that anybody that wasn't notified that is here tonight should talk to Avest and get their name on the mailing list because there will be another public hearing coming up. Crookston: Generally if the persons are here and have testified they have received the notice. Shearer: I was thinking for the City Council that will be notified (inaudible) here that doesn't have one that hasn't been notified should contact Avast and get their name on the list. Johnson: Okay, Crookston: The names that I am aware of that indicated that they did not receive notice, are Mrs. Cahoon and Mr. Burkett, was another one? • • Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 10, 1995 Page 23 (Inaudible) Johnson: No, I think she just said that (inaudible) prior to the meeting I think is what she said. Okay, at this point then I will close the public hearing. What is your pleasure, I would like the Commission to consider the stafrs comments particularly Shari Stiles with respect to the last point in her letter. (Inaudible) Crookston: I think you should table it if for no other reason then to find out what is going on with ACRD. Rountree: I think that is probably the best way to handle that to find out what ACHD's comments are going to be. Johnson: I think they are extremely important to this development. Rountree: If nobody else has any discussion on that Mr. Chairman I move that we table this item until (inaudible) ACHD on access into the proposed subdivision. Hepper: Second Johnson: We have a motion and a second that this item be tabled until we can incorporate written testimony from the upcoming, I think it is Thursday evening, is it Thursday evening? Sale: (Inaudible) Johnson: Well it is one of those 2 evenings thank you Larry, anyway we need a vote on the motion, all those in favor of the motion? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #7: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A 3,000 SQUARE FOOT DRIVE-THRU BANKING FACILITY BY AVEST LIMITED PARTNERSHIP: Johnson: I will now open that public hearing. At this time 1 would invite the applicant to come forward or a representative if they would like to address the Commission on the application. Billy Ray Strite, 1087 River Street, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. 0 0 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 10, 1995 Page 24 Strite: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, Billy Ray Strite here on behalf of Dakota Development as wall as Key Bank. I have before me the staff report dated January S, 1995, 1 have reviewed the comments that Shari has made and have only one comment to make relative to those comments. We find them all to be acceptable. I would like to comment however on item #4 about the 55 decibels on the drive-thru. There has been some comment made relative to noise to the adjacent neighborhood. I think I should make note that the drive-thru actually faces Fairview and that the ambient road noise is greater than 55 decibels. I think that is the only comment that I would like to make. We actually located that drive-thru such that it would be on the comer and away from the neighborhood. I think with that until we get item #5 squared away I would ask that this be approved condition on item #5 which would take place next Thursday. Any questions that you may have? Johnson: Any questions of Mr. Strite? Crookston: I just have one, you are referring to the Avast Preliminary Plat you are not referring to the Callison Partnership are you? Number 5 is the Callison Partnership. Strite: I'm sorry sir I am referring to item #5 on Shari's letter relative to final ACRD requirements. Crookston: Thank you Johnson: Thank you, this is a public hearing anyone else like to address the Commission on the drive-thru bank? Seeing no one and hearing no one I will close the public hearing. Rountree: I have a question for counsel can we take action on this until (inaudible)? Crookston: You can because the prior matter, the resolution of that is information that you need probably to make this decision. Johnson: So the answer is no. Crookston: The answer is you can table it for further information. Rountree: We can't take action on this until we resolve item #6? Crookston: You could but it would appear to me to be appropriate to know what is going to happen with the preliminary plat. Johnson: What is your pleasure? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 10, 1995 Page 25 Rountree: Mr. Chairman I move we table this item until we resolve the subdivision plat for Avast. Shearer: Second Johnson: We have a motion and a second to table this item until we resolve item #6 on our agenda with the plat for Avast, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #8: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW AN APPROXIMATELY 172,000 SQUARE FOOT RETAIL/GROCERY STORE BY FRED MEYER, INC.: Johnson: I will now open the public hearing. And I would invite the applicant or representative to come forward and address the Commission if he wishes to do so. Larry Durkin, 2936 Waterbury Place, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Durkin: We were prepared for a full blown presentation on this item as well. But if you are going to table it for action at another time we would be willing to delay that presentation until another time. I guess I am looking for guidance here. Johnson: Well it might be prudent to do that. Crookston: We need to accept testimony. Johnson: We can't close it, anybody here that came to speak on this issue is certainly welcome to do so. Dave Husk, P.O. Box 25606, Portland, Oregon, was sworn by the City Attorney. Husk: I am here tonight to answer questions on this development. We have been working with Avest and with the City for approximately the last 7 months in designing the site and the plan and working with local engineer to develop the best product for this market. As far as the questions that were brought up this evening, I do have a number of overhead aerials that we can use to demonstrate and address some of the questions that have been raised if that is appropriate. The lighting is one issue and the site plan and landscaping that we have used earlier if that would be helpful. Johnson: That would be fine as long as you realize that anything presented before the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 10, 1995 Page 26 Commission becomes our property. (End of Tape) the site plan, the yellow circles identified are parking lot lighting facilities again this design is aimed at keeping the light within the site and have no spread or migration off site. Again we use a very specialized fixture that has shields in certain sides to prevent migration off site. This is a typical light standard 35 feet high, you can see the cut offs blocking from a standpoint of the light filtration off site. The stores hours of operation typically will be from 9 a.m. to 10 p.m. some of the lot lights will be left on during the evening hours but very minimally just from the standpoint of security. If there is any other questions that I can answer I would be more than willing to as far as our commitment to this project and the City and the State. Johnson: Are there lights of this identical type being used now in any area that you are familiar with in Boise? Husk: We just completed the development of a store at Five Mile and Overland in Boise and that store has a very similar type fixture that would be used in this development. It wouldn't be identical necessarily because we bid this type of product and as the market changes our selection changes. Husk: Who do I leave the overheads with? Johnson: Will Berg our City Clerk, he is the keeper of the goodies. Is that all you had were 2, or do you have more? Husk: I have others that I can share that relate to basically landscaping, berming, buffering and just the general site plan as well as the plat. Johnson: You might want to wait for those. Thank you very much, any questions of the applicant? Shearer: How does this store compare with the one on Five Mile and Overland, are they approximately the same size? Husk: Actually not, this store, size wise is approximately 5,000 to 7,000 feet larger, but if you look at the development site, you can compare the size of this facility from a standpoint of the land area. This is a perfect site for us because the site size provided us an adequate size to where we could park, what we need where we can access, what we need. We can provide adequate facilities to service the public whereas at the Five Mile site it was very narrow and very long. This is a different type of building but it mould have the basic same type of merchandise in the store. Johnson: Thank you, anyone from the public like to address the Commission? 0 0 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 10, 1995 Page 27 Don Brian, 2070 North Locust Grove, was sworn by the City Attorney. Brian: I just wanted to take a brief moment to use this forum to campaign a thought to Mr. Sale on what he had to say about Dixie Lane about making it into a bike path or whatever. It seems to me with all the traffic it would make good traffic sense to get the flow around this project. If there is somehow you can tie at least the north section of Dixie Lane where the residences are now to some development, either Dove Meadows or Mirage Meadows or Dixie Lane to take the 5 or 800 houses in that development in that section of land and give them an additional access to Fairview or Eagle Road. I wonder if that has ever been addressed in any of their traffic studies and what they are going to do with the residences that are back there right now and they are going to be landlocked. And where are the exits going to be. I thought that might be an avenue to look at maybe. Thank you very much. Johnson: Thanks Don, anyone else? Karen Blayney, 2000 North Applewood Avenue, was sworn by the City Attorney. Blayney: I just had some concerns abut where the loading dock and stuff was going to be on the Fred Meyer plan. I would like to have a little further information, see kind of how it fits in the plat before a conditional use permit is given. I don't know about anybody else but I really other than kind of seeing what they were going to do with the plat there are just some little lots carved out and stuff. They really don't have a lot of information about what is going to happen and where things are going to be located on the store etc. That is it. Johnson: Thank you, anyone else? Mr. Sale, would you like to address the one comment please on Dixie Lane if you can at this time? Larry Sale, 318 East 37th, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Sale: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission with regard to the extension of Dixie Lane to Fairview Avenue that was a battle we fought and lost. The Highway District staff recommended that Ducie Lane be made as a full public street access to these subdivisions. The developer objected to that and hired a traffic engineer and the traffic study indicated that the improvement was not necessary and the Highway District Commissioners and the City elected not to make that requirement. At the time we thought it was a good idea and 1 think looking back on it, it is still a good idea. The door is shut now. Johnson: Thank you for your comments, I appreciate it. Would the developer or his representative share with us if you would please more specific information on the loading dock or docks. 0 0 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 10, 1995 Page 28 Durkin: From what I, 1 am not quite sure where exactly her home is, but there is a 300 foot land area between the loop road and the subdivision to the north. The loop road is 50 or 60 feet and the loading dock is set back from there. (Inaudible) Durkin: It is over a city block away from the residences, the loading dock is. Between the loading dock and any of the residences there will be a storage, mini storage facility which provides great screening from view and also from noise. Johnson: I must have missed something, was he pointing at the location of the loading dock area just then? (Inaudible) Johnson: I understand the distance, where is the loading dock? Durkin: This site plan, it shows the entire shopping center but the land to the north it just goes to the loop road so there is a great distance. (Inaudible) Durkin: The loading dock is to the back of the building, you can see the trucks back up to it. Johnson: Thank you, I just wanted to make that clear for the lady that had the question. Is there anyone else from the public or anyone else that would like to testify at this time before the Commission? Seeing no one then I will close the public hearing. What would you like to do? Rountree: Mr. Chairman, I move that we table this item until (inaudible) item #6. Shearer: Second Johnson: We have a motion to table this item also until item #6 is resolved, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Johnson: Does this have to be table to a date certain or just tabled? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 10, 1995 Page 29 Crookston: It should be table to a date certain. Johnson: So we should (inaudible) on 6, 7 and 8 and change the date is that right? Crookston: Correct. Rountree: To our next regularly scheduled meeting February 14, 1995. Do we need a motion to that effect? Johnson: Yes Rountree: I so move. Hepper: Second Johnson: We are incorporating 6, 7 and 8 on our agenda in the motion or just 8? Rountree: All three. Johnson: We have a motion to table 6, 7 and 8 date certain February 14th our next regularly scheduled meeting of Planning and Zoning, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea FIVE MINUTE BREAK ITEM #9: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING FOR THE LAKE AT CHERRY LANE SUBDIVISION NO. 5 AND 6 BY STEINER DEVELOPMENT: Johnson: I will now open the public hearing and invite the representative for the developer to address the Commission at this time. Steve Bradbury, 300 North 6th Street, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Bradbury: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, as I said my name is Steve Bradbury I am an attorney with offices at 300 North 6th Street, primarily practicing in land use planning law. I have been asked to act as the spokesman for the applicant Steiner Development tonight. I am going to try to keep my comments brief since it has already been a late night. I do have a couple of things I do want to point out to you. To my left is a drawing of the plat, as you can see it is colored and I am going to try to explain a little tit about what we are doing. The location of the project is on the west side of Ten Mile 0 9 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 10, 1995 Page 30 Road between Ustick and Cherry Lane. The project comprises just over 40 acres and it is now zoned, it is a county zone RT. We are here tonight for annexation and a rezone of a portion of the property from RT to R-4 and another portion of the property to R-15. We also have a preliminary plat application pending tonight as well. Now, on the drawing that you see here tonight the lighter green portions are the portions of the property that we are seeking to have zoned R-15. And the darker green portions are the portions of property that we are seeking to have zoned R4 with one exception. The guy with the crayons made one mistake. (Inaudible) The R-4 has a total of 54 residential lots and the R-15 has a total of 30 residential lots that are platted here at 5,000 square foot minimum. (Inaudible) Those 2 areas that don't have individual lots platted out on them are 2 areas that we are seeking to have annexed and zoned R-15 but they are not yet fully planned but I can tell you a little bit about what the thinking is. Before that the first phase is the south half of the property (inaudible). The second phase of development would be the north half of the property. The proposed R-15 area to the south of the road is about 11 acres and the concept is to develop that into single family attached and detached mixed dwellings and the idea is to place patio homes similar to what you might see, the ones that are familiar to me are the River Run subdivision over in Boise. I don't know if you folks are familiar with that. Essentially we are talking about smaller parcels with extensive landscaping and common facilities, common areas. In the center portion of the proposal is what would be a club house with a recreation center and a swimming pool that is as proposed. The expected cost of that facility would be about $150,000. The precise layout has not yet been planned and the idea is to come back to this body with a conditional use permit application or if we can do it by planned development, if we can make the ordinances work for us on that one we would come back that way. So all we are asking for with respect to that area is simply annexation and zoning conditioned upon coming back to this body with a conditional use application. Now the north side of what I call the R-15 ground that is about 6.5 acres, same thing. The idea is to come back with a conditional use permit or a planned unit development if that will work. But we want to hold off on any specific design on that until we see how the development on the south side of the project goes. The south side would be all in one phase the north side would be in another phase. The thinking at this point would be some sort of a townhouse or a condominium type of project in that area. The concept here is to create higher end residential mixed use type of a development which is something that Meridian doesn't have much of. Doug Campbell who is here tonight, the developer's representative tells me that he thinks this is the first project of this sort that you have seen in Meridian and 1 have to admit I am not familiar with another one. I have some other drawings, there would be a significant amount of landscaping improvements included in the project in the first phase and then carried on over to the second phase. The budget that has been proposed, I guess it is more like a cost estimate than a budget is about $180,000 worth of landscaping. What they want to do is create a block wall that would go behind the landscaping, 20 foot landscaping area on Ten Mile and come around the corner (inaudible) throughout the 0 0 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 10, 1995 Page 31 subdivision (inaudible). You can kind of get a feel for it here (inaudible) The block wall would vary between about 6 feet with one foot of wrought iron on the top of it down to 4 feet with a foot of wrought iron on the top of it depending on if we are at Ten Mile which is the tallest part of the road. You step down as it reaches the entrance to the subdivision and then it would be 4 foot on the interior of the subdivision. In addition there would be signage here and (inaudible) here (inaudible). On the main thoroughfare (inaudible) you can see we have center dividers, this is an 80 foot wide street section here with a 12 foot center divider and then there would be a 5 foot parkway on either side of the street then sidewalk and then lots. So you have this kind of a thing, the center divider, the street, the parkway, then sidewalk, then a wall and then lots. The center divider (inaudible) trees and flowering shrubbery down below and the parkways we are going to have 2 inch caliper trees and grass and then shrubbery (inaudible). In the center areas these center landscape circles are 20 foot radius, they would have a little bit of block wall and then (inaudible) What else can I tell you about that? Johnson: Anyone from the public want to see these drawings if they can't see them now? Could you turn them around? You need some assistance I think. (Inaudible) Bradbury: Basically what I want to convey to you is the idea is to do a really nice higher end well done project. Doug has asked me to help him to prepare the restrictive covenants which would be applicable to the subdivision. We have had quite a bit of conversation about that. They are not prepared but based upon the conversations we have had they are going to be quite tight. We are going to be looking at a project that is I guess similar in aesthetics to perhaps the Island Woods subdivision in Eagle or the River Run subdivision in Boise I guess are the ones that come to my mind. With maybe not quite the grandiose homes in some parts of Island Woods. Of course the developer is going to, is willing to and will enter into a development agreement, the standard agreement that has been used in the past along with any particular requirements that you folks might want to propose. The application contemplates city sewer and city water. The developer will install pressurized irrigation with the concurrence with Nampa Meridian Irrigation District. All the roads will meet ACHD standards, we have seen the staff report prepared by Ada County Highway District and all of the various conditions which are contained in that report are acceptable to the developer. There were some changes that were shown, or I guess to put it this way there were some requested changes in the Highway district staff report and the plat that I have shown you reflects all of those changes. One of probably the most significant is here (inaudible) portion of half of a proposed collector road which would service this property to the north. Johnson: Don't get too far from the mike we have to transcribe these and it gets difficult. 0 0 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 10, 1995 Page 32 Bradbury: This subdivision I think is the Englewood subdivision is apparently under consideration and the Highway District has asked that a collector road be built along the common boundary line here. So this is a portion of a collector road that will curve up and service this subdivision. That is probably the most significant change requested by the highway district and I think you have a current plat in your materials. We have reviewed the staff report prepared by the City Engineers office and all those conditions are acceptable as well. I haven't seen anything from the Zoning Administrator but I spoke to her and she indicated that she may have a couple of comments. With that I would be happy to respond to questions. I also brought with me copies of some renderings that I will pass out. Johnson: Thank you, any questions of the developer, his representative? Hepper: Yes, I have one, originally you brought in a concept plan that showed patio homes, garden homes all that kind of stuff, that was just a concept, now we really, you are asking for an R-15 zone for the higher density part. I guess I have a problem with just passing that as an R-15 without. Bradbury: And that is understandable, I certainly share your concern. You are right, as I understand it this was before I came involved with the project, a concept plan was floated around with a little bit more drawing. In the meantime developers have gone back and tried to draw and design something out. Unfortunately it just hasn't been able to come to a firm conclusion as to how it would best be laid out. And that is something that he is hoping that we will be able to work out through a conditional use permit. Perhaps we can move forward with the application and simply have the R-15 zone designation be conditioned upon approval of a specific site plan which is acceptable and approve through the conditional use permit process or a planned development process if that would work. Johnson: Any other questions? Rountree: In the concept that was presented it talked about on site storage for recreation vehicles and I don't see that with any of the additions on the subdivision plat. Is that still a concept? (Inaudible) Rountree: That is the area referred to as public parking, that is not a parking lot it is a storage facility? (Inaudible) 0 0 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 10, 1995 Page 33 Bradbury: I guess that is one thing I neglected to mention to you is that the application does contemplate that the developer would dedicate to the Meridian Fire Department a 160 by 160 foot square parcel of ground and that would be dedicated to the City free of charge. The RV parking and storage area would be adjacent to that. Rountree: While you have that right there would you point out where the club house facility is going to be. Bradbury: There in this area here. Rountree: And you indicated that modification of the plat was done in response to Ada County Highway Districts concerns because we had not seen it until just recently. Bradbury: I understood that the developer and your staff met with the highway district just last week, December 30th. In response to concerns raised by the highway department there were a couple of things. I will show you a little more (inaudible). The primary one was the addition of (inaudible) that required that this culdesac which (inaudible) and that loss of 6 lots as a result of moving that culdesac back and expanded this area a little bit. In addition they wanted to open up what I will call the throats of these access points so that they weren't quite so tight, here and here and here. This was connected through at one point (inaudible). Johnson: On this plat, I guess I am a little confused, would you point out the location of the clubhouse is it there lot 13? Bradbury: (Inaudible) Johnson: Any other questions? Thank you, this is a public hearing anyone else from the public that would like to address the Commission on this issue? J.R. Petty, 3762 Stanwich, was sworn by the City Attorney. Petty: 1 have a question to open this up. Is there some kind of a limitation on age as to who will live in this subdivision? Is there any requirement that somebody be so old or so young? Johnson: That is kind of a legal question (inaudible). Petty: The reason I am asking is there seems to be no recreation area in this high density plan for youngsters. That puts them all out on the street. I am a past president of the Crestwood Estates Subdivision which is also high density and in the planning of the day 0 0 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 10, 1995 Page 34 that development was made which was in the late 70's this City required adequate recreation areas. Those areas exist and they are maintained by the subdivision occupants, we also had the rec area and I have since moved to the Cherry Lane development. I am concerned about the high density being close to our development on the golf course there and not having a place for the youngsters. That is all I have. Johnson: Thank you very much, anyone else? Would the applicant like to address that question? Bradbury: The concept and it is one that is not yet fully developed and I hope you understand that because it creates some measure of difficulty under the fair housing laws. The concept for the R-15 area south of the main road through there is to make a 55 and older area that would be gated with perhaps depending of what we are able to develop there with a gated community for people aged 55 and older. There isn't a specific location, the gentleman is correct, set aside for park land. Unfortunately this developer can't provide everything for every need of the City in a single subdivision and the folks have seen work that this developer has done in the past or is working on now. What you are seeing is a dedication of a fire station and what you have seen in previous projects is the dedication of area for golf course. In conversations that I have had with my client on the potential for future projects there is talk about dedicating land for schools. Unfortunately we can't put everything that the City might need in each and every subdivision. We can pick and choose and try to provide as best we can. In this case it seems that the greatest need at the moment as we have understood has been for a fire station and that is why the developer has chosen to do that. I would be pleased to respond to any further questions you might have. Johnson: Thank you, one last chance, this is a public hearing, anyone else? If not then will close the public hearing at this time. Rountree: I have a question for staff, Bruce you have not seen this new plat nor have any of the other agencies. I would assume you haven't had time to comment on any of the changes. Freckleton: That is correct, this came into our office at about 4:00 Friday afternoon. Rountree: Mr. Chairman, based on the late arrival of a revised plat, I would recommend that we table this item until. (Inaudible) Johnson: We have the zoning issue and annexation before us right now. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 10, 1995 Page 35 Shearer: Mr. Chairman, I move we have the Attorney prepare findings of fact and conclusions of law on this project. Johnson: I am sorry, did you finish your motion or withdraw it Mr. Rountree? Rountree: I don't know if I started one but I will withdraw it. Hepper: Second Johnson: Mr. Shearer has a motion for the City Attorney to prepare findings of fact and conclusions of law on item #9 annexation and zoning for The Lake at Cherry Lane Subdivision No. 5 and 6 by Steiner development, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #10: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR THE LAKE AT CHERRY LANE SUBDIVISION 5 AND 6 BY STEINER DEVELOPMENT: Johnson: At this time I will open the public hearing. Steve Bradbury, 300 North 6th Street, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Bradbury: I don't have anything particularly further to talk about. I kind of jumbled everything all up into my last speech. I guess I will just have to request that the record reflect that the information that I gave, the testimony that I gave with respect to the zone and annexation request be included as part of the record here. If there are any specific questions with respect to the plat that you would like to discuss I would be happy to do that. 1 guess I will point out that the changes in the plat that are before you and that which was before which was originally submitted were made all at the instance of the highway district. I guess I would like to ask you to go ahead and make a decision about the preliminary plat tonight. If you feel that you can't in good conscience perhaps your City staff, perhaps by looking at what is before them now can give you an indication if they believe that there are any changes that are so significant or troubling to them that it would require additional time. We would kind of like to work it through if at all possible. Of course certainly you folks have to be comfortable with any decision you make and we understand that. Johnson: Thank you, this is a public hearing anyone else that would like to come before us? Mr. Sale Larry Sale, 318 E. 37th Street, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. • Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 10, 1995 Page 36 Sale: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission I am afraid I am the bearer of bad news. The residential collector which the highway district wishes to have constructed in this area is intended to serve this project as well as the project to the north. The re -design that was submitted last week did not fulfill that requirement. And in order to fulfil that requirement I am afraid it would have to be a rather substantial redesign of this layout. The staff report that is in your packet from the highway district was considered by the Highway Commissioners last week and was not acted on because of the magnitude of the changes which it recommended. This maybe something that will take further consideration by the Highway District. But it is our stance at this time that the present configuration cannot be recommended for approval by the Highway District staff. Johnson: I appreciate your comments, when would you be meeting again and addressing this issue? Sale: Mr. Chairman, we will respond to the submittal with a negative finding and request that they resubmit. Johnson: Is there anyone else? I will now close the public hearing. I will re -open the public hearing. Bradbury: This comes as a surprise, and I suppose maybe we should re -think that which I just said a few minutes ago which is to move forward. I think perhaps under the circumstances Mr. Rountree is correct maybe we just better table this thing and we can get back to the highway district and see if we can't untangle the problem and come back to you folks with something that makes them happy. We sure as heck don't want to be sideways with them. Johnson: I appreciate that, I am sure that is where we were headed. I will now close the public hearing. Rountree: I have a question for Wayne, can we build a fire station in R-15? Crookston: I would have to look Charlie. Rountree: (Inaudible) Hepper: Can we zone that as an R-15 and condition it to have (inaudible) for high density a conditional use permit. Or R-15 basically a designation that they could go in with the high density without a conditional use. How does that work? Crookston: Well, with the R-15 you can allow them to develop as the R-15 standards are Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 10, 1995 Page 37 since it is an annexation you can require them to do it as a planned unit development. You could change the zone to a lesser zone which then basically the applicant needs to agree on. To work together somewhat, if the R-15 is not acceptable at all there are some various thing that you can do. Because it is an annexation you have more latitude than if it were just a preliminary plat application. Shearer: Mr. Chairman, I move that we table this until our next regular meeting since we will have to consider the findings of fact and conclusions of law at that time anyway. Rountree: Second Johnson: We have a motion and a second to table this to our next regularly scheduled meeting which is February 14th, al those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #11: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR REZONE FROM R-4 TO L-0 BY JAMES AND JEAN FULLER: Johnson: At this time 1 will open the public hearing and invite a representative or the applicant to come forward and address the Commission. Crookston: Mr. Chairman I need to step down due to a conflict. I have asked Mr. Riddlemoser to act as City Attorney on this and the next application. Johnson: Thank you Mr. Crookston. Hepper: Mr. Chairman I need to step down too because I have a conflict. Johnson: Okay Mr. Happen Tim Mockwa, 1802 North 33rd Street, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Mockwa: As 1 mentioned by name is Tim Mockwa, I am with Toothman Ortman Engineering and we are representing Mr. and Mrs. Fuller in their request for rezoning and a conditional use permit. The property is approximately 1 acre in size and located at the northwest (End of Tape) I would like to briefly cover 4 main topics, to try and describe these requests and their appropriateness for this property. First I would like to talk about the concept behind this rezone and conditional use permit request. Second I would like to discuss the public health and safety issues associated with the project such as this. And third I would like to talk about the aesthetics of the proposed use. And finally the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 10, 1995 Page 38 adequacy of this proposal. This area has undergone a lot of changes in the last decade. When it was originally annexed into the City in 1976 it was a quiet rural area with little traffic and congestion. As Meridian has grown and residential developments have built to meet this growth this comer has become a center of a major urban area that has greatly increased in density. The Ada County Highway District is beginning a major construction project on Cherry Lane which will increase the intensity of this urban intersection. The project calls for widening of the streets, increased right of way widths and removal of existing vegetation. The other 3 comers on this intersection are either currently being developed or planned to be developed commercial or institutional uses. All of these factors that I have mentioned decrease the appeal of this parcel as residential. A convenience store is a logical support facility for the large amount of residential uses for this area. In any development the concern for public health and safety is critical. This proposal places strict requirements on the use of this property and eventual construction of the proposed facility to assure the public health is protected. This request has been reviewed by the City Engineer, City Planning Director, City Police Chief, City Fire Department, Ada County Highway District, Idaho Power and Central Health District. We have read and understand all of their comments. This property is under the protection of Meridian Police Department, our proposal calls for a site that is open and visible without dark or remote areas that might encourage loitering and crime. Existing fire protection ability for this comer is more than enough to accommodate the proposed use and modem technology and fueling operations such as double walled containment systems make these types of facilities very safe. Existing irrigation and drainage systems shall be maintained across the property. The aesthetics of this property are very important, the aesthetics are a major design concern here. This proposal will include landscape and aesthetic features as required by ordinance and dictated by good design practice. The large setbacks and sideyards are proposed to be grassed and serve as landscaped areas as well as storm retention as required. The perimeter of the property is well screened by existing fences and vegetation and we propose to supplement this screen as required by ordinance. Proposed lighting and signage will comply with all City requirements established codes and good design practices. As I mentioned we have reviewed and understand all the comments by the review agencies. I have tried to explain Johnson: Excuse me, since you have mentioned it twice, you have read and understand all the agency comments, but do you have a problem with any of them? Mockwa: No sir 1 do not. Johnson: Thank you Mockwa: I have tried to explain our thought process behind this request and I have tried to discuss design considerations and concerns facing the project of this nature. If you 0 0 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 10, 1995 Page 39 have any questions I will be happy to answer them at this time. Johnson: Thank you, any questions of the applicant? This is a public hearing, is there anyone else that would like to address the Commission at this time? Steve Hardesty, 877 Main Street, Suite 1000, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Hardesty: Mr. Chairperson and members of the Commission, my name is Steve Hardesty as I mentioned and I am an attorney with Hollichoks, Ennison and Holly in Boise. I represent Ken Shelton and the land owners which on this map are directly adjacent to the proposed rezone and conditional use permit. The responses in this neighborhood and this area have been overwhelming against the proposed rezone and conditional use permit. Now a number of us met and we are all here to oppose the rezone and oppose the conditional use permit. We met last night and tried to allocate tasks in the interest of efficiency so that we don't get a lot of repetitive testimony and we can cover the most salient points in opposition to this rezone and the conditional use permit. My job right now is, everyone would probably like to hear less from attorneys and more from the constituents and so I am just going to give you a brief road map of the people who will be here from our group to testify exactly what we will be saying. First Bob Unger is a professional planner and he will be discussing the particulars of the zoning ordinance and the comprehensive plan. The thrust of his testimony will be that the proposed development is inconsistent with the plan. The plans requirement of harmony and preservation of the integrity of the neighborhood and also the ordinance itself provides, expressly provides for the Commission to require that any application for a rezone be accompanied by a development plan. I guess the development plan that is supposedly accompanying this one is the conditional use permit for the convenience store which would obviously necessarily tied to the rezone. 1 believe the staff report is recommended that the conditional use permit be denied and to the extent that the proposed development plan is going to be denied we suggest that the rezone should also be denied and tabled until an appropriate development plan is submitted and along with the rezone. So that is what Mr. Unger will testify about the comprehensive Plan and the rezoning ordinance. The second, Ken Shelton has been responsible and integrally involved in obtaining a number of letters that have been submitted as well as a significant petition against the rezone and conditional use permit which you should each have in your files. As I understand it considering the letters and the signatures you have over 180 individuals who have lodged their protest against the rezone and against the conditional use permit. In summary the concerns of all of those land owners that sign the petition is embodied in a letter that is in your file from Judith Lolley. Apparently she already currently lives next to a convenient store and she has been subjected to a number of problems which are outlined in that letter. Essentially it is her experience and her fears which really sort of motivate a lot of people to sign on the petition and to oppose this type of development. In addition a major Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 10, 1995 Page 40 concern of the land owners immediately adjacent to this project and also in the surrounding area is that they bought their properties because they invested substantial sums in their new homes because it is a residential area and when they bought their properties this particular lot was a residential area. It is sort of pulling the rug out from under them now to have this type of development on this lot so close to their homes. Finally the last person from our group who will testify is Steve Spoor and Mr. Spoor has been in contact with a number of realtors including Mr. Blaksly who is a Re -Max realtor and 1 believe sits on the Ada County Planning and Zoning Commission. Their conclusions are irrefutable that essentially the impact on the values of the homes from this type of development is only going to be negative and obviously it is going to decrease as you get farther and farther away from this project. But none the less the homes in the immediate vicinity will be dramatically impacted and other homes will be impacted as well. Those are the 3 individuals who will present testimony that is essentially a summary of their testimony and for those reasons we are here to request that both the conditional use permit be denied and that the rezone be denied and that until the applicant comes forward with an appropriate development scheme for this lot which would be more consistent with the ordinance and the comprehensive plan that everything be denied until that time. Thank you. So I guess I will tum the floor over to Johnson: No we are not going to do it that way, we are going to do it my way which is I will call the people up. We have some questions maybe of you before you leave Mr. Hardesty. Any questions from the Commission? Thank you very much, is there anyone from the public that would like to testify at this time? Robert Unger, 3281 Sugar Creek, was sworn by the City Attorney. Unger: If I could I have some information that I would like to give to you. Once again my name is Robert Unger and 1 do live on Sugar Creek Drive which is my home sits directly behind this proposed rezone of the property. I do represent 180 people who live in the vicinity of the property and we do wish to oppose the application that is presented by the Fullers on numerous points. My presentation will deal with primarily with the application's compliance with the Meridian's Comprehensive Plan and the Meridian Zoning Ordinance. A couple of short items is that the surrounding zoning in that area is R-4 to the north, which is single family resident zoning and single family residents. To the south we have a C -N which is a neighborhood commercial zoning which we understand the proposed Albertson's is going in there. To the east we have an R-4 zoning which is a vacant parcel of land. The R-4 zoning once again being single family residents and from the sign that out on the vacant property that is proposed for a church. To the west we have single family residents in the R-4 zone. In the comprehensive plan in the implementation section it talks zoning and development ordinance and zoning map. The policies of the comprehensive plan have established a framework for the zoning and development 0 9 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 10, 1995 Page 41 ordinance and zoning map. The text of the ordinance establishes the conditions under which land may be used to create a stable and future land use development pattern of the City of Meridian. The zoning map shows the location of districts in which various residential and commercial uses may be located to form a compatible arrangement of land uses. This particular use is the zoning of the L-0 and this particular use is not something that is designated on the land use map. In the land use section of the introduction section where the comprehensive plan arranges major land uses to preserve the integrity and amenities of residential neighborhoods. The land use recommendations are set forth in this plan emphasize the importance of good land use planning and cooperative planning among the various jurisdictions and agencies in the Meridian area. The comprehensive plan map they proposed future land use delineations for the impact area are shown on the comprehensive plan map. Generalized ultimate land uses, the land use element is based upon specific objectives and it is one through 10 on the comprehensive plan. Three of those items we feel are compatible to bring up with this particular application. Number 3 on that list is quality of residential neighborhoods to the north, south, east and west of the old town. Number 7 the importance of maintaining compatible land uses to ensure an optimum quality of life. Number 8, respectful responsibilities and rights of land owners. Under the general policies of the comprehensive plan 16U, development of land use review process that involves the public in the conceptual stage of a development proposal utilizes staff experience to address detailed standards. This particular application not being compatible with the land use area or the land use in the area would need a development plan to go along with the rezone. 18U talks about to promote the development of high quality environmental compatible residential areas that contain the necessary parks, schools, commercial facilities and to maintain and form identifiable neighborhoods. Well, these are existing neighborhoods and commercial facilities should be a part of the initial development of those and not to come in after the development of those residential areas. Under residential policies if 2.3U, they talk about to protect and maintain residential neighborhood property values. Improve each neighborhoods physical condition and enhance its quality of life for the residents. Based upon professional written testimony that I believe has been submitted and I believe there is some additional to be submitted. There is no question that this proposal will de -value the ground or the surrounding properties. Under commercial activity centers, commercial policies, they talk about neighborhood shopping centers and where they should be located. And although this is not a neighborhood shopping center there is a as I read through this you can see why they are not asking for the rezone that would be more compatible for the use that they are requesting. The neighborhood shopping center should locate near but not necessarily at the intersection of collectors and or arterials within planned residential development when they are an intrigal part of the original development plan. Located new planned commercial centers 3 to 8 acres on arterials and collectors in a residential areas in such a way to compliment and not conflict with the adjoining residential areas. And then to discourage isolated development in residential developments unless the uses are Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 10, 1995 Page 42 compatible with the planned neighborhood commercial designation. So, essentially for this type of a use a convenient store actually is a permitted use principally permitted use within that particular of a zone where as it is conditionally permitted in the L -O zone. Neighborhood identity goals statements, every neighborhood in Meridian will be attractive and regarded as a nice place to live. Limit the conversion of predominantly residential neighborhoods to non-residential uses and require effective buffers and mitigation measures through conditional use permits when appropriate when non-residential uses are proposed. This is a use that is not appropriate next to a residential use. So the conversion of this residential property for that use would not be appropriate and not in line with the Comprehensive Plan. Just briefly in the zoning ordinance, the Limited Office district is designated to act as a buffer between other more intense non-residential uses and high density residential uses and is thus a transitional use. This particular proposal for a convenient store is exactly what this L -O zone is to buffer from not to put on. Just a comparison of the type of uses that are presently permitted in this particular zone, you have offices, churches, clinics, banks, mortuaries, those types of quiet business. Uses that are quiet and more compatible with residential uses as opposed to traffic and noise generated by a convenient store which requires a conditional use permit. One other thing I would like to touch on is the general standards which are applicable to all conditional uses and along with these particular standards that are applicable are pretty much the same as the standards applicable to zoning amendments. So what I will do is review the zoning amendments and not touch on the conditional use. You have 12 particular standards that are to be met when considering a rezone. The very first one says that, it questions will the new zoning be harmonious with and in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan. Which from what we can tell it doesn't appear to be. If not is there an application for a comprehensive plan amendment. 1 am not aware of one, I don't know if you all are but I am not. Number 4 talks about has there been a change in the area or adjacent areas which may dictate that an area should be rezoned. For example and this is an excellent example for this application, have the streets been widened. Well they haven't but they are since they just started yesterday. New railroads access developed or planned or adjacent area being developed in a fashion similar to the proposed rezone. That is not occurring. Number 6, will the proposed uses not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or future neighboring uses? Well, we feel that it very much would be, we are concerned abut crime we are concern about traffic. Very much concerned about the de- valuation of the property in the area which 1 have already touched on pertaining to letters to that effect. Number 9 talks about will the propose uses not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons property or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic, noise, fumes, glare or odors. We feel that it certainly will produce those types of problems and situations. In conclusion we feel that there is a neighborhood commercial zone in the southwest comer of the intersection and it has been there it is zoned that way for a good many years at least 10 years from what I can tell on the comprehensive plan and zoning 0 0 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 10, 1995 Page 43 map at least that far back. This is where this type of development should occur, the comprehensive plan designated that area for that type of development not the Fuller property next to our residential development. A rezone without an appropriate development plan is not recommended in the comprehensive plan unless the use is compatible with the area. And we do not feel that this use is compatible with that area. So we would ask that you not only deny the rezone or recommend denial of the rezone but also deny the conditional use. And at some time Mr. and Mrs. Fuller would like to come back with a limited office a request for the same type of rezone and development plan that reflects something that is a more compatible use with the residential area there we would certainly be open to review that. That concludes my testimony. Johnson: Thank you Mr. Unger, any questions? Rountree: Based on your last comment you wouldn't then necessarily be opposed to an L -O zoning if it were say for an out patient medical clinic or some of the stated uses in the comp plan and in your letter? Unger. From indications that I have received from people in the neighborhood they seem to feel that something is going to happen there. In the limited office is much more compatible with that particular area. 1 believe that something submitted with the rezone as part of it is a planned development, something that they would get an opportunity to review and get some input 1 think they very well might (inaudible). Johnson: Thank you, anyone else that would like to address the Commission? Ken Shelton, 3225 West Woodmont Drive, was sworn by the City Attorney. Shelton: Mr. Chairman, distinguished members of the Council, I have been handed another letter from another resident directly adjacent to the project. I also have written testimony that I would like to give to you. When I received the rezone from R-4 to L-0 and application of the conditional use permit for the convenient store and gas station I began talking with my neighbors. We all have the same concerns, the petitions you have some of those concerns of not only those immediately adjacent to this location but to those of the surrounding subdivisions. There are over 180 signatures of residents and now there are 13 letters. They believe as I do rezone and conditional use permit are not in the best interest of our community. We believe the image of our neighborhood would be irreparably damaged. Had I asked many of those who signed the petitions would have stood here and tested. We felt this was unnecessary because all the concerns were identical and have decided to limit those testifying. These concerns are as follows, depreciation of property values, depreciation of character of the neighborhood, health hazards, for example gas fumes, car exhausts, increase crime rate and vandalism, 0 0 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 10, 1995 Page 44 loitering, lights on all night long, loss of privacy as expected, increased noise and traffic. I would like to draw your attention to one letter in particular from Ms. Judith Lolley. Her letter is of personal experiences having lived next to a convenience store for a number of years. Not a pretty picture, her experiences include excessive and unreasonable levels of noise, boomboxes blasting at 3 in the morning, repeated vandalism of her fence bordering the properties, people hanging out smoking and fighting in the parking lot and excessive accumulation of trash and debris on the premises subsequently being blown by the wind onto surrounding properties. Everyone who signed the petition moved to this area to escape these problems, everyone relied on the residential zoning of their properties and Mr. and Mrs. Fuller lot to protect against these problems. All of these concerns are set forth in the petition and my testimony represents these 180+ petitioners. We are asking the Commission not approve a rezone from R-4 to L -O nor approve a conditional use permit for a convenient store/gas station on the Fuller's property. Thank you. Johnson: Thank you, any questions of Mr. Shelton? Would someone else like to address the Commission at this time? Steve Spoor, 1720 North Aronmink Way, was sworn by the City Attorney. Spoor: Like 1 stated my name is Steve Spoor and I live at 1720 North Aronmink Way which is one of the properties adjacent to the proposed development. One thing I would like to bring up is that we spent several years planning our house and it is quote unquote our dream house as we have lived there. One thing that we wanted to do by moving to this area was to see our property value appreciate. You have been handed as part of your packet one letter from a realtor, I have another one here. Unfortunately I only have one copy that I would like to submit. The letter that you have and the tetter I just stated are both from real estate professionals stating the impact upon the adjacent properties of this development. Both letters state that the property adjacent to the aforementioned property will suffer from a decrease in value. In addition the letter states in this age of consumer awareness buyers are prone to avoid those properties with resale impediment which such proximity to the similar uses such as would occur if the application is approved. It is also the opinion of these 2 professionals that not only would the values of the properties decrease but it would also take much longer to sell if we were to do so as a buyer must be sought that would be willing to put up with the negative influence of adjoining convenience store. That concludes my testimony thank you. Johnson: Thank you, is there anyone else that would like to address the Commission? Richard Britton, 3038 Autumn Way, was sworn by the City Attorney. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 10, 1995 Page 45 Britton: Mr. Chairman, I represent the members of the Meridian Seventh Day Adventists church and I have a prepared statement which I would like to read and I will pass on to Mr. Berg when 1 am finished. We represent the Meridian Seventh Day Adventist Church who are the owners of the northeast comer of Ten Mile Road and Cherry Lane. At the time we purchased the building site the surrounding properties were open farm land, residences and churches. It seemed like an ideal place to build our church, we are against the proposed zoning and conditional use permit of the northwest comer of Ten Mile Road and Cherry Lane. We believe such zoning and conditional use will devalue our property and become an attractive nuisance increasing noise, traffic and loitering in the area. Any questions? Johnson: Any questions? Thank you, anyone else? David Oglesbee, 3300 West Woodmont Drive, was swom by the City attorney. Oglesbee: What I plan to do for the committee is just simply read a prepared statement that I brought with me tonight just a personal view and perception about the issue at hand. To the Planning and zoning commission of the City of Meridian. We fully empathize with the Fuller family not wanting to reside on a comer that is being widened on both streets bordering the residents with commercial property on both southern sides of the intersection of Cherry Lane and Ten Mile. It is our perception that a rezone should be limited to a non -obtrusive one level office professional building landscaped to blend in with the homes surrounding it. This would be a fair compromise, our property is located on the northwest corner of Woodmont, one block removed from the present rezoning proposal. We have been plagued by adolescents roaming and vandalizing homes in this area for the past 2 years than seeking refuge in the darkness of the golf course. There has been periodic damage done to the golf course, most recently on the green right next to our home. We feel the City would be inviting increased criminal activity on a more frequent basis if the convenient store were to be located in a residential area. It is well known that at 24 hour gas station/convenient store serves as a magnet for late night criminal activity that is perpetrated by individuals who are both immortalized and desperate. The potential for that criminal activity may spill over into residential area is extremely high taking into consideration the values of the homes bordering the golf course that does not have adequate lighting. We feel at present the City of Meridian does not have adequate law enforcement to police this growing area. We believe that the conditional use permit is granted it would not only greatly impact the existing subdivision but slowly turn another nice neighborhood into a law enforcement quagmire. Is this what the City of Meridian wants? Is it fair to sacrifice a whole neighborhood and a City golf course that has plans for expansion and growth? This golf course could potentially bring more income for the City than a proposed gas station/convenience store. With and elementary school slated to be built in the very near future across from this intersection we would have to watch our 9 0 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 10, 1995 Page 46 small children walk past this comer each and every day never knowing who would be watching, being continually concerned about their safety both from criminal activity and traffic. And in conclusion it is our view the conditional use permit for the convenient store gas station should not be given consideration. Thank you. Johnson: Thank you, any questions for Mr. Oglesbee? Anyone else? Dorothy June Hook, 3350 Sugar Creek Drive, was swom by the City Attorney. Hook: We moved out to Cherry Lane Village approximately 2 years ago. We moved from behind Waremart, we lived in that subdivision for approximately 8 years. When the Waremart went in and 1 am using this as a comparison we were given very specific details that it would not increase traffic. It would not increase any illegal activity and they had done studies on it. We moved to Meridian to get away from that, we had a lot of increased, I am in law enforcement, we had an awful lot of increased illegal activity. We had a lot of excess traffic through the subdivision. We have grown to love Meridian in the 2 years that we have been here. We have a lot of young children on Sugar Creek Drive, it is going to cause increase through there plus speeding. I do believe that it will bring in a lot of illegal activity whether it be substance abuse or whatever. 1 have a real concern for the children in the neighborhood. 1 am a probation/parole officer for the State of Idaho and I specialize in sex crimes. I have done this for 7 years and I know where many of them start at. I have a real concern, I want to go on record of my concern, I think that we move there we have no children at home we are there for the peace, tranquility and basically the safety. Before we moved here I checked to see what the crime rate was in the subdivision and the crime rate was very low. I have been involved with children that go on the golf course at night etc. I believe eventually it is going to be rezoned but I do believe it needs to be something that meets with the neighborhood, meets with the neighborhood. I think that is very important for everybody to be able to meet each others needs. Johnson: Thank you, any questions of Mrs. Hook? Anyone else? I will close the public hearing at this time. Do you have those last 2 letters that were submitted we only have one copy, I need those back for the official record here. What would you like to do gentlemen? Rountree: Mr. Chairman, I move that we have the City Attorney prepare findings of fact and conclusions of law on this item. Shearer: Second Johnson: It has been moved and seconded that we have the City Attorney prepare findings of fact and conclusions of law on the application for rezone from R-4 to L -O by Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 10, 1995 Page 47 James and Jean Fuller, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #12: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR PERMISSION TO CONSTRUCT A CONVENIENCE STORE/GAS STATION BY JAMES AND JEAN FULLER: Johnson: 1 am assuming you still wish to sit down. I will now open the public hearing. Tim Mockwa, 1802 North 33rd Street, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Mockwa: I really have nothing further to add on this. My presentation earlier covered both of these issues. The one thing I would like to add is that this pian was intentionally done conceptually so that we can incorporate any objective measurable comments or concerns the neighbors might have. We would appreciate hearing those. That is all I have. Johnson: Thank you very much, any questions? Anyone else from the public that would like to address the conditional use permit application? Steve Hardesty, 877 Main Street, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Hardesty: Mr. Chairperson and members of the Commission just for the record my comments earlier were addressed to both the rezone application and the conditional use permit application. I believe those of Mr. Shelton's, Mr. Unger and Mr. Spoor's comments would be the same for the record they were directed at the conditional use permit. Thank you. Johnson: Thank you Mr. Hardesty. Is there anyone else? Richard Britton, was sworn by the City Attorney. Britton: My comments earlier about the zoning and conditional use permits they go for the conditional use permit also. Johnson: Thank you, another gentleman. Robert Unger, 3281 Sugar Creek, was sworn by the City Attorney. Unger: I just have one procedural question is all I have, in your motions to direct the attorney to prepare findings of fact and conclusions of law what does that mean. Have you 0 0 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 10, 1995 Page 48 recommended approval or are you not recommending approval? Johnson: We haven't recommended anything at this point, we have asked the City Attorney which we are required to do by law to look at it from a legal standpoint. He will prepare that findings of fact and conclusions of law which will incorporate the comments made tonight then we will look at that and come to a conclusion through the findings of fact process to either recommend to go further to City Council or to deny or whatever the recommendation is. It is just our next natural and mandated step that we take. Unger: Will we know an answer to that? Johnson: The findings of fact and conclusions of law are not public information until they are approved. At which time they are approved you can have a copy of those. Unger: Do we know when that would be? Johnson: We hope to have those done by our next regularly scheduled meeting which is February 14th that will be part of our agenda. If you were here earlier that is what we went through with the first 5 items. There is no public testimony we just make a motion as to what we want to do with the findings of fact as prepared by the City Attorney and at that point then it is public information. We pass it onto you and it also goes onto City Council for their decision. Unger: Thank you Johnson: Anybody else? Steve Spoor, 1720 Aronmink Way, was sworn by the City Attorney. Spoor: My comments that I stated earlier more or less pertain to the actual special use permit and I want to make that clear in the record. The only thing I want to say is if you put a gas station in my backyard 1 am going to move to another City. Thank you. Johnson: Anyone else? I will now close the public hearing. Rountree: I would like to direct a question to the applicant's representative. Johnson: I will now re -open the public hearing. Rountree: Based on your closing comment, I know the Fuller's aren't here to discuss this but do you feel in your discussions with them that they would be willing to sit down with 0 0 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 10, 1995 Page 49 an identified or designated group of neighbors to discuss what might be feasible with this property? Mockwa: Fuller's up to this point have followed the ordinance requirements as far as the notification of the public and I really can't speak for that issue. Johnson: We are still open if someone has a thought. Earnest Hepper, 1750 North Ten Mile Road, was sworn by the City Attorney. Hepper: The only comment 1 wish to make is my property is 110 feet from the Fuller property and I was not notified of any meeting. In fact I didn't find out until one of my neighbors mentioned it to me 2 or 3 days ago. Johnson: And that is in your name, the property? Hepper: Yes Vern Croft, 3410 Woodmont Drive, was sworn by the City Attorney. Croft: I would like Mr. Chairman, to advise you that I am the president of the Homeowners Association we have public property adjoining the Fuller's we received no notification of this hearing. Thank you. Riddlemoser: What is the name of your public, of your homeowners association? Croft: Cherry Lane Homeowners Association, P.O. Box 655, Meridian. Johnson: Thank you, there was another gentleman. Ken Shelton, 3225 West Woodmont Drive, was sworn by the City Attorney. Shelton: Mr. Chairman, gentlemen, (End of Tape) previous testimony in which 1 spoke for the petitions which you have received. I would just like to go on record as stating this. Thank you. Johnson: Anyone else before we close the public hearing here? Lee Hook, 3350 Sugar Creek Drive, was sworn by the City Attorney. Hook: Gentlemen, I just wanted to make one quick comment. My wife was up earlier and 0 0 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 10, 1995 Page 50 she stated that we previously lived in the neighborhood behind the new Waremart Store in Boise. That neighborhood is also directly behind the Circle K located at Fairview and Five Mile. Several years ago a young lady working in that facility was shot and killed. I realize that the likelihood of that happening is slim but you only have to have that occur one time in your neighborhood. Thank you. Johnson: Thank you, is there anyone else? Charlie are you through? Rountree: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Johnson: 1 will now close the public hearing. How would you like to address the Conditional use permit gentlemen? Rountree: Mr. Chairman, I move that we have findings of fact and conclusions of law prepared on the conditional use permit application. Shearer: Second Johnson: All those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Commissioner Hepper and City Attorney Wayne Crookston resume their seats. THREE MINUTE BREAK ITEM #13: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR AN ACCESSORY USE PERMIT FOR A FAMILY DAY CARE BY KELLY NESTEN: Johnson: I will now open the public hearing and if there is a representative or the applicant here would you please come forward and address the Commission at this time. Stiles: Mr. Chairman she did indicate that she had to go back home to her children. Johnson: She was here tonight and didn't anticipate all of these long winded people. She had to go home then. It is a public hearing, is there anyone else that would like to testify on this application for a family day care? Does anybody care? is there any discussion? I will close the public hearing at this time. Does the Commission feel comfortable or would they like to question the applicant? Rountree: We have several letters of input at least 3 of which support it. And one 0 9 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 10, 1995 Page 51 addresses issues that we normally hear and usually conditioned as part of the permitting process. So based on that input I recommend that we have findings of fact and conclusions of law prepared. Johnson: That is not a motion it is a recommendation. Does anybody else have any comments? Apparently not. Rountree: Mr. Chairman, I move that we have findings of fact and conclusions prepared. Shearer: Second Johnson: We have a motion and a second to have the City Attorney prepare findings of fact and conclusions of law on the application for an accessory use permit by Kelly Nesten, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #14: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW AN OFFICE USE BY BORUP CONSTRUCTION: Johnson: I will now open the public hearing and invite the applicant or representative to come forward. Keith Borup, 2090 Freedom Lane, was sworn by the City Attorney. Borup: We suddenly would like to put in a gas station and convenience store instead. Johnson: Is there anyone else that would like to testify? Borup: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission we purchased the property at 38 Ada Street that I think is in the past been sometimes vacant and sometimes occupied. We propose using the existing building as our office. We have reviewed the comments that have been submitted and see no problem with compliance with these. Hubble Engineering is currently working on the plans for the street improvement. We are coordinating that with Ken Skinner who has the property adjoining ours. At this time we have not contacted Tates, I wasn't aware of what their plans are but we will be meeting with them. I guess those are the only comments I had. Johnson: I know you mentioned this but just to make sure, do you have Shari Stile's comments of January 6th? 0 9 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 10, 1995 Page 52 Borup: Yes, I have Shari's and I think the main 2 that were pertinent were Shari and from the Ada County Highway department. Johnson: Thank you, any questions of Mr. Borup? Rountree: Which one of these would you like us to refer to? Hepper: Is the house going to have to be remodeled? Borup: Not as far as any major changes, we eliminated a closet in one of the rooms and other than that. Hepper: Are you going to have to update the electrical and the heating? Borup: The heating there was no heating it had a wood stove. So yes the heating needs to be updated. Crookston: It has to be brought up to code. Borup: The heating? Crookston: Everything Borup: As far as you mean electrical is going to need to be inspected and etc. We weren't making any Hepper: It will have to be brought up to code if it doesn't (inaudible) Crookston: With the change in use Borup: That I was not aware of. That should not be a problem. Johnson: Thank you Mr. Borup, is there anyone else from the public that would like to comment on this application? Seeing no one then I will close the public hearing. It would require findings of fact. Shearer: Mr. Chairman, I move we have the Attorney prepare findings of fact and conclusions of law for this project. Rountree: Second Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 10, 1995 Page 53 Johnson: Moved and seconded to have the City Attorney prepare findings of fact and conclusions of law, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #15: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT - COMMERCIAL BY FRED LOTRIDGE: Johnson: I will now open the public hearing if Mr. Lotridge or his representative here please address the Commission at this time and be brief. Jim Merkle, 9550 Bethel Court, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Merkle: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission I am here this evening on behalf of the applicant Fred Lotridge. This proposal is for approximately 7.88 acre parcel of ground located on the north side of Fairview Avenue which is right (inaudible) Hickory Way which is here (inaudible) This parcel is an existing L -O zone already within the City limits of Meridian. Within and L-0 zone as stated in your zoning ordinance a commercial planned development is a conditional use and that is why we are here this evening to discuss. Within the site itself the 7.88 acres there is approximately 65,000 square feet of building. This will include retail, professional offices and various related uses which are allowed within a commercial planned development concept. In our application packet there was a list of uses which may be proposed within the project, Larry Knop the project Architect for Fred is here this evening and he can answer any questions regarding the types of uses or any of the architectural elements that you guys might have questions on. Regarding and being brief, regarding the comments on the City Engineer's and Planning and Zoning Administrator's comments I have submitted a written response which I believe Will stated that you guys received. With the exception of a couple of minor things that need clarification which I can get with staff we are in agreement. One item that I would like to address though is Gary's item #7, regarding the requirements along Fairview as he stated there is a 50 mile an hour speed limit at this time. However talking with Larry Sale and Bruce Freckleton outside right before our hearing Larry said ACHD is in the process of looking at reducing the speed limit along this part of Fairview. Gary's requirements state he wants to look at a possible acceleration/deceleration lane for Hickory Way which is acceptable for us and is probably a good idea. It wasn't required by the Highway District but we are in agreement with Gary on that. The one issue I would like to point out is Gary's #7 request that curb and gutter be put along the frontage whereas the Highway District has stated there is not a requirement by them due to the impact fee arrangement. Sidewalk is proposed and is required by both the Highway District and the City and we are proposing to put that in. Curb and gutter is an issue and I would like to latitude, we understand the issue and we would like the latitude to meet with Gary and the Highway Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 10, 1995 Page 54 District to come to an understanding whether they are going to require it or not. I talked to Bruce earlier and he said that would be acceptable to him. Lary Knop, myself and Fred sat down with Shari Stiles regarding this project prior to coming up with a concept or our application. Basically we are in agreement on what we want to do in this vicinity kind of make a plaza area surrounded by the buildings to provide some within walking distance of the subdivisions the church and what not and not provide the typical strip commercial you will see in some areas along Fairview. What we are proposing is the conditional use permit approval of basically the site plan with a detailed site plan review at the building permit stage with Shari and staff so it doesn't have to come back before guys all the time. You guys conceptually approve it and then when we submit building permits for each of them we do our site plan review regarding parking, landscape, buffering, which Shari did address with the R-4 right there and adjacent. So that is the just of it and if you have any questions I would be happy to try and answer them for you. Johnson: Do you know off the top of your head what the total square footage is of all the buildings there? Merkle: 65,974 Johnson: Is your architect here did you say? Merkle: Yes he is. Johnson: Do you have any questions of Mr. Merkle? Hepper: Is this an exact layout of where the buildings will be or is this just a concept? Merkle: Half and half, it is as close as we could get it at this stage without having the exact tenant stating I want my building to be this particular size (inaudible) We are going to stick with the concept because we like the plaza idea with the little frontage (inaudible). Yes it is a concept but we are going to try and stick to it as closely as possible and that is why we have gone through the site plan review with Shari on building permits. Hepper. We wouldn't be looking at instead of 6, 7, 8, 9 buildings possibly we wouldn't be looking at 2 buildings or 3 buildings or something smaller (inaudible) and broke up with a plaza in the middle? Merkle: This is what, exactly. Johnson: Any other questions of Mr. Merkle? 0 0 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 10, 1995 Page 55 Hepper: Can I just say that I think if there is any major deviation from this concept, the concept is great, I hope they can put it together like this. I think if there is a major deviation then you will need to come back and check with us on what is going on. But if you can hold that I think it is a nice project. Johnson: I would like to have the architect address, your invitation there to discuss possible use. Larry Knop, 355 South 3rd Street, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Knop: We came up with this concept because we wanted to come up with a different feel and offer something that we feel is appropriate for this area and the adjoining uses. Mr. Lotridge (inaudible) is interested in developing a music store and an espresso or coffee shop in this area. We wanted to set a theme of more independent buildings to offer some smaller spaces to more professional and medical type with an interior plaza and isolate the parking so that we have more of a community type association there. We want to keep businesses related and compatible so that we don't have a problem with the neighborhoods with the other tenants or owners of the property and also the churches across the street. We want to keep the uses fairly compatible throughout the development. These are in essence pad sites or typical building locations that will basically stay the same but as we have tenants then we will develop the buildings and the design from their. As a matter of the design we want to stay with a brick, a wood, a stucco type of a these and keep it more along the residential lines. Rountree: Would you be looking at multiple stories? Knop: No Rountree: Single story. Knop: We are trying to keep it a single story, that is the way the pads are set up right now and the square footage versus the parking. We are termed and buffered on all of the project, Shari Stiles has requested that a masonry fence be constructed at these residential lots which there are only 3 of them. And we have offered some 10 foot landscaping and buffering there and wood fence but a masonry fence seems appropriate. Johnson: How large are those lots? Other than the pad site, what is the surrounding area? Knop: This area 0 0 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 10, 1995 Page 56 Johnson: No within your design? Or is that parking? The whole thing is parking? What are the 2 buildings at the far extreme? Knop: These are pads individual pad sites to break up the parking area. Johnson: The rest is all parking right? Knop: Right (inaudible) areas of parking with landscape strips in them and broken up (inaudible). Johnson: Thank you, any questions of the architect? This is a public hearing anyone else that would like to address this issue? Seeing no one then I will close the public hearing. This requires findings of fact. Hepper: Mr. Chairman, I move we have the City Attorney prepare findings of fact for this project. Rountree: Second Johnson: Moved and seconded to have the City Attorney to prepare findings of fact and conclusions of law on the conditional use permit to allow a planned development commercial by Fred Lotridge, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #16: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A 12 CHILD DAY CARE FACILITY BY LYNN JONES: Johnson: I will now open the public hearing and invite the applicant or a representative to address the Commission at this time. Lynn Jones, 3660 South Cole Road, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Jones: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, I was before you not too long ago with the same plan. Not much has changed since then, our goal has been to provide quality child care in residential settings without creating huge day care centers. What we have done is taken into consideration the traffic flows and all of the things necessary that go into child care. I have read and gone through all of the recommendations by staff. I only have one statement that I would like to add. On Shari Stiles' comments on No. 3 the applicant should consider incorporating a circular driveway to facilitate traffic flow at peak times. We have considered that and have looked at it. One of the problems with that is we 0 0 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 10, 1995 Page 57 wanted to maintain the integrity of the residence and not convert the residence into looking like a commercial outfit. We wanted to keep the residence to look like a residence and blend in with the surrounding homes in the area. And that is my only comment other than that all the conditions are fine with us. Johnson: Thank you, any questions of Mr. Jones? Hepper: Will the garage be used for it? Jones: One stall of the 3 stall garage we will keep intact the same conditions we had on the other one. Hepper: What is the fencing there, it looks like part of the backyard is fenced off? Jones: The fence will be a six foot high cedar fence that will encompass the whole play area. The fenced play area is just separates the play structure from the additional grassed back yard. All the back property will be fenced by a six foot high cedar fence. Hepper: What about hours of operation? Jones: Hours of operation are from 7:00 o'clock to 6:00 o'clock. Johnson: Any other questions? Anyone from the public that would like to address this application? Clifford Babbitt, 1181 W. Amity, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Babbitt: I tried to find out where this was located at. I was given a registered letter on this and I tried to find out where this day care is actually going to be located at. To this day I have not been able to find out where it is going to be located at. My property that (inaudible) is 2720 South Locust Grove, I don't think I am. Rountree: It might be across the street. Hepper: This would be the first lot to the south going into Cougar Creek subdivision. Babbitt: Where is Cougar Creek subdivision at? (Inaudible) Babbitt: This doesn't have any effect on me, I live, my property is probably about 4 or 5 9 0 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 10, 1995 Page 58 miles south. Johnson: That is probably over the 300 foot requirement. Anyone else? I will now close the public hearing. This is a conditional use permit it would require findings of fact. Rountree: Mr. Chairman, I move we have the City Attorney prepare findings of fact and conclusions. Hepper: Second Johnson: Moved by Mr. Rountree seconded by Mr. Hepper to have findings of fact prepared by the City Attorney, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #17: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR REZONE FROM R-4 TO R-8 AND L-0 BY MICHAEL GAMBLIN: Johnson: I will now open the public hearing, if Michael or his representative is here please address the Commission at this time. Mike Gamblin, 1927 SE 5th Way, was sworn by the City Attorney. Gamblin: Gentlemen, I am asking that an existing parcel with a single family residence on Cherry Lane that I have under contract, I am not the deeded owner at this time, be rezoned for the residence to be used as an office and the pasture behind it to be rezoned to an R-8 zoning to accommodate future single family residences. 1 believe everything else pertaining is in your packet. I don't have any objections to any of the staff reports or recommendations from the various entities. Johnson: Thank you, any questions of Mr. Gamblin? Hepper: Do you know what the zoning is to the east in the Whitetail Subdivision that backs up to your property line? Gamblin: It is an R-8, it is what I want. I just want to mirror exactly what is next door. They have a day care in front they are using and then 3 residential lots behind. That is what I wanted to do with the exact same sized lots. Hepper: Would you be putting any rental units on there? 0 0 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 10, 1995 Page 59 Gamblin: Rental units, you mean like multi -family housing? I don't honestly know, I don't have any plans to develop it right away. I am mostly concerned with just being able to establish the office for my office. I thought that I was just going to take a look at that down the road. Johnson: What kind of business are you in, what kind of office would that be? Gamblin: I am a real estate broker, so it would be a real estate office. Johnson: Any other questions of the applicant? Hepper: Where does the church lie in reference to your property? Gamblin: It is about 300 feet to the east, the Catholic church you mean? Hepper: Yes Gamblin: The other side of the dental office there. Johnson: Any more questions? Thank you very much, anyone from the public that would like to address the Commission? John Longdom, 1727 Leisure Lane, was sworn by the City Attorney. Longdom: I am mainly concerned about the entrances and exits to these extra lots in the back. Because my private property borders his. I actually own part of leisure lane and I have it on their map that it is showed as separate but it is not. I could show you this if you would like to look at it. I was wondering how he was planning to get in and out of there unless he plans both exits off of Cherry Lane. Johnson: You are right on Leisure right? Longdom: Right Johnson: Do you have something there that can show it better. (Inaudible) Longdom: They separated this strip here from this and it is all one piece, this little piece here is that new one they got right here. This is a little piece from the County it is (inaudible). The rest is all private property (inaudible). 0 0 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 10, 1995 Page 60 (Inaudible) Gamblin: This brings up a good point and I have that question myself. I had a title company research that and they thought that I did have access. But I questioned whether I did or not. I think you are bringing up a good point. Longdom: You do have access but not public access, you have private access. Gamblin: This is your little strip right there right? Longdom: No, that is the border of your property, my property takes in all the red. All the red is deeded to my piece. This part here was given to the County just a while back (inaudible). Gamblin: My main concern is how will I gain access if I put lots back in here to match those onto Leisure Lane. Longdom: (Inaudible) Gamblin: Obviously to develop into residential lots that issue would have to be resolved before I could do that. Longdom: (Inaudible) Gamblin: I appreciate it and I had somebody check it out and was given some assurances that (inaudible). Johnson: Okay, we need to move on. I appreciate you bringing that up and I am sure the applicant appreciates that as well. Anyone else from the public like to make a comment on this? Seeing no one then I will close the public hearing. Shearer: I move we have the Attorney prepare findings of fact and conclusions of law on this project. Rountree: Second Johnson: It has been moved and seconded that we have the City Attorney prepare findings of fact and conclusions of law, all those in favor? Discussion? Rountree: It seems to me that maybe tabling it until they resolve the access (inaudible). • Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 10, 1995 Page 61 Johnson: We probably could have handled that in the way of the motion. Rountree: But I didn't get a chance to make that motion. Johnson: Well we have a motion and a second so we need to move on that motion first. Shearer: I can withdraw my motion. Johnson: You certainly could. Shearer: I will just withdraw it. Johnson: We don't have a motion now, it has been withdrawn. Rountree: Mr. Chairman, I move that we table this item. Johnson: Don't we withdraw the motion after the second. Rountree: I will withdraw the second. Johnson: Now it is your turn. Rountree: I move we table this item until the access situation and schedule if for our next regular meeting. (Inaudible) Johnson: Well we kind of closed this public hearing, but since we are airing our dirty laundry here go ahead. Do you have something you would like to add? Gamblin: 1 wondered if it could be handled in such a manner that it is sent down the traditional method with perhaps a contingency rather than adding an additional month that I don't have with the seller. That would be put me under undue stress with the seller who wants to resolve the issue prior. Crookston: He wont' have a decision on this from the City Council for another 2 months. Gamblin: I realize that, I have that time frame in mind. If we had an additional 30 days it would push it past the proposed closing date is what 1 am saying. Johnson: I can't tell the Commission what to do but it is possible to condition a Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 10, 1995 Page 62 recommendation and perhaps (inaudible) that the access is going to be a vital part of whether we recommend approval or denial I am sure. Gamblin: Okay Johnson: That is the unfortunate thing, we will have to address the access in the findings of fact because it is part of testimony. Without any resolution there it would have to be conditioned on that being available. I am not making a motion because I don't make motions. Gamblin: I just wondered if it could be handled in such a way as to not cause an additional 30 days added to my time frame. That is what I was wondering. It seems like an issue that I would have to decide on my own. Johnson: It seems like a logical request for your point, I don't have a problem with that. Do you people have a problem with that? Rountree: I withdraw my motion. Johnson: I understand where you are coming from but 1 think he has a valid point. You withdraw your motion, (inaudible). Shearer: I move we have the Attorney prepare findings of fact and conclusions of law. Rountree: Second Johnson: Moved and seconded we have the City Attorney prepare findings of fact and conclusions of law, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #18: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW AUTOMOTIVE REPAIR AND SERVICE BY LESLIE MIGNEAULT: Johnson: The applicant is here would you please address the Commission. Les Migneault, 1680 Bearden Court, was sworn by the City Attorney. Migneault: Well, I am in agreement with pretty much everything that has been handed to me as far as the conditions of the permit. There is one thing in particular that I have a question of. I feel that 1 would like to work it out with Shari Stiles or whoever about the 20 0 0 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 10, 1995 Page 63 foot landscape setback. I feel that this might take up more parking area than if I can utilize that as parking space I can certainly use the space. 1 intend on running a nice neat shop and the landscaping will compliment the building and the surrounding area. 1 feel that 20 feet may be excessive and I would like to try and work that out. Everything else looks completely acceptable. Johnson: Isn't the 20 foot part of our ordinance Wayne? Crookston: Yes Johnson: So you would have to request a variance from the City Council on that issue. Migneault: Well, it said should be required and I thought it was still open for debate on that. Johnson: Any questions of the applicant? Thank you, anyone from the public like to address this application? I will close the public hearing. We need findings of fact on this. Hepper: Mr. Chairman, I move we have the City Attorney prepare findings of facts. Shearer: Second Johnson: Moved and seconded that we have the City Attorney prepare findings of fact and conclusions of law, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Johnson: Are there any further motions? Shearer: I move we adjourn. Rountree: Second Johnson: It was moved for adjournment, and seconded, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea MEETING ADJOURNED AT 11:27 P.M. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 10, 1995 Page 64 APPROVED: JOHNSO , C IRMAN ATTEST: WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CITY C • • ORIGINAL BEFORE THE MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JAMES and JEAN FULLER APPLICATION FOR REZONE NORTHWEST CORNER, INTERSECTION OF CHERRY LANE AND TEN MILE MERIDIAN, IDAHO FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The above entitled matter having come on for public hearing January 10, 1995, at the hour of 7:30 o'clock p.m. Testimony was presented in favor of request, and also in opposition thereto. The Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Meridian having duly considered the evidence and the matter makes the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of law. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. That a notice of public hearing on the Application for Rezone was published for two (2) consecutive weeks prior to the said public hearing scheduled for January 10, 1995, the first publication of which was fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing; that the matter was duly considered at the January 10, 1995, hearing; that the public was given full opportunity to express comments and submit evidence; and that copies of all notices were available to newspaper, radio and television stations. 2. That this property is located within the City of Meridian and is owned by Petitioner, JAMES and JEAN FULLER, and is described in the application which description is FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - 1 0 0 incorporated herein. 3. That the property is zoned Low Density Residential District (R-4). 4. That the request is for a rezoning of said property to Limited Office District (L -O). 5. That city sewer and water is already available to the property, but the use may require additional charges or fees. 6. That notice was given to all property owners who are within 300 feet of the external boundaries of the land being considered, and all property owners included within the property being considered. 7. That the subject property is surrounded on three sides, the east, west and north by property zoned Low Density Residential District (R-4). That the property on the south is presently zoned (C -N) CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. That all the procedural requirements of the Local Planning Act and of the Ordinances of the City of Meridian have been met and complied with by Petitioner. 2. That the City of Meridian has authority to grant applications for rezone pursuant to 67-6511 Idaho Code and, pursuant to 11-2-416 of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian. 3. That 11-2-416(x) of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian sets forth the standards under which FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - 2 the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council shall review applications for zoning amendments; that upon a review of those requirements and a review of the facts presented and the conditions of the area, the Planning and Zoning Commission concludes as follows: A. That the new zoning would be in accordance with the comprehensive plan. B. The area included in the zoning amendment is not intended to rezone in the future. C. The area included in the zoning amendment is intended to be developed in the fashion that would be allowed under the new zoning. D. That has been changes in the area or adjacent areas which would dictate that the area should be rezoned. E. The proposed uses will not be designed, constructed, operated and maintained to be harmonious and appropriate in appearance with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and that such use will not change the essential character of the same area. F. The area will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services such as highways, streets, police and fire protection, drainage structure, refuse disposal, water and sewer. G. The area will not create excessive additional requirements at public cost for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. H. The proposed uses will involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipments and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors, but other uses would not be offensive. I. The vehicular approaches to the property will not create an interference with traffic on surrounding public streets. J. The use of the area will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural or scenic feature of major FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - 3 n U importance. 0 K. The proposed zoning amendment as presented is not in the best interest of the City of Meridian. 4. The request for rezone is hereby denied until such time that a use is proposed for the property that is consistent with the land use in the particular area. APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts and approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. TNiT.T. l AT.T. COMMISSIONER HEPPER VOTED COMMISSIONER ROUNTREE VOTED COMMISSIONER SHEARER VOTED COMMISSIONER ALIDJANI COMMISSIONER JOHNSON (Tie Breaker) VOTED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION That Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council of the City of Meridian that they deny the request for rezone requested by the applicant for the property described in the application until such time that a use is proposed that is consistent with the land use in the particular area. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - 4 0 MOTION: APPRO')� XD: DISAPPROVED: Jack C. Riddlemoser Attorney at Law Meridian, Idaho 83642 FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - 5 L ORib-IAL BEFORE THE MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JAMES and JEAN FULLER APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NORTHWEST CORNER, INTERSECTION OF CHERRY LANE AND TEN MILE MERIDIAN, IDAHO FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The above entitled matter having come on for public hearing January 10, 1995, at the hour of 7:30 o'clock p.m., with evidence presented for and substantially against Petition, and the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Meridian having duly considered the evidence and the matter makes the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of law. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. That a notice of a public hearing on the Conditional Use Permit was published for two (2) consecutive weeks prior to the said public hearing scheduled for January 10, 1995, the first publication of which was fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing; that the matter was duly considered at the January 10, 1995, hearing; that the public was given full opportunity to express comments and submit evidence; and that copies of all notices were available to newspaper, radio and television stations. 2. That this property is located within the City of Meridian and is owned by Petitioner, JAMES and JEAN FULLER, FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS - 1 0 and is described in the application which description is incorporated herein. 3. That a rezone of the property to Limited Office District (L -O) has been applied for, which requires a conditional use permit for a convenience store/gas station which is the use the application requests. 4. That the L -O District is described in the Zoning Ordinance, 11-2-408 B. 5 as follows: (L -O LIMITED OFFICE DISTRICT: The purpose of the L -O) District is to permit the establishment of groupings of professional, research, executive, administrative, accounting, clerical, stenographic, public service and similar uses. Research uses shall not involve heavy testing operations of any kind or product manufacturing of such a nature to create noise, vibration or emissions of a nature offensive to the overall purpose of this district. The L -O District is designed to act as a buffer between other more intense non-residential uses and high density residential uses, and is thus a transitional use. Connection to the Municipal water and Sewer System of the City of Meridian is a requirement in this district. 5. That the convenience store/gas station proposed by Applicant is an allowed conditional use in the L-0 district. 6. That sewer and water is already available to the property, but the use may require additional charges and fees. 7. That notice was given to all property owners who are FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS - 2 E within 300 feet of the external boundaries of the land being considered, and all property o7ners included within the property being considered. 8. That there was overwhelming evidence in opposition to the application. CONCLUSIONS 1. That all the procedural requirements of the Local Planning Act and of the Ordinances of the City of Meridian have been met and complied with by Petitioner. 2. That the City of Meridian has authority to grant conditional uses pursuant to 67-6512, Idaho Code, and, pursuant to 11-2-418 of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian; and 3. That 11-2-418(C) of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian sets forth the standards under which the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council shall review applications for Conditional Use Permits; that upon a review of those requirements and a review of the facts presented and the conditions of the area, the Planning and Zoning Commission concludes as follows: a. The use, would in fact, constitute a conditional use and a conditional use permit is required by ordinance. b. The use would be harmonious with and in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan but the Zoning Ordinance requires a conditional use permit to allow the use. C. The use would not be harmonious with the character of the general vicinity, and would change the essential character FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS - 3 of the area. d. That he use would be hazardous and disturbing to existing or future neighboring uses. e. The property has sewer and water service available. f. The use would not create excessive additional requirements at public cost for public facilities and services and the use would not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. g. The use would involve a use, activity, or conditions of operation that would be detrimental to person, property or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic or noise. 4. That the Conditional Use Permit should be denied. APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS That Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts and approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions. ROLL CALL AIS COMMISSIONER HEPPER VOTED COMMISSIONER ROUNTREE VOTED ,¢ a 4JA" " COMMISSIONER SHEARER VOTED COMMISSIONER ALIDJANI VOTED COMMISSIONER JOHNSON (Tie Breaker) VOTED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION That Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council of the City of Meridian that they deny the Conditional Use Permit requested by the applicant for the property described in the application in accordance FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS - 4 with the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein. MOTION: APPROVED Jack C. Riddlemoser Attonrey at Law Meridian, Idaho 83642 DISAPPROVED: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS - 5 • BEFORE THE MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING tf�L THE LAKE AT CHERRY LANE NO. 5 & 6 - STEINER DEVELOPMENT ANNEXATION AND ZONING SE 1/4 NE 1/4 SECTION 3, T.3N., R,1W. MERIDIAN, IDAHO FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The above entitled annexation and zoning application having first come on for consideration on January 10, 1995, 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 Applicant having requested that the matter be tabled at various times and the final hearing being held on March 14, 1995, the Planning and Zoning Commission having heard and taken oral and written testimony, and the Applicant appearing through attorney Steve Bradbury, spokesperson for Steiner Development, and having duly considered the matter, the Planning and Zoning Commission makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT A. 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 January 10, 1995, the first publication of which was fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing; that the matter was duly considered at the January 10, 1995, 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. That FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Pace 1 THE LAKE AT CHERRY LANE NO. 5 & 6 this annexation and zoning request was then tabled until February 14, 1995 and tabled again until March 10, 1995. B. 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 40.18 acres in size; that the property is on the west side of Ten Mile Road between Ustick and Cherry Lane; that the adjacent property to the east is part of the Cherry Lane Subdivision; that the entire 40.18 acres is not being developed at the same time. C. The Applicant is not the owner of record of the property, but the owner of record William E. Teeter, has consented to the annexation and zoning application and the Applicant has an option to purchase the property. D. That the property is presently zoned R -T (Rural Transitional) in Ada County. E. That on November 9, 1994, at a Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, but not a public hearing, the Applicant presented a concept plan for development, which is incorporated herein as if set forth in full; that on the concept drawing there was a list of things that would be included in the development; comments were made that the development would be high value detached and high value attached house; that there would be 20 acres of R-4 and 20 acres of R-15; that there would be elderly garden one level homes with gated, high security clusters with liberal common area and private roads to the Garden homes and to FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Pacre THE LAKE AT CHERRY LANE NO. 5 & 6 • town houses; that there would be restrictions on children living there; it would be for people of 55 years and older; that the homes would be of high quality; that they were donating a fire station and that they were working on a school site; that there would be 20 acres in phase one. F. That at the January 10, 1995, public hearing the Applicant's representative, Steve Bradbury, stated the request is to have some of the land zoned R-4 Residential and some R-15 Residential; the representative had two concept drawings that showed a portion being developed at this time to R-4 Residential with a total of 54 residential lots and a portion being developed at this time to R-15 Residential on about 11 acres with a total of 30 residential lots to be develope into single family attached and detached mixed dwellings such as patio homes similar to those in River Run Development in Boise; the R-15 would have 5,000 square foot minimum size lots; it was stated that the concept is to have smaller parcels with extensive landscaping and common facilities and areas; that the center portion would have a club house with a recreation center and a swimming pool; that there is a 6.5 acre parcel to the north that also would be R-15 and it was stated that it would be about the same as the previously mentioned R-15 area and it was the intent to come back with a conditional use permit or a planned unit development, but that it was the desire to hold off on the specific design; it was stated that there would be a significant amount of landscaping improvements included in the FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 3 THE LAKE AT CHERRY LANE NO. 5 & 6 first phase of the project carried over to the second phase - about $180,000.00 worth of landscaping; that there would be a block wall behind the 20 foot landscaping area on Ten Mile Road; the wall would vary between six feet with wrought iron on the top of it down to four feet with a foot of wrought iron on top; the main thoroughfare would have center dividers; the representative stated that the idea is to do a really nice higher end well done project; that they would have tight covenants; that it would be a project similar in aesthetics to Island Woods Subdivision in Eagle or the River Run in Boise; that pressurized irrigation would be installed; he stated that all of the City Engineer's conditions were acceptable; he additionally stated that perhaps the Application could be approved and simply have the R-15 approved with the designation that it would be conditioned upon approval of a specific site plan; that the Developer would dedicate to the Meridian Fire Department a 160 X 160 square parcel of ground free of charge; the representative also stated that the first phase would be south of the road and the second phase would be the north half of the property. ,.* Crcbb�F`farhy That at the January 10, 1995, there was no specific discussion that the development would be for people of 55 years and older, about garden or patio homes, or the items that were included on the concept drawing submitted to the Commission on November 9, 1994; that Mr. Bradbury, in response to a question from Mr. Hepper, stated "Yes" to the question that the land on both sides of the FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page THE LAKE AT CHERRY LANE NO. 5 & 6 0 0 road as you come in (along Teter Boulevard) would be developed later and brought before the Commission, and stated, "Yes, that is right, both of those areas that are easterly of the areas that have lots drawn on them would be submitted. The design for those areas would be submitted in a separate application under either the conditional use provision or the planned unit development provision of your code."; that the property was not shown to be developed in north and south halves but in east and west halves. G. That from the legal descriptions presented to show which land is desired to be zoned R-4 and that which is requested to be zoned R-15, it would appear that approximately two-thirds of the total 40 acres is being requested to be zoned R-15 and one-third R- 4; that at the meeting on the 9th of November, 1994, it was stated that the two zones would be about 20 acres each; that at the January 10, 1995, public hearing the Applicant's representative, Steve Bradbury, stated the request was to have some of the land zoned R-4 Residential and some R-15 Residential; he did not state the specific amount of land to be zoned in each district; the Applicant did submit a preliminary plat application that the Commission had full opportunity to inspect as part of the application for the annexation and zoning, but the Applicant did not submit a separate drawing showing how much land was specifically included in each zone. H. That at the public hearing on January 10, 1995, J. R. Petty testified and questioned whether there was a limitation on age, was there a recreation area for children, that he was FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 5 THE LAKE AT CHERRY LANE NO. 5 & 6 concerned with the high density and not having a recreation area; there were no other people to testify other other than the Applicant's representative to testify at the March 14, 1995, public hearing. I. That Gary Smith, City Engineer, and Bruce Freckleton Assistant to the City Engineer, submitted comments for the January 10, 1995, hearing and comments from Bruce Freckleton and Shari Stiles, Planning and Zoning Administrator, were submitted comments for the March 14, 1995, hearing, and they are both incorporated herein as if set forth in full; that some of their comments were that the local streets need to be 50 feet wide with 37 feet between the backs of curbs and include 5 foot sidewalks; that the high seasonal ground water needed to be established; that existing ditches crossing the property need to be tiled; that cul-de-sacs shall not be longer than 450 feet; that water service in contingent upon positive results from a hydraulic analysis; that sidewalks, to meet City ordinance, must be constructed; that the R-15 Planned Residential Area shall be submitted under the Conditional Use Permit process; that any duplex will be required to be submitted and approval of a variance is required or they must be included as part of a Planned Unit Development under the conditional use process; that Phase 2 will require submittal and approval under the Conditional Use Permit process; that block some lengths exceed 1,000 feet; that a 20 foot landscape easement should be platted as a separate maintenance lot for maintenance by the home owners FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF Pacts THE LAKE AT CHERRY LANE N0. 5 & 6 • 9 association; that perimeter fencing is required prior to obtaining building permits; and that a development agreement is required as a condition of annexation, which shall be approved and executed prior to or concurrent with the final plat approval. J. That the Meridian School District commented that it still needed a school site designated in this section. K. That the Meridian Police and Fire Departments, Ada County Highway District, Central District Health Department, the Nampa Meridian Irrigation District, City Planning Director, Idaho Power, did submit comments and such are incorporated herein as if set forth in full. L. That the property is adjacent and abutting to the present City limits. M. That the property included in the annexation and zoning application is within the Area of Impact of the City of Meridian and the parcel is included within the Meridian Urban Service Planning Area as the Urban Service Planning Area is defined in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. N. That the property is shown on the Meridian Comprehensive Plan as being in a Single Family Residential area. O. 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. P. That Meridian has, and is, experiencing a population FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Pace 7 THE LAKE AT CHERRY LANE NO. 5 & 6 • 11 increase which is likely to continue; that there are pressures on land previously used for agricultural uses to be developed into residential subdivision lots. Q. That the property can be physically serviced with City water and sewer via mains currently installed in Ten Mile Road. R. That the R-4 and R-15 Residential Districts are described in the Zoning Ordinance, 11-2-408 B. 3 and 5 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. (R-15) Medium High Density Residential District - The purpose of the (R-15) District is to permit the establishment of medium-high density single-family attached and multi -family dwellings at a density not exceeding fifteen (15) dwelling units per acre. All such districts must have direct access to a transportation arterial or collector, abut or have direct access to a park or open space corridor, and be connected to the Municipal Water and Sewer systems of the City of Meridian. The predominant housing types in this district will be patio homes, zero lot line single-family dwellings, town houses, apartment buildings and condominiums; that the R-4 zoning district requires a minimum of 1,400 square feet to be included in houses in that zone and houses of 1,301 square feet are required in the R-15 zone. S. That Section 11-2-411 B states as follows: "All new residential housing developments in the City of Meridian shall be designed to insure compatibility with adjacent existing and/or proposed developments." FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Pace 8 THE LAKE AT CHERRY LANE NO. 5 & 6 0 9 T. 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, town houses, apartments, condominiums, etc.) for the purpose of providing the City with a range of affordable housing opportunities." U. 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 . V. 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." W. That the Meridian Comprehensive Plan, under Housing, Housing Policies, at page 66, states as follows: "1.1 The City of Meridian intends to provide for a wide diversity of housing types (single-family, modular, mobile homes, multi -family, town houses arrangements), ." 111.3 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." X. That in prior requests for annexation and zoning in this area the previous Zoning Administrator commented that annexation could be conditioned on a development agreement including an impact FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page THE LAKE AT CHERRY LANE NO. 5 & 6 0 9 fee to help acquire a future school or park sites 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. Y. 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. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Pace 10 THE LAKE AT CHERRY LANE NO. 5 & 6 9 Z. 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. AA. 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." AB. 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 (201) wide, and shall not be a part of the normal street right of way or utility easement." AC. 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;" AD. 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 1 THE LAKE AT CHERRY LANE NO. 5 & 6 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." AE. 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. AF. That Section 11-9-605 M, PIPING OF DITCHES, reads in part as follows: Tiling of irrigation ditches, laterals or canals. All irrigation ditches, laterals or canals, exclusive of natural waterways, intersecting, crossing, or lying adjacent and contiguous, or which canals, ditches or laterals touch either or both sides of the area being subdivided, shall be covered and enclosed with tiling or other covering equivalent in ability to detour access to said ditch, lateral or canal. The City may waive this requirement for covering such ditch, lateral or canal if it finds that the public purpose requiring such will not be served in the individual case. Any covering program involving the distribution system of any irrigation district shall have the prior approval of that affected irrigation district. No subdivision plat shall be approved where the subdivision is arbitrarily or artificially laid out to avoid being adjacent to any waterway, irrigation ditch, lateral or canal to which it would otherwise be naturally adjacent or which it would otherwise naturally include. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 12 THE LAKE AT CHERRY LANE NO. 5 & 6 AG. That proper notice was given as required by law and all procedures before the City Council were given and followed. CONCLUSIONS A. 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. B. 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. C. That the City Council 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. D. 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. E. That the City Council may take judicial notice of government ordinances, and policies, and of actual conditions existing within the City and State. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 13 THE LAKE AT CHERRY LANE NO. 5 & 6 e 0 F. 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. G. That the annexation application has been initiated by the Applicant and not upon the initiation of the City of Meridian. H. 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). I. 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 Zoning and Subdivision and Development Ordinances; 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 M; 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 FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 14 THE LAKE AT CHERRY LANE NO. 5 & 6 0 0 development fee or transfer fee adopted by the City; that there shall be no issuance of building permits 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 and maintenance thereof, by a mandatory home owners association rather than the individual lot owners. The Applicant shall adopt Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions as a condition of annexation and they shall require a mandatory homeowners association which can assess dues and fees. J. That the development of the Applicant's property would be in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, and therefore the annexation and zoning Application is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. K. That the requirements of the Meridian City Engineer, the Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District, Meridian Fire Department, Idaho Power, the comments of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Director, and these Findings and Conclusion, shall be met and addressed in a development Agreement. L. 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. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Pace 15 THE LAKE AT CHERRY LANE NO. 5 & 6 0 0 M. 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 Zoning and Subdivision and Development Ordinances. N. It is concluded that the Applicant has changed the development plan from what was presented to the Commission on November 9, 1995, to what was presented on March 14, 1995; that development of the R-4 portion of the property is satisfactory since that is the type of development that has been done in the at area in past and is being done now Cherry Lane Village and in The Lake at Cherry Lane 3 and 4; that the property desired to be zoned R-15 that what was initially proposed to the Commission on November 9, 1994, appeared to be more acceptable to the Commission than that presented on March 14, 1995; additionally the Applicant stated that the R-15 housing was to be a minimum of 1,200 square feet, and yet the minimum square foot requirement in the R-15 District under 11- s�hyle far„�l y 2-4A11 D 2. is 1,301 square feet; there also was no specific d� mention of many of the items mention¢ at the November 9, 1994, meeting; that the Applicant showed platted lots for some of the land that he desired to be zoned R-15 but did not submit a plat showing individual lots for much of the land that he desired to be zoned R-15; his representative did state that the entire concept could be approved with those parcels not broken down into individual lots being conditioned on a conditional use or a planned FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 16 THE LAKE AT CHERRY LANE NO. 5 & 6 0 0 unit development procedure. O. That it is concluded that the property requested to be annexed and zoned R-4 should be annexed and zoned R-4; that it is concluded that the property requested to be annexed and zoned R-15 should not be annexed at this time; that some plans for the R-15 were shown but not for the entire parcel that is being requested to be zoned R-15; that the Commission would like to know specific development plans of the R-15 area prior to annexation because if the property is annexed R-15, with either a conditional use or a planned unit development condition, the property may only have to meet the R-15 requirements even though the Commission and City Council deem that it would be more appropriate to have more restrictions than allowed in the R-15 District; if those additional restrictions are made as a condition of annexation they are more enforceable. P. That it is concluded that the Applicant shall be required to meet the comments of the City Engineer, Gary Smith, Bruce Freckleton Assistant to the City Engineer, Shari Stiles, Planning and Zoning Administrator, the Meridian Police and Fire Departments, Ada County Highway District, Central District Health Department, the Nampa Meridian Irrigation District, and Idaho Power. Q. That proper and adequate access to the property is available and will have to be maintained; that the minimum house size of 1,400 square feet in the R-4 District must be met. R. That these conditions shall run with the land and bind FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Pace 17 THE LAKE AT CHERRY LANE NO. 5 & 6 0 0 the applicant, the titled owners, and their assigns. S. 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 and the denial of the annexation of the land requested to be R-15 would also be in the best of the City of Meridian. T. That if these conditions of approval are not met the property shall not be annexed or shall be subject to de -annexation, if it has been annexed. APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts and approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONER REPPER COMMISSIONER ROUNTREE COMMISSIONER SHEARER COMMISSIONER ALIDJANI CHAIRMAN JOHNSON (TIE BREAKER) MOTION: t APPROVED: I � FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW THE LAKE AT CHERRY LANE NO. 5 & 6 VOTED CA VOTED - VOTED VOTED DISAPPROVED: Pace 18 The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council of the City of Meridian that the property requested to be zoned R-4 be annexed and so zoned and that the property requested to be zoned R-15 not be annexed; it is additionally recommended that the Applicant, as to the property to be zoned R-4, meet the conditions set forth in these Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, specifically including the adoption of a home owners association with mandatory dues, that the Applicant and owners are specifically required to tile 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 if these conditions are not met that the land be de -annexed. MOTION: APPROVED: DISAPPROVED: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 19 THE LAKE AT CHERRY LANE NO. 5 & 6 9GR4GNAL BEFORE THE MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AVEST LIMITED PARTNERSHIP CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AT LOCUST GROVE ROAD AND FAIRVIEW AVENUE MERIDIAN, IDAHO FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS The above entitled matter having come on for public hearing January 10, 1995, at the hour of 7:30 o'clock p.m., the Petitioner appearing through the Applicant's architect, Billy Ray Strite, the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Meridian having duly considered the evidence and the matter makes the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. That a notice of a public hearing on the Conditional Use Permit was published for two (2) consecutive weeks prior to the said public hearing scheduled for January 10, 1995, the first publication of which was fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing; that the matter was duly considered at the January 10, 1995, 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 is located within the City of Meridian; the property is described in the application which description is incorporated herein. 3. That the property is zoned C -G, General Retail and Service Commercial, which requires a conditional use permit for AVEST DRIVE THROUGH BANK CONDITIONAL USE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 1 drive through banking which the application requests and a conditional use is required by the annexation and zoning Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law adopted by the City on this property's annexation and zoning. 4. That the General Retail and Service Commercial District is described in the Zoning Ordinance, 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. 5. That the use proposed by Applicant is a specifically allowed conditional use in the Zoning Schedule of Use Control, 11- 2-409 B. and the property is being developed under a commercial planned development process, as required by the annexation and zoning Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. 6. That the property is at the corner of Locust Grove Road and Fairview Avenue which is being developed as a commercial planned development, in which there will be more business located; that the parcel has street frontage on Fairview Avenue and Locust Grove Road. 7. That Billy Ray Strite testified that all of the staff comments were acceptable except the 55 decibel level suggested by AVEST DRIVE THROUGH BANK CONDITIONAL USE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 2 0 0 Shari Stiles; that the ambient road noise is greater than 55 decibels and the drive through would face Fairview Avenue. 8. That proper notice had not been given for the hearing held on January 10, 1995, but subsequent notice was given, an additional public hearing held on February 13, 1995, and additional time for public testimony was afforded to those entitled to notice; that proper notice has been given as required by law and all procedures before the Planning and Zoning Commission have been given and followed. 9. That sewer and water is available to the property, but the property will have to comply with the commercial sewer and water rates. 10. That the City Engineer, City Planning Director, City Police and Fire Departments, Ada County Highway District (ACHD), Central District Health Department, Idaho Power Company and Nampa - Meridian Irrigation District submitted comments and they are incorporated herein as if set forth in full. 11. That the City Engineer's comments were that all off- street parking, landscaping, drainage, lighting, paving and striping shall be in accordance with the standards set forth in 11- 2-414, all signage shall be in accordance with the standards set forth in 11-2-415, that sewer and water would be by means of mains that will be installed as part of the Avest Plaza Subdivision, that assessments will be determined during building plan review, and a late comers fee will also be charged. AVEST DRIVE THROUGH BANK CONDITIONAL USE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 3 12. That Planning and Zoning Administrator, Shari Stiles, commented that the plan submitted appears to have adequate parking spaces and stacking depth, that City ordinance requires a minimum of one 3 inch caliper tree per 1,500 square feet of paved area, that berming and landscape will be reviewed as part of the building permit application, that design and placement of signs need to be shown, that communications systems must not impact adjoining properties, that telephones rather than loudspeakers are encouraged, that it is recommended that 55 decibels not be exceeded, and final ACHD and City requirements are to be addressed during the building permit stage. She recommended that the conditional use permit be approved subject to staff and agency requirements. 13. That some of the site specific requirements of ACHD were to dedicate 54 -feet of right-of-way from the centerline of Fairview Avenue and 45 -feet of right-of-way from the centerline of Locust Grove Road, construct curb, gutter and 7 -feet of sidewalk on Locust Grove Road abutting the parcel, construct five -feet of sidewalk on Fairview Avenue, pave an additional 12 feet on Fairview Avenue, locate a signal at the site's eastern boundary, eliminate two of the proposed access points on Fairview Avenue, align the souther access point on Locust Grove Road with Carol Street, extend Applewood Avenue to the proposed ring road, and construct all access points as 30 -foot wide curb -return approaches with 15 -foot radii. AVEST DRIVE THROUGH BANK CONDITIONAL USE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 4 14. That Elizabeth Gwin submitted written testimony; she stated that the 1998 widening of North Locust Grove Road should be taken into account by the plan, that the exit that is the first one to the north of Carol Street should be eliminated, the lighting on the buildings and in the parking area should be hooded and directed away from the residential areas, the berms should be at least four feet above the finished level of the parking areas and sidewalks, the landscaping should be substantial enough to screen car lights, lights from any doors or windows within view of the residential area, there should be no intrusion of noise from loudspeakers of from the bank drive by window, the business hours should be set so as to coincide somewhat with the opening and closing of the other businesses in the area, and that the buildings should be of attractive and durable materials. 15. That, as a condition of annexation and the zoning of C -G of the Applicant's property, Avest Limited Partnership was required to enter into a development agreement as authorized by 11-2-416 L and 11-2-417 D; that the development agreement included that Avest establish a 35 foot landscaped setback required under the Comprehensive Plan and landscaping the same; that the conditions ran with the land and bound the applicant, Avest. 16. That in the annexation and zoning of Applicant's property at Locust Grove Road and Fairview Avenue it was stated that the berming and landscaping along Locust Grove Road would be two to four feet high to retain automobile lights within the parking lots, AVEST DRIVE THROUGH BANK CONDITIONAL USE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 5 0 0 the berm/landscape area would be twenty feet wide the full length of the shopping center, there would be extended and widened landscaping at entrances on Fairview Avenue and Locust Grove Road, and there would be landscape islands in parking sections per City requirements; that the berming and landscaping at the possible retirement center would be six to eight feet high and twenty feet wide. 17. That in the information booklets submitted in the annexation and zoning process of the parcel, the Applicant also put forth a list of the benefits of a shopping center, including providing physical improvements of additional widening of Locust Grove, bike lanes, a minimum 20 foot landscaped berming along Locust Grove, sidewalk along Locust Grove, preferably in the berming, and modern landscaping and buffering. 18. The annexation and zoning was conditioned upon meeting the requirements of paragraph 19 of the Conclusions adopted on the annexation, which included the 35 foot landscaped set back; that under the Meridian Comprehensive Plan, Fairview Avenue is an entryway corridor. See Meridian Comprehensive Plan, COMMUNITY DESIGN, Entryway Corridors, Page 72. 19. That Section 9-605 G, PLANTING STRIPS AND RESERVE STRIPS states as follows: Planting strips and reserve strips shall conform to the following: 1. Planting Strips - Planting strips shall be required to be placed next to incompatible features such as highways, railroads, commercial or industrial uses to screen the AVEST DRIVE THROUGH BANK CONDITIONAL USE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 6 E 0 view from residential properties. Such screening shall be a minimum of twenty feet (201) wide and shall not be a part of the normal street right-of-way or utility easement; . . . 20. That there was no testimony objecting to the application, but there was written comment suggesting conditions. 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, now that the second notice was mailed and the additional public hearing held. 2. That the City of Meridian has authority to grant conditional uses pursuant to 67-6512, Idaho Code, and, pursuant to 11-2-418 of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian. 3. That the City of Meridian has authority to place conditions on a conditional use permit and the use of the property pursuant to 67-6512, Idaho Code, and pursuant to 11-2-418(D) of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian, Idaho. 4. That 11-2-418 C) of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian sets forth the standards under which the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council shall review applications for Conditional Use Permits; that upon a review of those requirements and a review of the facts presented and the conditions of the area, the Planning and Zoning Commission AVEST DRIVE THROUGH BANK CONDITIONAL USE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 7 0 concludes as follows: 0 a. The use, would in fact, constitute a conditional use and a conditional use permit is required by ordinance. b. The use should be harmonious with and in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan but the Zoning Ordinance requires a conditional use permit to allow the use. C. The use apparently would be designed and constructed, to be harmonious in appearance with the intended character of the general vicinity. d. That the use would not be hazardous nor should it be disturbing to existing or future neighboring uses. e. The property has sewer and water service available. f. The use would not create excessive additional requirements at public cost for public facilities and services and the use would not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. g. The use would not involve a use, activity, process, material, equipment or conditions of operation that would be detrimental to person, property or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic or noise. h. That sufficient parking for the property and the proposed use will be required. i. The development and use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural or scenic feature of major importance. 5. That all ordinances of the City of Meridian must be met, including but not limited to, the Uniform Building Code, Uniform Fire Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, Uniform Electrical Code, the Uniform Mechanical Code, the Fire and Life Safety Code, all parking and landscaping requirements. 6. That the comments of the City Engineer, Planning and Zoning Administrator, City Planning Director, City Police and Fire Departments, Ada County Highway District (ACRD), Central District AVEST DRIVE THROUGH BANK CONDITIONAL USE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 8 0 0 Health Department, Idaho Power Company and Nampa -Meridian Irrigation District submitted comments, must be complied with. 7. That, also as a condition of the conditional use permit, a landscape plan must be submitted to the Planing and Zoning Administrator; at a minimum it must provide for thirty-five feet along Fairview Avenue and twenty feet along Locust Grove Road of landscaping setback; also along Locust Grove Road the landscape plan must provide at least a solid four foot high berm or masonry fence along Locust Grove Road, measured from the highest point of the parking lot of the entire development, except where roadway entrances are planned for entrance into, and exit from, the parking lot, and except that the berm or fence shall only be two (2) feet high at the intersection of Fairview Avenue and Locust Grove Road and shall remain two (2) feet high along Locust Grove Road from the intersection to a point which is one hundred feet north of Fairview Avenue and then it may gradually increase to four (4) feet in height to the point which is directly east of the north end of the commercial lot on the northwest corner of the intersection of Fairview and Locust Grove Road; that except for entrances into the parking, the berm or fence shall be four (4) feet high across from Doris Subdivision; that the landscape plan must provide for protection of Doris Subdivision from light, noise, vibration, odor, and/or glare, for bike lanes, sidewalk along Locust Grove in the berming, and modern landscaping and buffering, as represented by Avest in the annexation and zoning process. AVEST DRIVE THROUGH BANK CONDITIONAL USE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 9 171 APPROVAL OF FINDINGS 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 COMMISSIONER SHEARER COMMISSIONER ALIDJANI CHAIRMAN JOHNSON (TIE BREAKER) DECISION AND VOTED VOTED VOTED 4% VOTED VOTED The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council of the City of Meridian that they approve the Conditional 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. MOTION: APPROVED: DISAPPROVED: AVEST DRIVE THROUGH BANK CONDITIONAL USE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 10 - • C Qi v2 c� r dd7� DATE: JANUARY 10, 1995 TO: MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION FR: ROBERT UNGER, 3281 SUGARCREEK DR., MERIDIAN, ID RE: FULLER RE -ZONE TO L -O FULLER CONDITIONAL USE FOR CONVENIENCE STORE I represent approximately 180 persons who live in the vicinity of the subject property. We wish to oppose the applications presented by the Fullers on numerous points. My presentation will deal primarily with the applications' compliance with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan and the Meridian Zoning Ordinance. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 1. The proposed use and zone is not indicated on the Zoning Map to form a compatible arrangement of land uses. 2. The Comprehensive Plan is to arrange major land uses to preserve the integrity and amenities of residential neighborhoods which this proposal does not comply with. 3. Land use objectives which this proposal does not meet: a. Quality residential neighborhoods, north, south, east, and west of Old Town; b. The importance of maintaining compatible land uses to ensure an optimum quality of life; c. Respect for the responsibilities and rights of land ownership. 4. General Policies this project is in conflict with: a. Promote the development of high-quality and environmentally compatible residential areas that contain the necessary parks, schools and commercial facilities to maintain and form identifiable neighborhoods. 5. Residential Policies this project is in conflict with: a. Protect and maintain residential neighborhood property values, improve each neighborhood's physical condition and enhance its quality of life for residents. 5. Commercial Policies: a. Although this application is not a Neighborhood Shopping Center, this section explains why the applicant is requesting a CU for the convenient store and the re -zone to L -O. Neighborhood Shopping Centers should locate near, but not necessarily at, the intersections of collectors and/or arterial roads; within planned residential developments, when they are an integral part of the original development plan. b. Locate new planned Neighborhood Commercial Centers (3-8 acres) on arterials or collectors near residential areas in �5" 0 0 such a way as to complement but not conflict with adjoining residential areas. c. Discourage isolated neighborhood commercial development in residential areas unless the uses are compatible with the Planned Neighborhood Commercial designation. 7. Neighborhood Identity Goal Statement: a. Every neighborhood in Meridian will be attractive and regarded as a nice place to live. b. 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. ZONING ORDINANCE 1. Limited Office District is designed to act as a buffer between other more intense non-residential uses and high density residential uses, and is thus a transitional use. 2. The principally permitted uses are offices, churches, clinics banks, mortuaries, etc. Uses that are quiet and more compatible with residential uses as opposed to the traffic and noise generated by a convenient store which requires a conditional use permit. 3. General Standards Applicable to Zoning Amendments: This application: a. Is not harmonious with and in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan and an application for a Comprehensive Plan amendment has not been filed; b. Is not similar to the adjacent area; C. Would be hazardous and disturbing to the existing neighboring uses; d. Would involve uses that would be detrimental to persons and property in the area do to excessive production of traffic, noise, fumes, glare and odors. We feel that the approval of this Re -Zone application with a non- compatible development plan would be a violation of the Meridian Zoning Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan. We also feel that the approval of this Conditional Use application for a convenience store in an L -O district is not compatible with the Comprehensive Plan or the Zoning Ordinance. re CCI /ve et- /- /? - y-37- l r 2 'a,/ January 10, 1995 Distinguished Members of the Council: When I received the notice of the rezone from R-4 to L-0 and application of a conditional use permit for a convenience store/gas station I began talking with my neighbors. We all had the same concerns. The petitions you have sum up those concerns of not only those immediately adjacent to this location, but of those in the surrounding residential subdivisions. There are over 180 signatures of residents and 12 letters. They believe, as I do, the rezone and conditional use permit are not in the best interest of our community. We believe the image of our neighborhood would be irreparable damaged. Had I asked, many of those who signed the petitions would have stood here and testified. We felt this was unnecessary because all the concerns were identical and have decided to limit those testifying. These concerns are as follows: 1. Depreciation of property values 2. Depreciation of character of the neighborhood 3. Health hazards (i.e. gas fumes, car exhaust) 4. Increased crime rate & vandalism 5. Loitering 6. Lights on all night long 7. Loss of privacy 8. And as expected increased noise & traffic I would like to draw your attention to one letter in particular from Ms. Judith Lolley. Her letter is of personal experiences having lived next to a convenience store for a number of years. Not a pretty picture. Her experiences include: excessive and unreasonable levels of noise, boom boxes blasting at 3 in the morning, repeated vandalism to her fence bordering the properties, people hanging out smoking and fighting in the parking lot, and 0 0 excessive accumulations of trash and debris on the premises, subsequently being blown by the winds onto surrounding properties. Everyone who signed the petition moved to this area to escape these problems. Everyone relied on the residential zoning of their properties and Mr. & Mrs. Fuller's lot to protect against these problems. All of these concerns are set forth in the petition and my testimony represents these 180 plus petitioners. We are asking the commission not approve a rezone from R-4 to L-0 nor approve a conditional use permit for a convenience store/gas station on the Fuller's property. K54ne/tb,T. Shelton 3225 VV. Woodmont Dr. Meridian, ID 83642 -anuary 10, 1995 To whom it may concern: We represent the Meridian Seventh-Day Adventist Church, who are owners of the northeast corner of Ten Mile Road and Cherry Lane. At the time we purchased our building site, the surrounding properties were open farm land, residences, and churches. It seemed like an ideal place for our church. We are against the proposed zoning of the northwest corne of Ten Mile Road and Cherry Lane. We believe that such zonings 1 devalue our property, and become an attractive nuisance, incr asina noise, traffic, and loitering in the area. Richard 4ritton, Elder David Gay, Elder January 10, 1995 To whom it may concern, As As per request of Steve and Tawna Spoor of 1720 N. Aronmink Wy. whose property adjoins the subject property of James and Lois Fuller located on the North West corner of Ten Mile and Cherry Lane, I give my opinion that the location of a 24 hour convenience store/gas station on this property will decidedly detrimentally effect the sale price. Potential buyers would be reticent to purchase a home located in that environment. I currently live in the Cherry Lane Village Subdivision and have served as a Real Estate Agent in this area for the past six years. Nolan K. Packham RE/MAX REAL ESTATE PROFESSIONALS y C elII ee'C Meridian City Hall 33 'East Idaho St. Meridian, Idaho 8361a. Jan. 10, 1995 To Whom It May Concern: We, Donald and Peggy Stine are completely against the proposal for rezoning of the property beside our home, especially for the intentions of constructing a gas station/Convienea store. We chose to move to this residential area for the quality of life and realize this will be destroyed should these "plans" materialize. We do NOT choose to have our lives and privacy invaded or be subjected to harassment; this would occur with noise and lights shinning into our bedroom, kitchen, and hot tub 24 hours a day, people squandering around our fence, yard, and house, vandalism which frequently occurs around these establishments, obnoxious fumes that are toxic not only to us but also to our families and friends. Rezoning with commercial construction plans for this area will only devalue our properties and drive many established residents away. Thank you for considering our views. Qo Sti P g e M s1 � 3,�qd InerJeld a F36/ ya � / \. `� \�\ \ � <' � \ \dam �\ ?� 2, , � �� X7:1 . �\2� . . \� 2 ® �� � � \ ƒ K . ;� �x ?2�� }\ © :w«, \dam �\ Ole " voozceEtd.. ' Uc'<-e 0 E i00zLBETti p_,, •. `•. ty 06.1 op o'.. c? a� 700zLSEi X16cu $ N Ou n n VOOUSEid , m m m m ) ., r+ I --kLLtiT- AA_N — J Oa o e9 ¢ .••� d = O = �+ p ¢ •. ; ¢ -L C\j 3 o `r6 `10 c- `16 m `lam o Cu N P1 5g� c16 `�6 `lb `Ib n n CD rUi � 9�9 0020 � HON W ��I� 3�0 m o, p ( a z o A Q ¢ � fn m 0 0 • I cc 21 CV. % . QOb�aa�u��S,MUM Q 7 O NT Lo M Lo m m ao o ,LE) N• O , •,� M • ;� • c� K O. o•- �� R N o w • 0 t� 4\ V VEST PLAZA SUBDIVISION LOCATED IN THE SW 1/4 OF THE SW 1/4 AND THE NEST 10 FEET OF THE SE 1/4 OF THE SW 1/4 OF SEC77ON 5, T 3 N, R 1 E, SM, ADA COUNTY �- -THE INTENDED USE IS COMMERCIAL AND GENERAL RETAIL® MOAN MOMM ■.ww.er mmR s< ssI/.s— ----ran_l1JI]2aa7' lLiL3-W,i.�,t 97 I-10° 1 I 1 1 g t I I/I M SECT= uc 7` --------- mar ---- �1 �uts7INK pwwlq ta7 s 1IR q a Iia 1 1 ` i h na 1 I se. v; t II I twm bcowt reea4ltTV �4J1 a sari e -a t 1 It far8I 57.Na mft E.u.e.. I. I I FLpT . e MAIM.Nre I C -j 1 I E m ;, I; WM' b I; ares +eam ;I I; aw �I t� ose °°� it f °�°'." 11 an ewe 31 t —I r-------- =nm uc D C -J t , i "edww w.n xa.sa E 1 V N 1 n .E a I # 5� ill II Ii it �illl yll ------- Ili IIII \ •I 'li d e�f3'3���dy°t gr �png 3�' E5S we Y a5 1 !o� Yt'�x YYI �S4f6: [7 ------------------ alas terra w II 1? gr �png 3�' E5S we Y a5 1 !o� Yt'�x YYI �S4f6: [7 ------------------ alas terra w .—rwryw� •� I I' 1� 1 II 77 r �F � �.�•� r r..�r+r+.l�� - 1 1 ry I = 'gig I 1 I I W rr 0� QLd� NNJQwz W LU �pV,Q ~W�LU LLQ'=� p r—D o zp � NpNLL, L-J<m z07 < �Nrr E E 0 z p moi= QIP I- ai wN X , i I it i I i # J id i' 1 ,j 4SV• ',\ li i j ii i - `a YI `` • I L1 11 I — f _ I I I 1 A 4 �' �1 11 • II l 11 II.J ' a ` ' �f- j� 1 V NID N _ i i r �� y 1 I (rl ? W� 1 d I! i.l iW ' IL Q j � i yr--'•. I _ 1• I Ii III � - d it 1 Q �. , Jt �1 t i t -t / ` .r ' 1. � iI it i -- )• 1 Y- V� t: f .d t •I�t' � 1 1 i i I — '- - - - -- -------------- ---___ __�- -------------- -- - - ------------------------------------ ► 1 ----------- --- ------------------ ---------- 'moi 8 � mus ,oav� n * j� � w ... _— U wN X , i I it i I i # J id i' 1 ,j 4SV• ',\ li i j ii i - `a YI `` • I L1 11 I — f _ I I I 1 A 4 �' �1 11 • II l 11 II.J ' a ` ' �f- j� 1 V NID N _ i i r �� y 1 I (rl ? W� 1 d I! i.l iW ' IL Q j � i yr--'•. I _ 1• I Ii III � - d it 1 Q �. , Jt �1 t i t -t / ` .r ' 1. � iI it i -- )• 1 Y- V� t: f .d t •I�t' � 1 1 i i I — '- - - - -- -------------- ---___ __�- -------------- -- - - ------------------------------------ ► 1 ----------- --- ------------------ ---------- 'moi 8 � mus ,oav� ,L, L� J w zw 0w m LL 0 � w LL0 O Zw X w U Om �> IL �7-U (L w© , 13(.D O OO �� w z Qw w 0z "z m C3 z } � m � JQ —1 Q1 f� W w. ,L, L� J w zw 0w m LL 0 � w LL0 O �p Q zQ Q U Om �1 z � �7-U w© , r' w 1 IL1 LU LU a F— D 0 O .I Z S� L cr w M C WcrN c<1 IE:: • ORIGINAL BEFORE THE MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION KELLY NESTEN ACCESSORY USE PERMIT 1990 NORTHWEST 12TH STREET MERIDIAN. IDAHO FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS The above entitled matter having come on for public hearing January 10, 1995, at the hour of 7:30 o'clock p.m., the Petitioner did not appear at the Planning and Zoning meeting, the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Meridian having duly considered the evidence and the matter makes the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. That a notice of a public hearing on the Rezone Application and the Conditional Use Permit was published for two (2) consecutive weeks prior to the said public hearing scheduled for January 10, 1995, the first publication of which was fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing; that the matter was duly considered at the January 10, 1995, hearing; that the public was given full opportunity to express comments and submit evidence; and that copies of all notices were available to newspaper, radio and television stations. 2. That this property is located within the City of Meridian and the Applicant owns the property which property is described in the application which description is incorporated herein; that the FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS - NESTEN CONDITIONAL USE Page - 1 9 0 surrounding properties are residential homes. 3. That the Applicant requests an accessory use permit for the operation of a Family Child Care Home; that such use requires an accessory use permit in any zone where allowed. 4. That the property is contained in the LINDER DISTRICT as designated at Page 7 of the Meridian Comprehensive Plan; that neighborhoods are referenced in the Plan at Page 70 and the Plan states as follows: "The neighborhood is a distinctive residential walking area, whereas a community provides services and identity for a group of neighborhoods. Neighborhood areas within Meridian tend to be defined by schools, open spaces, traffic circulation patterns, and natural features, such as creeks. 5. That the use proposed by the Applicant is set forth above and it is assumed that the Applicant proposes to care for 5 or fewer children, although not so stated in the Application, but the Application is for a Family Day Care use, and Applicant indicates in the Application that a state day care license is required for this type of facility. 6. That the day care use proposed by Applicant is an allowed accessory use in the R-8 district of which the Applicant's property is zoned. 7. That the subject property is occupied by the Applicant and her family; that it is proposed that the yard be completely fenced; that the property does not have irrigation canals or facilities in the area. B. That sewer and water is already connected to the property, but the use may require additional charges or fees. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS - NESTEN CONDITIONAL USE Page - 2 E 9. That there was some written testimony submitted that stated they had no opposition to the operation of a family day care at the Applicant's home; that there was one written letter that stated that she had opposition to the use as a family day care; that the opposing letter stated that the concern was the noise level, that the subdivision covenants state that no business shall be established in the subdivision, and that she was concerned over child safety. 10. That since the Applicant did not appear she did not testify about the children being supervised at all times; what the hours of operation would be; if she was also caring for her own children; or whether she would have off-street parking spaces. 11. That the Applicant does not live on an arterial or collector street. 12. That the City Engineer's office submitted comments. That it was stated that sewer and water fees will have to be adjusted to meet the City Ordinance requirements and that the Ada County Highway District comments shall have to be referred to with respect to off-street requirements. 13. That the Meridian Planning and Zoning Administrator submitted comments stating that a maximum of five children may be cared for throughout the day; that the total number of children cared for during the day and not the number of children at the facility at any one time is determinative; that ample off-street parking is available; that all landscaping and fencing shall be in place prior to operation; that landscaping around the perimeter is FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS - NESTEN CONDITIONAL USE Page - 3 0 • required in addition to fencing to buffer adjacent residential properties; that a yearly review of the City Council should be required; that hours of operation shall not extend beyond those represented by the Applicant; and that the applicant shall be required to pay any additional sewer, water and trash charges or feed, if required. 14. That there was no other testimony at the hearing, that all procedures have been met, and the matter has been fully submitted to the Planning and Zoning Commission.. 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 which abut the external lot or boundary lines of the property under consideration. 2. That the City of Meridian has authority to grant Accessory Uses pursuant to 67-6512, Idaho Code, and, pursuant to 11-2-410 D of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian; and 3. That the City has the authority to take judicial notice of its own ordinances, other governmental statues and ordinances, and of actual conditions existing within the City and state. 4. That the City of Meridian has authority to place conditions on an accessory use permit 5. That 11-2-410 D of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian sets forth the standards under which the FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS - NESTEN CONDITIONAL USE Page - 4 P 0 Planning and Zoning Commission shall review applications for Accessory Use Permits; that those standards are as follows: Family Child Care Home Standards: It is the intent of this provision to provide for accessory family child care homes which will not adversely impact surrounding properties due to children's noise, traffic and other activities, and which are located away from and properly screened from adverse impacts to the health, safely and welfare of the children. The following conditions shall apply: (1) Secure and maintain a child care license from the Idaho State Department of Health and Welfare -Child Care Licensing Division, if required. (2) Acquire an occupancy certificate. (3) Provide one (1) off-street parking space per employee which may be the driveway to the home. (4) Provide for child pick-up located off an arterial or collector streets. (5) Provide for screening of adjacent properties to protect children from adverse impacts and to provide a buffer between properties. (6) Provide for a fence of appropriate height/construction, to enclose play areas, protecting children from traffic on arterial or collector streets. 6. That the Applicant shall keep the children in a fenced yard at all times except for drop-off and pick-up times when the parents shall be required to bring the children into the Applicant's home and come into the home to the pick the children up. The children shall at no time be allowed out side of the fenced area when not accompanied by an adult. 7. That the City has judged this Application for an accessory use permit upon the basis of guidelines contained above and the record submitted to it and the things of which it can take judicial notice. B. That the State of Idaho Health and Welfare Child Care Licensing for a Family Child Care Home allows up to Six (6) FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS - NESTEN CONDITIONAL USE Page - 5 0 9 children to be cared for but the ordinances of the City of Meridian only allow up to five (5) children under the Family Child Care Home. The Applicant shall be limited to a maximum of five (5) children to be cared for under this accessory use permit. 9. That the Family Child Care Home shall not adversely impact surrounding properties due to children's noise, traffic and other activities. The following conditions shall apply: (1) Secure and maintain a child care license from the Idaho State Department of Health and Welfare -Child Care Licensing Division. (2) Acquire an occupancy certificate. (3) Provide one (1) off-street parking space per employee which may be the driveway to the home. (4) Provide for child pick-up located off the fronting street. (5) Provide for screening of adjacent properties to protect children from adverse impacts and to provide a buffer between properties. (6) Provide for a fence of appropriate height/construction, to enclose play areas, protecting children from traffic on arterial or collector streets. 10. That there shall be no more than five (5) children cared for at the home throughout the day; that this number of children is arrived at from the total number of children at the facility and not the number of children at the facility at one time; that objection was made that the subdivision has covenants that do not allow businesses; that the City does not enforce covenants and the City Ordinances allow family day cares as conditional uses; therefore, it is concluded that this family day care may be operated and the conditional use permit should be granted; that the FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS - NESTEN CONDITIONAL USE Page - 6 0 0 person may enforce the covenants and these findings and conclusions do not in any way prevent enforcement of the covenants. 11. That the above conditions are concluded to be reasonable and the Applicant shall meet those conditions. 12. That it is recommended that if the Applicant meets the conditions stated above that the conditional use permit be granted to the Applicant. APPROVAL OF FINDINGS 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 COMMISSIONER SHEARER COMMISSIONER ALIDJANI CHAIRMAN JOHNSON (TIE BREAKER) DECISION VOTED_ G� VOTED VOTED d VOTED VOTED The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby approves 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. The conditional use shall be subject to annual review upon notice to the Applicant by the City. MOTION: APPROVED DISAPPROVED: FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS - NESTEN CONDITIONAL USE Page - 7 BEFORE THE MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION BORUP CONSTRUCTION CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR OFFICES 38 EAST ADA STREET MERIDIAN, IDAHO FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS The above entitled matter having come on for public hearing January 10, 1995, at the hour of 7:30 o'clock p.m., the Petitioner appearing in person, the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Meridian having duly considered the evidence and the matter makes the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. That a notice of a public hearing on the Conditional Use Permit was published for two (2) consecutive weeks prior to the public hearing scheduled for January 10, 1995, the first publication of which was fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing; that the matter was duly considered at the January 10, 1995, hearing; that the public was given full opportunity to express comments and submit evidence; and that copies of all notices were available to newspaper, radio and television stations; 2. That this property is located within the City of Meridian and the Applicant is the owner of the property; the property is described in the application which description is incorporated herein. 3. That the property is zoned Old Town, which requires a FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - BORUP PAGE 1 conditional use permit for the operation of plumbing office which the application requests. 4. That the Old Town District is described in the Zoning Ordinance, 11-2-408 B. 12. as follows: (OT) Old Town District: The purpose of the (OT) District is to accommodate and encourage further expansion of the historical core of the community; to delineate a centralized activity center and to encourage its renewal, revitalization and growth as the public, and quasi - public, cultural, financial and recreational center of the City. A variety of these uses integrated with general business, medium-high to high density residential, and other related uses is encouraged in an effort to provide the appropriate mix of activities necessary to establish a truly urban City Center. The District shall be served by Municipal Water and Sewer systems of the City of Meridian. Development in this district must give attention to the handling of high volumes of traffic, adequate parking, and pedestrian movement, and provide strip commercial development, and must be approved as a conditional use, unless otherwise permitted. 5. That the use proposed by Applicant is a specifically allowed conditional use in the Zoning Schedule of Use Control, 11- 2-409. 6. That the property is in an area that is being converted from residences to business uses. 7. That sewer and water is available to the property. B. That the Meridian Planning and Zoning Administrator submitted comments, stating that five foot sidewalks must be constructed, that two parking stalls are required, that landscaping shall be met in accordance with City Ordinance including that one three-inch caliper tree is required for each 1,500 square feet of paving, that Applicant shall provide a detailed, scaled site plan FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - BORUP PAGE 2 0 0 showing drainage calculations, roadway centerlines, access points, parking details, utilities, landscaping, etc., that storage of equipment or vehicles must be adequately screened, and that any proposed trash receptacle areas shall be screened; she recommended that the conditional use permit be granted, but that staff approval of the detailed site design is required prior to construction and operation. 9. That the City Engineer's office did submit comments. That he stated that sewer is available as is City water and that assessment fees for both would be determined during the building plan review process; that off-street parking, landscaping, drainage, lighting, paving and striping shall be in accordance with the standards set forth in 11-2-414; that all signage shall be in accordance with 11-2-415; that any existing wells and/or septic systems will have to be removed but that wells may be used for non- domestic purposes such as landscape irrigation; and that any existing irrigation/drainage ditches crossing the property shall be tiled and that tilting plans shall be approved by the Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District on a lateral users association. 10. That the Ada County Highway District (ACED) submitted site specific requirements and they are incorporated herein as if set forth in full. 11. That Nampa Meridian Irrigation District, Central District Health Department, and the Meridian Fire and Police Departments submitted comments and they are hereby incorporated herein as if set forth in full. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - BORUP PAGE 3 0 12. That proper notice has been given as required by law and all procedures before the Planning and Zoning Commission have been given and followed. CONCLUSIONS 1. That all the procedural requirements of the Local Planning Act and of the Ordinances of the City of Meridian have been met including the mailing of notice to owners of property within 300 feet of the external boundaries of the Applicant's property. 2. That the City of Meridian has authority to grant conditional uses pursuant to 67-6512, Idaho Code, and, pursuant to 11-2-418 of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian. 3. That the City of Meridian has authority to place conditions on a conditional use permit and the use of the property pursuant to 67-6512, Idaho Code, and pursuant to 11-2-418 D of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian, Idaho; 4. That 11-2-418 C of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian sets forth the standards under which the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council shall review applications for Conditional Use Permits; that upon a review of those requirements and a review of the facts presented and the conditions of the area, the Planning and Zoning Commission concludes as follows: a. The use, would in fact, constitute a conditional use and a conditional use permit is required by ordinance. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - BORUP PAGE 4 0 0 b. The use should be harmonious with and in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan but the Zoning Ordinance requires a conditional use permit to allow the use. C. The use apparently would be designed and constructed, to be harmonious in appearance with the intended character of the general vicinity. d. That the use would not be hazardous nor should it be disturbing to existing or future neighboring uses. e. The property has sewer and water service available. f. The use would not create excessive additional requirements at public cost for public facilities and services and the use would not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. g. The use would not involve a use, activity, process, material, equipment or conditions of operation that would be detrimental to person, property or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic or noise. h. That sufficient parking for the property and the proposed use is required. i. The development and uses will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural or scenic feature of major importance. 5. That the comments of the City Engineer and the Planning and Zoning Administrator must be met and complied with. 6. The requirements of the Ada County Highway District and the Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District must be met. 7. That all ordinances of the City of Meridian must be met, including but not limited to, the Uniform Building Code, Uniform Fire Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, the Uniform Electrical Code, the FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - BORUP PAGE 5 Fire and Life requirements. i Safety Code, • all parking and landscaping 8. That the parking must be paved, the landscaping placed, and any outdoor storage and/or trash receptacles properly screened, prior to issuance of an occupancy permit. 9. That the structure on the property must be brought up to all codes prior to issuance of an occupancy permit. APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts and approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONER HEPPER COMMISSIONER ROUNTREE SHEARER ALIDJANI CHAIRMAN JOHNSON (TIE BREAKER) VOTED 'J444— e�v VOTED VOTSD� VOTED VOTED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council of the City of Meridian that they approve the Conditional 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. MOTION: APPROVED KDISAPPROVED: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - BORUP PAGE 6 0 • ORIGINAE_. BEFORE THE MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FRED LOTRIDGE A PORTION OF THE S 1/2 OF THE SE 1/4, SECTION 5 T 3N R 1E., BOISE MERIDIAN ADA COUNTY, IDAHO CONDITIONAL USE MERIDIAN, IDAHO FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The above entitled matter having come on for public hearing January 10, 1995, at the hour of 7:30 o'clock p.m., that Jim Merkle, representing the Petitioner appeared in person, the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Meridian having duly considered the evidence and the matter makes the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. That a notice of a public hearing on the Conditional Use Permit was published for two (2) consecutive weeks prior to the said public hearing scheduled for January 10, 1995, the first publication of which was fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing; that the matter was duly considered at the January 10, 1995, 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. The property is approximately 7.84 acres; the property is located within the City of Meridian and the Applicant is not the owner of the property; the owner of record is the Capital Care LOTRIDGE CONDITIONAL USE FOR PLANNED DEVELOPMENT FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 1 0 Christian Center. 11 3. That the property is to the west of the Capital Care Christian Center, north and across Fairview Avenue from Treasure Valley Business Center, and south and east of Dove Meadows Subdivision; the land was included in the Capital Christian Care Center annexation and conditional use applications. 4. That the Application requests a conditional use permit for planned development -commercial. 5. That the property is zoned Limited Office (L -O). 6. That Jim Merkle testified that 65,000 square feet of buildings were planned which would include retail, professional offices and various related uses which are allowed within a commercial planned development; that he had submitted a response to the comments of Gary Smith, City Engineer, and Shari Stiles, Planning and Zoning Administrator; that Applicant is in agreement with their comments with the exception of a couple of minor things that need clarification, and one is the acceleration/deceleration lanes on Fairview Avenue; that he had a discussion with Larry Sale of ACHD which indicated that ACHD desired to lower the speed limit on Fairview Avenue along this development; that there were differences of opinion between the City and ACHD regarding curb and gutter; that they desired to meet with the City and ACHD regarding the curb and gutter; that strip commercial along Fairview Avenue was not their intent; that they desired to obtain a conditional use permit approval of the site plan and get a detailed site plan LOTRIDGE CONDITIONAL USE FOR PLANNED DEVELOPMENT FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 2 0 i approval at the building permit stage so that it does not have to come before the Planning and Zoning Commission all of the time; that the detailed site plan would include parking, landscape, and buffering. He additionally stated in response to a question from Commissioner Hepper that the layout submitted was not an exact layout of the buildings, but was about a half-and-half exact layout; that they were going to try and stay with the plaza concept because they liked it. 7. Larry Knop testified that Mr. Lotridge desired to develop a music store and an espresso or coffee shop in the area; that they wanted to set a theme of more independent buildings to offer some smaller spaces to more professional and medical types with an interior plaza and isolate business related and compatible so that we do not have a problem with the neighborhoods and other tenants or owners of the property and also the churches across the street; that there were pad sites or typical building locations that will basically stay the same but as they have tenants then they will develop the buildings and the design from there; that they want to stay with brick, wood, or a stucco type to keep it more along the residential lines. He additionally stated that they were not looking to multiple stories. That they were bermed and buffered on all of the project and they had no problem with a masonry fence to protect the neighboring residential lots; that they had offered some 10 foot landscaping and buffering and a wood fence but a masonry fence seemed appropriate. LOTRIDGE CONDITIONAL USE FOR PLANNED DEVELOPMENT FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 3 0 0 8. That the L -O District is described in the Zoning Ordinance, 11-2-408 B. 7 as follows: (L -O) LIMITED OFFICE DISTRICT: The purpose of the (L -O) District is to permit the establishment of groupings of professional, research, executive, administrative, accounting, clerical, stenographic, public service and similar uses. Research uses shall not involve heavy testing operations of any kind or product manufacturing of such a nature to create noise, vibration or emissions of a nature offensive to the overall purpose of this district. The L -O District is designed to act as a buffer between other more intense non- residential uses and high density residential uses, and is thus a transitional use. Connection to the Municipal Water and Sewer System of the City of Meridian is a requirement in this district. 9. That the land is not used at this time for any purpose and is not developed in any fashion. 10. That comments were received from the City Engineer, City Planning Director, Meridian Police Department, Fire Department, Central District Health Department, Ada County Highway District, and Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District; that such comments are incorporated herein by this reference. 11. The Meridian Planning Director, Shari Stiles, commented that the planting strip shown adjacent to residential property to the west is ten feet wide with a 6 foot screen; a solid mortar or brick wall should be constructed in addition to landscaping to fully block headlights and minimize noise; particular attention needs to be paid to illumination of the parking lot to ensure fixtures do not reflect rays or spill over into adjacent residential properties; a total of fourteen handicapped accessible parking spaces are required for 330 parking spaces but only eight LOTRIDGE CONDITIONAL USE FOR PLANNED DEVELOPMENT FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 4 0 0 are shown and of these, two spaces need to have an eight -foot aisle for accessibility; Appropriate signage and striping in accordance with Americans with Disabilities Act requirements will also need to be installed; that the Applicant should keep in mind that parking needs for restaurant uses are typically more than currently required by the City Ordinance; that as shown the parking is exactly the minimum requirement and care should be taken during development to ensure adequate parking for the ultimate plan. She stated that the concept is a good one that will be aesthetically pleasing and an asset to the community and she recommended that the conditional use permit be approved with detailed site plan review during the building permit stage to ensure compliance with City goals and standards and staff and agency requirements. 12. Gary Smith, City Engineer, and Bruce Freckleton, Assistant to Gary Smith, commented; that their comments are incorporated herein as if set forth in full; that their major points were that sewer and water is available and that assessment fees will be determined during the building plan review process and that a sewer late comers fee will also be charged against this parcel; that off-street parking, landscaping, drainage, lighting, paving and striping shall be in accordance with the standards set forth in 11-2-414; that all signage shall be in accordance with 11- 2-415; that any existing wells and/or septic systems will have to be removed but that wells may be used for non-domestic purposes such as landscape irrigation; and that any existing irrigation or LOTRIDGE CONDITIONAL USE FOR PLANNED DEVELOPMENT FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 5 0 0 drainage ditches crossing the property shall be tiled and that tilting plans shall be approved by the Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District or a lateral users association; and that it was their understanding that the intersection of Hickory Way and Fairview Avenue is planned to be signalized at a future date when traffic counts warrant and speed zone reductions are also being considered for this stretch of Fairview Avenue; that the intersection has been designed without acceleration and deceleration lanes and that this creates a hazardous situation; they suggested acceleration and deceleration lanes be constructed in accordance with ACHD standards; also that curb and gutter should be constructed along Fairview Avenue. 13. That the Ada County Highway District comments were to dedicate a 54 -feet of right-of-way from the centerline of North Fairview Avenue abutting the parcel, that the driveway onto North Fairview Avenue shall be a maximum width of 30 -feet located as proposed, that a five foot concrete sidewalk was required to be constructed along North Fairview Avenue, that completion of construction of the five-foot meandering sidewalk on North Hickory was required, and that it was necessary to install a stop sign on every unsignalized approach of a project street to an intersection involving a collector or arterial as the cross -street. 14. That a Planned Unit Development is stated in Section 11- 2-409 B to be conditional use in the Limited Office District, which is what the Applicant has requested. LOTRIDGE CONDITIONAL USE FOR PLANNED DEVELOPMENT FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 6 0 0 15. That the Subdivision and Development Ordinance speaks to planned unit development in 11-9-607 and such is incorporated herein as if set forth in full; that section 11-9-607 E states as follows: A PD shall be allowed only as a Conditional Use in each district subject to the standards and procedures set forth in this Section. A PD shall be governed by the regulations of the district or districts in which said PD is located. The approval of the Final Development Plan for a PD may provide for such exceptions from the district regulations governing use, density, area, bulk, parking, signs, and other regulations as may be desirable to achieve the objectives of the proposed PD, provided such exceptions are consistent with the standards and criteria contained in this section. 16. That section 11-2-418 d. states as follows: "In approving any Conditional Use, the Commission and Council may prescribe appropriate conditions, bonds, and safeguards in conformity with this Ordinance. Violations of such conditions, bonds or safeguards, when made a part of the terms under which the Conditional Use is granted, shall be deemed a violation of the Ordinance and grounds to revoke the Conditional Use. The Commission and Council may prescribe a set time period for which a Conditional Use may be in existence." 17. That under COMMUNITY DESIGN, at Page 72, Fairview Avenue is listed as an Entryway Corridor; that the Entrance Corridors Goal Statement is to promote, encourage, develop and maintain aesthetically pleasing approaches to the City of Meridian, and under Policies, Page 73, it states as follows: 4.4U Encourage landscaped setbacks for new development on entrance corridors. The City shall require, as a condition of development approval, landscaping along all entrance corridors. 18. Section 11-9-605 G, PLANTING STRIPS AND RESERVE STRIPS, of the Subdivision and Development Ordinance, states that planting LOTRIDGE CONDITIONAL USE FOR PLANNED DEVELOPMENT FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 7 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 and that such screening shall be a minimum of twenty feet wide and shall not be part of the normal street right-of-way or utility easement. 19. That proper notice has been given as required by law and all procedures before the Planning and Zoning Commission have been given and followed. CONCLUSIONS 1. That all the procedural requirements of the Local Planning Act and of the Ordinances of the City of Meridian have been met, including the mailing of notice to owners of property within 300 feet of the external boundaries of the Applicant's property. 2. That the City of Meridian has authority to grant conditional uses pursuant to 67-6512, Idaho Code, and, pursuant to 11-2-418 of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian. 3. That the City has the authority to take judicial notice of its own ordinances, other governmental statues and ordinances, and of actual conditions existing within the City and state. 4. That the City of Meridian has authority to place conditions on a conditional use permit and the use of the property pursuant to 67-6512, Idaho Code, and pursuant to 11-2-418 D of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian, Idaho. LOTRIDGE CONDITIONAL USE FOR PLANNED DEVELOPMENT FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 8 0 0 5. That 11-2-418 C of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian sets forth the standards under which the Commission shall review applications for Conditional Use Permits; that upon a review of those requirements and a review of the facts presented and the conditions of the area, the Commission concludes as follows: a. The use, would in fact, constitute a conditional use and a conditional use permit is required by ordinance. b. The use would be harmonious with and in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan but the Zoning Ordinance requires a conditional use permit to allow the use. C. The use shall be designed and shall be constructed to be harmonious in appearance with the character of the general vicinity. d. That the use would not be hazardous nor should it be disturbing to existing or future neighboring uses; that the access and traffic requirements of the City and the Ada County Highway District shall be met and if they are, traffic should not increase significantly because of the proposed use. e. That the property has available to it sewer and water service and the Applicant shall connect to such at its expense. f. The use would not create excessive additional requirements at public cost for public facilities and services if the Applicant meets the requirements of the City and Ada County Highway District and the use would not be not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. g. The use would not involve a use, activity, process, material, equipment or conditions of operation that would be detrimental to person, property or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic or noise. h. That sufficient parking for the property and the proposed is required and the parking layout must meet the requirements of the City ordinance and should provide for additional parking beyond the ordinance requirements. LOTRIDGE CONDITIONAL USE FOR PLANNED DEVELOPMENT FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 9 0 i. The development and uses will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural or scenic feature of major importance. 6. That the City has judged this Application for a Conditional use permit for a planned unit development upon the basis of guidelines contained in 11-2-418 and 11-9-607 of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian and upon the basis of the Local Planning Act of 1975, Title 67 Chapter 65, Idaho Code, the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Meridian, and the record submitted to it and the things of which it can take judicial notice. 7. It is further concluded that the comments, recommendations and requirements of the City Engineer, Planning Director, Ada County Highway District, other governmental agencies, and the representation of the Applicants engineer, including the masonry fence, shall be met and complied with. B. It is concluded that the Application for a Planned Development - Commercial, should be granted as stated as stated in Conclusion No. 9; that the Applicant shall be required to meet the requirements of the Limited Office (L -O) district and the requirements of the planned development ordinance, 11-9-607. 9. That since the Applicant's representative stated that they desired to obtain a conditional use permit approval of the site plan and get a detailed site plan approval at the building permit stage so that it does not have to come before the Planning and Zoning Commission all of the time, the approval of the LOTRIDGE CONDITIONAL USE FOR PLANNED DEVELOPMENT FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 10 0 0 Application should be only of the concept site plan and of what was presented to the Commission; that Applicant shall be required to submit detailed site plans prior to issuance of building permits for review to ensure compliance with City goals and standards and staff and agency requirements. APPROVAL OF FINDINGS 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 COMMISSIONER ROUNTREE VOTED COMMISSIONER SHEARER VOTED COMMISSIONER ALIDJANI VOTED CHAIRMAN JOHNSON (TIE BREAKER) VOTED LOTRIDGE CONDITIONAL USE FOR PLANNED DEVELOPMENT FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 11 • RECOMMENDATION The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council of the City of Meridian that they approve the conditional use permit for a planned commercial development with the conditions set forth in the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, that the Applicant and owners be specifically required to submit a final development plan, meet all of the requirements of Section 11-9-607 and of the Limited Office requirements, and all of the Ordinances of the City of Meridian. MOTION: APPROVED: DISAPPROVED: LOTRIDGE CONDITIONAL USE FOR PLANNED DEVELOPMENT FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 12 i January 19, 1995 Honorable Commissioners City of Meridian 31 East Idaho Avenue Meridian, ID 83642 Dear Commissioners: Our family resides at 1875 N. Locust Grove Road in Meridian, Idaho. With the commercial development going in across the street from our home we have many concerns. Our number one concern is the safety factor for our children. We have two sons, ages 5 and 8. Their safety and well-being is of the utmost of importance. Our greatest fear is the congestion of traffic since a five lane thoroughfare will be located at our front doorstep. Hopefully, you have completed or are planning on performing a traffic study to analyze the best method of protection for the residents bordering Locust Grove. It is our understanding that two (or possibly three) entrances are planned for the Locust Grove side of the Fred Meyer Store. • How will this back up the traffic? • Will there be lights shining directly into our home? • Will there be excessive traffic congestion in front of our home because there are two to three vehicles crossing the street at the same time? • Will there be tum lanes for entrances into the Fred Meyers shopping center to help alleviate this traffic congestion? • What measures will you take to help buffer the noise levels that grow decibel by decibel as each car, truck or semi -truck enters into this shopping center? • Are there any stipulations that you can set for Locust Grove residents so that the semi -trucks do not access the loading docks directly off of Locust Grove? • Have you done any studies with regard to air pollution and air quality affecting the neighboring homes? • Have you talked to the "green industry" to see which buffers are the best method of filtering out excessive traffic noise, traffic air pollution, dust and dirt? • Is there are requirement to perform an environmental assessment? If so, please do one. How will the children along Locust Grove get to school when the sidewalk is placed off of this street? Will they still be bused or will the sidewalk take away the option of accessibility of a bus? Would you allow your children to walk or ride a bike down a five lane thoroughfare to get to school? Will you be placing a bike path along this thoroughfare for the children and residents along Locust Grove? Another concern that we have is access to Locust Grove Road from my driveway. Currently, we are experiencing difficulty getting in and out of our driveway. When the extra entrances are placed for accessibility to the shopping center, entering and exiting our home will become even more difficult. • What type of help will you give to the residents along Locust Grove so that we can maintain some sort of ease of accessibility. • Will you help us by providing circular driveways so that we do not have to back up into this major thoroughfare? • When planning this road, can the undeveloped property donate the greatest portion of right- of-way for this road? Please do not take away the little bit of privacy that we have left in our front yard. • If in fact you do take away 15 feet of our front yard, will you help me with the revamping of our sprinkler system so that it works properly. • If you take away the mature trees that now proudly stand in our front yard, will you replace them with mature trees. Your consideration of these questions and concerns would be greatly appreciated. We humbly ask you, the caretakers of our streets, to please listen to the children and residents who live off of Locust Grove Road. Help us to maintain some sort of quality of our lives and for the safety of our children. Sincerely, Charles H. and Mary Z. Cahoon ire c' Pive� 2- �l-9� *ITY OF MERICOAN DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT • Planned Unit Development • Separate Conditional Use Permit - Each Parcel • Meet Requirements of • City of Meridian • Ada County Highway District • Central District Health Department • Nampa -Meridian Irrigation District • Pedestrian Walkway • Paved 10 feet wide • Five feet wide landscaping on each side • Fairview Avenue Improvements • Dedicate 4 feet of ROW entire frontage Landscaped berm entire Fairview Avenue frontage 35 feet wide, Varying height - 2 to 4 feet 55 feet return Into parking lot • 5 feet wide sidewalk entire frontage • Locust Grove Road Improvements • Dedicate 4 feet & 20 feet of ROW Landscape berm entire Locust Grove Road frontage 20 feet wide, Varying height - 2 to 6 feet 40 feet return into parking lot • 5 feet wide sidewalk entire frontage • Off-site Improvements Locust Grove Road • Provide soil for landscape berm • Compensation to homeowners for landscape improvements M■ Quadrant Consulting, Inc. 7 • ORIGINAL BEFORE THE MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION LYNN JONES CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A GROUP CHILD CARE HOME LOT 2 BLOCK 2, COUGAR CREEK SUBDIVISION MERIDIAN, IDAHO FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The above entitled matter having come on for public hearing January 10, 1995 at the hour of 7:30 o'clock p.m., the Petitioner, Lynn Jones appearing, the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Meridian having duly considered the evidence and the matter makes the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. That a notice of a public hearing on the Conditional Use Permit was published for two (2) consecutive weeks prior to the said public hearing scheduled for January 10, 1995 the first publication of which was fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing; that the matter was duly considered at the January 10, 1995 hearing; that the public was given full opportunity to express comments and submit evidence; and that copies of all notices were available to newspaper, radio and television stations. 2. That this property is located within the City of Meridian and the Applicant is not the owner of the property; that there are two statements included with the Application that state the person signing the statement is the owner of the property; one is dated November 10, 1994, is signed by Larry Stoker, states that he is the FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - JONES Page 1 owner of the property and states that he is aware of, and fully supports, Lynn Jones' efforts to obtain Planning and Zoning approval of the site as a day care facility, but is does not specifically state that consent is given for the application; the other is dated December 12, 1994, it is a sworn statement, states that Ray Patel is the owner of the property but the document is signed by Ray Patel as secretary of Vijya Laxmi, Inc., but it apparently is a form used by the City of Boise because in the statement is states as follows: "I agree to indemnify, defend and hold Boise City and its employees harmless from any claim or liability . . . "; also there was an earnest money agreement for the purchase of the property, stated August 22, 1994, that is signed by Larry K. Stoker as buyer and, by what appears to be, After Schools, Inc, Cheryl A. Joills; that the property is described in the application which description is incorporated herein. 3. The Applicant requests that a conditional use permit be granted to him for the operation of a Group Child Care Home. The Applicant in a previous application hearing for a conditional use permit for a group day care stated at the public hearing on that Application that he has owned and operated several day cares in the Boise area for approximately nine (9) years; he also stated at the previous public hearing that there are big demands right now in the day care business for more in home child care facilities and that he proposes a child care for twelve (12) children from the ages of FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - JONES Page 2 birth to 10 years; he testified at the hearing on the 10th of January that not much had changed since the other application and the goal was to provide quality day care in residential settings without creating huge day care centers and that the hours would be from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. He additionally stated that he did not desire to have a circular driveway, as suggested by Shari Stiles, because he wanted to maintain the integrity of the residence and not convert the residence into looking like a commercial outfit and to look like a residence and blend in with the surrounding homes in the area. He had no other comments to the staff comments. 4. That the definition of Group Child Care Center is, "A child care facility which provides care for six (6) to twelve (12) children throughout the day"; the note at the end of the definition for Child Care Facility is: "It should be noted that in determining the type of child care facility that is being operated, the total number of children cared for during the day and not the number of children at the facility at any one time is determinative". 5. That Section 11-2-418 of the Zoning Ordinance contains the requirements and procedures pertaining to conditional uses; that subsection B, CONTENTS OF CONDITIONAL USE APPLICATION, states as follows: An application for a conditional use permit shall be filed with the Administrator by the owner of the property for which such conditional use is proposed. At a minimum, the application shall contain the following information: 1. Name, address and phone number of applicant; 2. Name, address and phone number of owner of subject property; FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - JONES Page 3 0 0 3. Legal description of property; 4. Proof of ownership of subject property; 5. Description of existing use; 6. Present use of subject property; 7. Proposed use of the subject property; 8. The District that pertains to the subject property; 9. Thirty (30) copies of a vicinity map of a scale of one inch equals three hundred feet (1"=3001); 10. Characteristics of subject property which make a conditional use desirable; 11. A listing of the mailing addresses of all property owners (from authentic tax records of Ada County) who are within three hundred feet (300') of the external boundaries of the land being considered, and a list of all owners within the area being considered for a conditional use; 12. A fee established by the Council; 13. A statement that the applicant or user of the property agrees to pay any additional sewer, water or trash fees or charges, if any, associated with the use, whether that use be residential, commercial or industrial; and 14. The application shall be verified by the applicant which shall state that he has read the contents thereof and verifies that the information contained therein is true and correct. 6. The Application was not filed by the owner of the property for which such conditional use is proposed and does not include all of the information required by the above section; it does not include proof of ownership, a statement of the zoning that pertains to the subject property, a statement that the applicant or user of the property agrees to pay any additional sewer, water or trash fees or charges, and the application is not verified by the applicant which verification states that he has read the contents thereof and verifies that the information contained therein is true and correct. 7. That the property is, even though not stated by the Applicant, zoned R-8 Residential and is in Cougar Creek Subdivision; that in the ZONING SCHEDULE OF USE CONTROL, Section FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - JONES Page 4 11-2-409 A., Residential, Group Child Care Home is listed as a conditional use in the R-8 District and therefore the R-8 District requires a conditional use permit for the operation of a Group Child Care Home. That the R-8, Residential District is described in the Zoning Ordinance, 11-2-408 B 4. as follows: (R-8) Medium Density Residential District: The purpose of the (R-8) Districts is to permit the establishment of single and two (2) family dwellings at a density not exceeding eight (8) dwelling units per acre. This district delineates those areas where such development has or is likely to occur in accord with the Comprehensive Plan of the City and is also designed to permit the conversion of large homes into two (2) family dwellings in well-established neighborhoods of comparable land use. Connection to the Municipal Water and Sewer systems of the City of Meridian is required. 8. That the use proposed by the Applicant is set forth in the Application as, . . to use the site for a 12 child day care center, to be operated in accordance with all appropriate day care laws." 9. The City Engineer and the Assistant to the City Engineer submitted comments which are incorporated herein as if set forth in full herein; the comments stated that sewer and water are existing on the site and that assessment fees for sewer and water service will be determined during the building plan review process, direct lot access to North Locust Grove Road is prohibited, the dwelling must be a minimum of 1,350 square feet, and all signage shall be in accordance with the standards set forth in 11-2-415. 10. The Ada County Highway District submitted comments and they are hereby incorporated herein and had one site specific FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - JONES Page 5 requirement of no direct access to Locust Grove Road will be allowed. 11. That the Meridian Planning and Zoning Administrator, Shari Stiles, submitted comments stating that a maximum of twelve children may be cared for throughout the day; that the total number of children cared for during the day and not the number of children at the facility at any one time is determinative; that one stall of the three -car garage is to be used for the day care, with the remaining two stalls used for housing vehicles of the resident; that Applicant should consider incorporating circular driveway to facilitate traffic flow at peak times, if existing median on Cougar Creek Drive will allow; that all landscaping and fencing shall be in place prior to operation and that landscaping along the western boundary is required in addition to fencing to buffer adjacent residential property; that a yearly review of the City Council should be required; that hours of operation shall not extend beyond those represented by the Applicant and approved by the Council. 12, City Police Department, Fire Department, Nampa -Meridian Irrigation District, and Central District Health Department submitted comments and they are hereby incorporated herein. 13. That section 11-2-418 d. states as follows: "In approving any Conditional Use, the Commission and Council may prescribe appropriate conditions, bonds, and safeguards in conformity with this Ordinance. Violations of such conditions, bonds or safeguards, when made a part of the terms under which the Conditional Use is granted, shall be deemed a violation of the Ordinance and grounds to revoke the Conditional Use. The Commission and Council may prescribe a set time period for which a Conditional Use may be in FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - JONES Page 6 0 existence." 0 14. The City of Meridian has consistently required that operators of day cares have State of Idaho day care licenses. 15. That there was no testimony submitted at the hearing objecting to the conditional use permit. CONCLUSIONS 1. That all the procedural requirements of the Local Planning Act and of the Ordinances of the City of Meridian have been met including the mailing of notice to owners of property within 300 feet of the external boundaries of the Applicant's property. 2. That the City of Meridian has authority to grant conditional uses pursuant to 67-6512, Idaho Code, and, pursuant to 11-2-418 of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian. 3. That the City has the authority to take judicial notice of its own ordinances and proceedings, other governmental statues and ordinances, and of actual conditions existing within the City and state. 4. That the City of Meridian has authority to place conditions on a conditional use permit and the use of the property pursuant to 67-6512, Idaho Code, and pursuant to that section conditions minimizing the adverse impact on other development, controlling the duration of development, assuring the development FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - JONES Page 7 0 0 is maintained properly, and requiring on-site or off-site facilities, may be attached to the permit; that 11-2-418 D authorizes the City to prescribe a set time period for which a conditional use may be in existence. 5. That the City has judged this Application for a conditional use upon the basis of guidelines contained in Section 11-2-418 of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian and upon the basis of the Local Planning Act of 1975, Title 67 Chapter 65, Idaho Code, the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Meridian, and the record submitted to it and the things of which it may take judicial notice. 6. . That is concluded that the Application did not meet the application requirements of 11-2-418 C because the Application was not filed by the owner of the property, because it did not include proof of ownership, because three people or entities were noted in the Application as being the owner of the parcel, because there was no statement of the zoning, because there was no statement that the applicant or user of the property agreed to pay any additional sewer, water or trash fees or charges, and because the application was not verified by the applicant which verification states that the Applicant has read the contents thereof and verifies that the information contained therein is true and correct. 7. That it is concluded that the City needs the above information to know whether the owner of the property is aware of the Application, that the owner consents to the use of the property FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - JONES Page 8 0 0 as set forth in the Application, that the Applicant consents to the possible sewer, water and fees, and whether the Applicant has read the Application and verifies the statements therein as being true. 8. Since the Application did not meet the requirements of 11-2-418 B, it is therefore concluded that the Application should be tabled until the Applicant amends his Application and submits the necessary information to the Commission to enable it to render findings of fact and conclusion of law and a supportable decision; that if the Applicant amends the Application to include the requirements of 11-2-418 B the Application may then proceed, but an additional public hearing shall be held before the Planning and Zoning Commission since there may have been people who asked for copies of the Application and did not receive all the necessary information. 9. It is further concluded that the Applicant should inform the Commission within ten ( 10 ) days of the date of adoption of these Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law whether he will provide the necessary information and desires to continue to proceed with the Application and have the additional public hearing, or whether he does not desire to proceed further. If the Applicant does not inform the City within the ten (10 ) days as above provided the Application should be deemed denied. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - JONES Page 9 0 E APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts and approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions. ROLL CALL HEPPER ROUNTREE COMMISSIONER SHEARER COMMISSIONER ALIDJANI CHAIRMAN JOHNSON (TIE BREAKER) VOTED VOTED�j VOTEDI� VOTED Or— VOTED VOTED The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby decides that the Application for Conditional Use Permit as requested by the Applicant for the property described in the Application, based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, is tabled to allow the Applicant to provide to the City the information required, as stated in the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. That the Applicant shall inform the Commission within ten (10) days of the date of adoption of these Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law whether he will provide the necessary information and desires to continue to proceed with the Application or whether he does not want to proceed further. If the Applicant informs the City that he will provide the additional information, an additional public FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - JONES Page 10 11 i hearing shall be held before the Planning and Zoning Commission since there may have been people who asked for copies of the Application and did not receive all the necessary information. The public hearing will not be scheduled until the information is received by the City. If the Applicant does not inform the City within the ten (10) days, as herein provided, the Application shall be deemed denied and the matter shall not proceed on to the City Council due to Applicant's failure to provide all of the necessary information. MOTION: APPROVED: DISAPPROVED: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - JONES Page 11 0 j ORIGINAL BEFORE THE MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MICHAEL GAMBLIN REZONE NE CORNER OF LEISURE LANE AND CHERRY LANE MERIDIAN, IDAHO FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS The above entitled matter having come on for public hearing January 10, 1995, at the hour of 7:30 o'clock p.m., the Applicant, Michael Gamblin, appearing, the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Meridian having duly considered the evidence and the matter, makes the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. That a notice of a public hearing on the Rezone and the Conditional Use Permit Application was published for two (2) consecutive weeks prior to the said public hearing scheduled for January 10, 1995, the first publication of which was fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing; that the matter was duly considered at the January 10, 1995, hearing; that the public was given full opportunity to express comments and submit evidence; and that copies of all notices were available to newspaper, radio and television stations; 2. That this property is located within the City of Meridian and the Applicant is not the owner of record of the property, but the owners of record are Edson A. Fujii and Patricia A. Fujii, which property is described in the application which description is GAMBLIN REZONE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 1 0 0 incorporated herein; that the property is now zoned R-4; that Applicant is requesting a rezone of the land to L -O Limited Office and R-8 Residential; that the owners have consented to the rezone Application. 3. That the Applicant proposes to now have the property zoned R-8 Residential and Limited Office, and he submitted legal descriptions for the property to be zoned each requested zone. 4. That the proposed land use would be for light offices in the L -O zone and single family residences in the R-8 zone. 5. That the Applicant stated in his application that the characteristics that make the rezone desireable are that it is consistent with the growth pattern down Cherry Lane; that the property to the east is a day care; that everything else with Cherry Lane frontage is business, office or commercial; that the land already has paved parking for fifteen cars; that the single family request is consistent with the complexion of the surrounding neighborhood. At the public hearing Mr. Gamblin stated that the use would be for office and single family residences; that he had no objections to the staff reports; and that he wants to "mirror" the dental office which is nearby. 6. That the R-8 District and the L -O District are described in the Zoning Ordinance, 11-2-408 B. 4 and 7 as follows: (R-8) MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT: The purpose of the (R-8) District is to permit the establishment of single and two (2) family dwellings at a density not exceeding eight (8) dwelling units pre acre. This district delineates those areas where such development has or is likely to occur in accord with the Comprehensive Plan of the City and is also designed to GAMBLIN REZONE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 2 0 permit the conversion of large homes into two (2) family dwellings in well-established neighborhoods of comparable land use. Connection to the Municipal Water and Sewer systems of the City of Meridian is required. (L -O) Limited Office District - The purpose of the (L -O) District is to permit the establishment of groupings of professional, research, executive, administrative, accounting, clerical, stenographic, public service and similar uses. Research uses shall not involve heavy testing operations of any kind or product manufacturing of such a nature to create noise, vibration or emissions of a nature offensive to the overall purpose of this district. The (L -O) District is designed to act as a buffer between other more intense non- residential uses and high density residential uses, and is thus a transitional use. Connection to the Municipal Water and Sewer systems of the City of Meridian is a requirement in this district. 7. That the property is presently used for a single family residence. 8. That the property along Leisure Lane is used for residential purposes with approximately one acre lots; that the property to the south is the Meridian Middle school; that the other properties in the area are almost all residential. 9. Gary Smith, City Engineer, and Bruce Freckleton, Assistant to Gary Smith, commented; that their comments are incorporated herein as if set forth in full; that their major points were that off-street parking, landscaping, drainage, lighting, paving and striping shall be in accordance with the standards set forth in 11-2-414; that all signage shall be in accordance with 11-2-415; that any existing wells and/or septic systems will have to be removed but that wells may be used for non- domestic purposes such as landscape irrigation; and that any existing irrigation or drainage ditches crossing the property shall GAMBLIN REZONE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 3 be tiled and that tiling plans shall be approved by the Nampa 6 Meridian Irrigation District or a lateral users association; and that the City owns and maintains sewer and water mains adjacent to the south of the site, that they are stubbed into Leisure Lane, that Applicant will be required to extend the stubs in Leisure Lane to serve this site, and that easements will need to be granted to the City since Leisure Lane is a private street. Additionally assessment fees will be determined during the building review process. 10. The Meridian Planning Director, Shari Stiles, commented that the Applicant has requested a variance to the rear set back to allow a fifteen foot set back; the a development agreement should be required as a condition of the rezone; and that a detailed site plan must be submitted and approved prior to occupancy to determine compliance with landscaping, lighting, parking, drainage, utility hookups, etc. She also stated that no development plans ad been submitted. 11. That the Ada County Highway District comments were submitted and they are incorporated herein as if set forth in full; that ACRD stated that its specific site requirement was that access to Cherry Lane shall be limited to one curb return approach with a maximum width of 30 -feet. 12. That comments were received from the Meridian Police Department, Fire Department, Central District Health Department, Meridian School District, Central District Health Department and Idaho Power Company; that such comments are incorporated herein by GAMBLIN REZONE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Paae 4 0 0 this reference. 13. That under COMMUNITY DESIGN, at Page 72, Cherry Lane is listed as an Entryway Corridor; that the Entrance Corridors Goal Statement is to promote, encourage, develop and maintain aesthetically pleasing approaches to the City of Meridian, and under Policies, Page 73, it states as follows: 4.4U Encourage landscaped setbacks for new development on entrance corridors. The City shall require, as a condition of development approval, landscaping along all entrance corridors. 14. Section 11-9-605 G, PLANTING STRIPS AND RESERVE STRIPS, of the Subdivision and Development Ordinance, states that 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 and that such screening shall be a minimum of twenty feet wide and shall not be part of the normal street right-of-way or utility easement. 15. That proper notice has been given as required by law and all procedures before the Planning and Zoning Commission have been 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 Applicants, property. 2. That the City has the authority to take judicial notice GAMBLIN REZONE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 5 L of its own ordinances, other governmental statutes and ordinances, and of actual conditions existing within the City and State. 3. That the City of Meridian has authority to place conditions upon granting a zoning amendment or conditional use. 4. That the City has judged this Application for a zoning amendment upon the basis of guidelines contained in Section 11-2- 416 of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian and upon the basis of the Local Planning Act of 1975, Title 67 Chapter 65, Idaho Code, the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Meridian, and the record submitted to it and the things of which it can take judicial notice. 5. That Section 11-2-416 A. states in part as follows: "When the public necessity, convenience, general welfare or zoning and development practice require, the Council . . . may amend, supplement, change,, or repeal the regulations, restrictions, and boundaries or classification or property as well as the regulations and provisions of this Ordinance." 6. That 11-2-416 (K) of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian sets forth standards under which the City shall review applications for zoning amendments; that upon a review of those requirements and a review of the facts presented and conditions of the area, the City Council specifically concludes as follows: (a) The L -O and R-8 zoning would be harmonious with and in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan if the restrictions stated herein are met and complied with. (b) The area included in the proposed zoning amendment is intended to be developed in the fashion that would be allowed under the proposed new zoning. (c) That the property, if designed and used as allowed in the GAMBLIN REZONE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Paae 6 0 L -O and R-8 Districts, would apparently be designed and constructed to be harmonious with the surrounding area, which is developed in a residential fashion. (d) The L -O and R-8 uses would not be hazardous to the existing or future uses of the neighborhood. (e) L -O and R-8 development would not create excessive additional requirements at public cost for public facilities and services and would not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. (f) The proposed use would not involve uses, activities, processes materials, equipment or conditions of operation that would be detrimental to any person, property or the general welfare of the area. (g) Development in the L -O and R-8 districts would produce only a minimum traffic increase during the week with the heaviest seen on Sundays. (h) That a rezone would not result in the destruction, loss or damage of any natural or scenic feature of major importance. (i) The proposed zoning amendment is in the best interest of City of Meridian. 7. That the City has judged this Application for a zoning amendment upon the basis of guidelines contained in Section 11-2- 416 of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian and upon the basis of the Local Planning Act of 1975, Title 67 Chapter 65, Idaho Code, the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Meridian, and the record submitted to it and the things of which it can take judicial notice. 8. It is further concluded that the comments, recommendation and requirements of the City Engineer, Planning and Zoning Administrator, and the Ada County Highway District shall be met and complied with. 9. That since conditions may be placed on an application GAMBLIN REZONE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 7 E 11 when granting a rezone, the following conditions are placed on the Application and the property: a. That the homes constructed in the R-8 District shall be only single family detached homes with one home on each lot. b. That the homes shall meet the R-4 size requirement of 1,400 square feet so that they are more compatible with the other homes that front on Leisure Lane. C. That the Applicant shall subdivide the land and submit a subdivision plat for the entire area showing how the property is to be developed. d. That no building permits shall be issued until the above requirements are met. e. That the Applicant shall connect to Meridian sewer and water and meet the requirements of the City Engineer for those connections and extension of the sewer and water lines. f. That the Applicant shall meet the twenty foot landscape strip required under 11-9-605 G. g. That the Applicant shall file an application for a variance if he does not desire to meet the set back requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, which if granted, would allow him not to meet the set back requirements. GAMBLIN REZONE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 8 n L 0 APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS 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) RECOMMENDATION VOTED�y - VOTED VOTED VOTED' VOTED The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council that the Rezones requested by the Applicant for the property described in the application be approved with the conditions set forth in these Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. MOTION: APPROVED- DISAPPROVED: GAMBLIN REZONE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 9 recel ee e Z -141 -1915 - Meridian Highlands Ranch - List of Development Conditions - 14 February 1995 A. 10 C. I� February 10, 1995 Memo. Conditions 1, 2 and 3 are acceptable to Gem Park 11. February 10, 1995 Memo. Condition I is acceptable to Gem Park 11. Conditions 2 should be modified to indicate "theoretical" density. Planner is aware that Gem Park II will develop well below "theoretical" density levels. Condition 3 is not workable at this lune. The Meridian Planned Development Ordinance (9-607.F.7) does not allow this type of quality development and mixed residential uses. The Planned Development procedure could increase density to 5 dwelling units per acre within the R-4 base zone. All of the Ada County Highway District (ACHD) conditions included in the February 3, 1995, memo with the exception of item number 6 are acceptable to Gem Park II. The ACHD has indicated to Gem Park ll that the office parcel on S. Locust Grove Road can have direct access to Locust Grove Road. ACHD will be modifying condition number 6. All other conditions listed in the February 14, 1995, Meridian City Planning and Zoning Commission packet are acceptable to Gem Park II. Fro ITIMM, IMINTIVI "1 0,11", 1. The maximum gross density concept of the entire project will be to be 3.94 units per acre (682 units) as shown on the Highlands Ranch Concept plan. 2. The general elements of the concept plan pertaining to all lot areas: pathways, open space, school/park site, pedestrian crossings, road improvements, multi -family and landscaping shall be included in a preliminary plat and fully delineated. 3. The Preliminary Plat shall restrict the lot development to these standards and maximum densities: ed Housing Choices Lot r n S. F. House Size in S.F. Maximum Uolu UWIJA Home Sites 9000 to 9700 1600 + 2.3 DU/AC 51 ive Home Sites 8140 to 8800 1400+ 2.9 DU/AC 112 elt Home Sites ED-KeyhoIcHome 6000 to 7700 1000+ 3.2 DU/AC 196 le Home Sites 5000 to 6000 900+ 4.5 DU/AC 93 le Homes (Townhouse) 1400 + detached homesCommon area. 3.4 DU/AC 52 Family (Apartments) Attractive, two story - By CUP. 15 DU/AC 178 TOTALS MARKET NEED 3.94 DU/AC 1 682 • • ORIGINAL BEFORE THE MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION LOTS 1 THROUGH 5. BLOCK 1 FUTURA-IDA SUBDIVISION CORNER OF MERIDIAN ROAD AND FRANKLIN ROAD MERIDIAN, IDAHO FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The above entitled conditional use permit application having come on for consideration on January 10, 1995, at the hour of 7:30 o'clock p.m. on said date, at the Meridian City Hall, 33 East Idaho Street, Meridian, Idaho, and the Planning and Zoning Commission having heard and taken oral and written testimony and the Applicant, Les Migneault, appearing, and having duly considered the matter, the Planning and Zoning Commission makes the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. That a notice of a public hearing on the Conditional Use Permit was published for two (2) consecutive weeks prior to the said public hearing scheduled for January 10, 1995, the first publication of which was fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing; that the matter was duly considered at the January 10, 1995, 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 is located within the City of Meridian; that the general location of the property is north of Franklin Road MIGNEAULT FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 1 0 9 and west of Meridian Road; the property is in an area classified as a Mixed/Planned Use Development Area on the Generalized Land Use Map of the Meridian Comprehensive Plan and the property is described in the application which description is incorporated herein. 3. That the property is currently zoned C -G, General Retail and Service Commercial; that the use proposed by Applicant of an automobile repair and service shop is an allowed conditional use in the C -G district pursuant to 11-2-409 B. 4. That the 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. 5. That the Applicant is not the owner of record of the property; that the owner of record is Ronald E. Byron, who has consented to this application for a conditional use permit. 6. That the property is currently undeveloped and vacant land; that there is a utility contractors shop, yard and office to the north; that there are offices to the west and to the east; to the south is a mobile home park. MIGNEAULT FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 2 0 9 7. That at the public hearing the Applicant, Les Migneault, testified that he was pretty much in agreement with the condition given to him on the permit, except for the 20 foot landscape setback; he felt that this might take up parking area and he would rather use this for parking; that he would have landscaping that would compliment the area; that he would like to work out the 20 foot landscaping requirement; everything else looked acceptable; the Applicant was informed by the Commission that the twenty foot landscape requirement was an ordinance requirement and he would have to request a variance to enable him not to comply with the ordinance. 8. Shari Stiles, Meridian Planning Director submitted comments which are incorporated herein by this reference; the principal provisions of her comments were that since both Franklin and Meridian Roads are entrance corridors a minimum landscaped setback of 20 feet beyond future anticipated ACRD right-of-way should be required; that one three-inch caliper tree is required for each 1,500 square feet of pavement; that all off-street parking areas are to be paved; that no storage of equipment or disabled vehicles will be permitted unless adequately screened from view; that Applicant shall provide a detailed, scaled site plan showing drainage calculations, access points, parking details, and landscaping; that any proposed trash receptacle areas shall be screened; that all improvements must be installed prior to operating unless an adequate bond or irrevocable letter of credit MIGNEAULT FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 3 0 0 is provided to ensure improvements are made in a timely manner; that she recommended that the conditional use permit be granted, in accordance with City Ordinances and staff and agency comments, and that staff approval of the detailed site design is required prior to construction and operation. 9. That the City Engineer, Gary Smith, and Bruce Freckleton, Assistant to the City Engineer, submitted comments and they are incorporated herein by this reference; that the principal comments were that the City owns and maintains a sanitary sewer main adjacent to the northwest corner of the site and a water main across the frontage of the site along Franklin Road and that assessment fees for them would be determined during the building plan review process; that off-street parking, landscaping, drainage, lighting, paving and striping shall be in accordance with the standards set forth in 11-2-414; that all signage shall be in accordance with 11-2-415; that any existing wells and/or septic systems will have to be removed but that wells may be used for non- domestic purposes such as landscape irrigation; and that any existing irrigation or drainage ditches crossing the property shall be tiled and that tilting plans shall be approved by the Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District or a lateral users association; that Applicant should refer to the ACHD preliminary report with respect to the requirements of Franklin and Meridian Road improvements. That sewer and water is available to the property. 10. That the Meridian Police and Fire Departments, Central MIGNEAULT FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 4 0 0 District Health Department, Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District, Idaho Power, and the Ada County Highway District submitted comments which are by this reference incorporated herein as if set forth in full; the Ada County Highway District's site specific requirements were to dedicate 45 -feet of right-of-way from the centerline of Franklin Road, construct a curb -return type driveway located on the west property line with a width of 24 -feet, provide a cross access agreement for the property to the west, and provide a deposit in the amount of $2,057.00 to the Public Rights -of -Way Trust Fund for a five foot sidewalk on Franklin and Meridian Roads. 11. That section 11-2-418 d. states as follows: "In approving any Conditional Use, the Commission and Council may prescribe appropriate conditions, bonds, and safeguards in conformity with this Ordinance. Violations of such conditions, bonds or safeguards, when made a part of the terms under which the Conditional Use is granted, shall be deemed a violation of the Ordinance and grounds to revoke the Conditional Use. The Commission and Council may prescribe a set time period for which a Conditional Use may be in existence." 12. In the Meridian Comprehensive Plan it is stated: A. Franklin, Overland/I-84 Mixed Use Policies, Page 28 a. 5.6 The development of a variety of compatible land uses should be provided in specific plans and proposals for future development. b. 5.9 The integrity and identity of any adjoining residential neighborhood should be preserved through the use of buffering techniques, including screen plantings, open space and other landscaping techniques. C. 5.10 Development should be conducted under Planned Unit Development procedures and as conditional uses, . . . MIGNEAULT FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 5 • Cl d. 5.11 The character, site improvements, and type of development should be harmonized with previously -developed land in the area, and where located adjacent to or near any existing residence or residential area, shall be harmonized with residential uses, and all reasonable efforts shall be made to reduce the environmental impact on residential areas, including noise and traffic reduction. e. 5.13 Clustering of uses and controlled access points along arterials and collector streets will be required. f. 5.14U Because these areas are near I-84, Franklin and Overland Roads, high-quality visual appearance is essential. All development proposals in this area will be subject to development review guidelines and conditional use permitting procedures. B. Under TRANSPORTATION, Page 43 1. Existing Conditions Meridian Road is listed as a Minor arterial. C. Under COMMUNITY DESIGN, at Page 72. 1. Entryway Corridors d. Meridian Road (North and South entrances). 2. Entrance Corridors Goal Statement - Promote, encourage, develop and maintain aesthetically pleasing approaches to the City of Meridian. 3. Policies, Page 73 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 landscaped setbacks for new development on entrance corridors. The City shall require, as a condition of development approval, landscaping along all entrance corridors. 13. Section 11-9-605 G, PLANTING STRIPS AND RESERVE STRIPS, MIGNEAULT FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 6 0 0 of the Subdivision and Development Ordinance, states that 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 and that such screening shall be a minimum of twenty feet wide and shall not be part of the normal street right-of-way or utility easement. 14. That proper notice has been given as required by law and all procedures before the Planning and Zoning Commission have been given and followed. CONCLUSIONS 1. That all the procedural requirements of the Local Planning Act and of the Ordinances of the City of Meridian have been met including the mailing of notice to owners of property within 300 feet of the external boundaries of the Applicant's property; 2. That the City of Meridian has authority to grant conditional uses pursuant to 67-6512, Idaho Code, and, pursuant to 11-2-418 of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian; 3. That since the Meridian Comprehensive Plan states that the property should be capable of being developed under the conditional use permit process with design review to ensure neighborhood compatibility, therefore a conditional use is required for development of the property, which is what the Applicant has applied for in conformance with the Zoning Ordinance. MIGNEAULT FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 7 0 9 4. That the City of Meridian has authority to place conditions on a conditional use permit and the use of the property pursuant to 67-6512, Idaho Code, and pursuant to 11-2-418(D) of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian, Idaho. 5. That since the Meridian Comprehensive Plan states that the City shall require, as a condition of development approval, landscaping along all entrance corridors and states that landscaped setbacks for new development on entrance corridors are encouraged, it is concluded that the Applicant shall have a 20 foot set back for landscaping. 6. That 11-2-418(C) of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian sets forth the standards under which the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council shall review applications for Conditional Use Permits; that upon a review of those requirements and a review of the facts presented and the conditions of the area, the Planning and Zoning Commission concludes as follows: a. The use, would in fact, constitute a conditional use and a conditional use permit is required by ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan. b. The use should be harmonious with and in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan but the ordinances require a conditional use permit to allow the use. C. The use, as a condition of the conditional use permit, must be designed and constructed, to be harmonious in appearance with the intended character of the general vicinity. d. That the use should not be hazardous nor should it be disturbing to existing or future neighboring uses if the requirements in these Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law MIGNEAULT FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 8 0 are met. e. The property has sewer and water service available. f. The use would not create excessive additional requirements at public cost for public facilities and services and the use would not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. g. The use should not involve a use, activity, process, material, equipment or conditions of operation that would be detrimental to person, property or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic or noise. h. That sufficient parking for the property and the proposed use will be required. i. The development and uses will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural or scenic feature of major importance. 6. That the comments of the City Engineer, Meridian Planning Director, Shari Stiles, Fire and Police Departments, the Ada County Highway District, Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District and other governmental agencies must be met and complied with. 7. That as additional conditions on the Conditional Use Permits, the Applicant shall comply with the following: a. That the Applicant shall prepare and submit a landscape plan to be reviewed and approved by the Meridian Planning Director. b. That any and all lighting shall be directed away from the south and away from the mobile home park and shall be constructed such that it does not glare, or shine, on any of the mobile home park. C. That the use of external loudspeakers shall be limited to business hours, only on Monday through Friday, and shall be limited to 60 decibels measured at the property line; that the buildings shall be constructed to be as soundproof as reasonably possible. d. That there shall be no wrecked, demolished, or junk cars MIGNEAULT FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 9 0 0 kept or stored on the property. e. That there shall be no offensive fumes, smoke or odor emitted from the property; that normal motor vehicle exhaust from passenger or pickup trucks shall not be deemed to be offensive. f. That all hazardous wastes shall be properly disposed of and shall not be maintained on the property. B. That the conditions stated herein, or as ultimately set by the City Council, shall be agreed to by the Applicant, in writing, and if agreed to the Application should be granted; that if the conditions are not so agreed to the Application should be denied. 9. That all ordinances of the City of Meridian must be met, including but not limited to, the Uniform Building Code, Uniform Fire Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, Uniform Electrical Code, the Fire and Life Safety Code, all parking and landscaping requirements, except as noted above. APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts and approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONER HEPPER VOTE COMMISSIONER ROUNTREE VOTE COMMISSIONER SHEARER VOTE COMMISSIONER ALIDJANI VOTED CHAIRMAN JOHNSON (TIE BREAKER) VOTED MIGNEAULT FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 10 r] L DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council of the City of Meridian that they approve the Conditional Use Permit requested by the Applicant for the property described in the application with the conditions set forth in these Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. MOTION: APPROVED: DISAPPROVED: MIGNEAULT FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 11