1995 04-11
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
AGENDA
TUESDAY, APRIL 11, 1995 - 7:30 P.M.
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING HELD MARCH 14, 1995:
(APPROVED)
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR ANNEXATION AND
ZONING REQUEST FOR THE LAKE AT CHERRY LANE NO. 5 8 6
BY STEINER DEVELOPMENT: (APPROVED)
2. PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR THE LAKE AT CHERRY LANE NO.5 8~ 6 BY
STEINER DEVELOPMENT (TABLED MARCH 14, 1995):(APPROVED)
3. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR ANNEXATION AND
ZONING TO C-G FOR 74 ACRES BY E.L. BEWS: (APPROVED)
4. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT FOR A VARIETY OF MIXED LAND USED BY E.L BEWS:
(APPROVED)
5. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR ANNEXATION AND
ZONING REQUEST TO R-8 FOR .40 ACRES BY D.W. INC.:
(APPROVED)
6. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR GIFT SHOP AND
OFFICE USE BY BRENT AND GWEN ALGER: (APPROVED)
7. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR DAY CARE CENTER
BY RICK AND GEORGIANA ELLIOTT: (APPROVED)
8. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING TO C-G FOR
30 ACRES BY MICHAEL PRESTON: (CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW)
9. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF R-4 FOR
39.87 ACRES BY PNE/EDMONDS CONSTRUCTION: (CITY ATTORNEY
TO PREPARE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW)
10. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR PACKARD
SUBDIVISION, 126 LOTS BY PNE/EDMONDS CONSTRUCTION:
(TABLED UNTIL MAY 8,1895)
11. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR MAWS
ADDITION N0.3, 6 LOTS BY MAWS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP:
(PASS FAVORABLE RECOMMENDATION ONTO CITY COUNCIL)
12. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR
MANUFACTURING AND SALE OF SPECIALTY CANDY FOR THE
LITTLE CHIPMUNK BY PAUL RICKETTS AND BRENT ADAMSON:
(CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE FINDINGS OF FACT AND
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW)
13. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR
A QUICK SERVICE RESTAURANT BY MCDONALD'S CORP.:
(CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE FINDINGS OF FACT AND
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW)
14. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR
TWO DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANTS BY RICK THOMAS:(CITY
ATTORNEY TO PREPARE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
OF LAW)
15. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR CENTRAL
VALLEY CORPORATE PARK PHASE 5 BY RON NAHAS: (TABLED
MAY 9, 1995 MEETING)
16. REQUEST FOR VACATION. OF A STREET EASEMENT BY W.H. MOORE
COMPANY: (PASS FAVORABLE RECOMMENDATION ONTO
CITY COUNCIL)
17. REQUEST FOR VACATION OF A SANITARY EASEMENT BY CITY OF
MERIDIAN (FOR ASCHENBRENNERS PROPERTY): (PASS ON
FAVORABLE RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL)
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
AGENDA
TUESDAY, APRIL 11, 1995 - 7:30 P.M.
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING HELD MARCH 14, 1995: GiPproreG~.
1. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR ANNEXATION AND
ZONING REQUEST FOR THE LAKE AT CHERRY LANE NO. 5 8~ 6
BY STEINER DEVELOPMENT: u~op~arecC eorrecrec~ <~~L = ~/~
ll pia~ure favo-t.u B/¢ cfec~7'i cw
2. PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR THE LAKE AT CHERRY LANE NO. 5 8: 6 BY
STEINER DEVELOPMENT (TABLED MARCH 14, 1995):
~:pp,~vQ ~uvsrkb-Ze- recom~,.~.a'a.tb„, ~n tie er~a~ CoKnz<~.
3. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR ANNEXATION AND
ZONING TO C-G FOR 74 ACRES BY E.L. BEWS: upo~~e, l/< f`C/c
li~p~-nv~ (/~asr~ tec~mrw..c~a,>.a-...r fv fd.e CI~ Po~..~ei.~'--
4. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT FOR A VARIETY OF MIXED LAND USED BY E.L. BEWS:
,~p/r,-~~er f/~ ~ e/~ li~~/rare recon.~-sCa.ti~- ~ f/.-e C~hj C'ounc~
5. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR ANNEXATION AND
ZONING REQUEST TO R-8 FOR .40 ACRES BY D.W. INC.: uP,orovz ~~~ ~ clc
C<:~p/Jr~v2 tPCOmr.-~ndatiaxt tv f/~-e City C'ar...n~:e
6. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR GIFT SHOP AND
OFFICE USE BY BRENT AND GWEN ALGER: c~~P~ore- {/{ ~ c'lc
G•p~JrurZ hecoinh.~.-GL~Q-filq~cf '{Ti ~ C/L~'Coaut~%Pi
7. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR DAY CARE CENTER
BY RICK AND GEORGIANA ELLIOTT: cz~pPare ~/{~ ~'/C
Ce'p'pra/e he cvh~r~.eca'a,fit~'f' ~ t~ er1-yeaw.-~N,i~
8. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING TO C-G FOR
30 ACRES BY MICHAEL PRESTON: Pwb~~ Tet+~a~~~ - 5
~i ~,z`favr~cy {-v ~-~e~a~.e ~/{ ~` c°lc
9. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF R-4 FOR
39.87 ACRES BY PNE/EDMONDS CONSTRUCTION: Public T ffarnm~ - 9
10. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR PACKARD
SUBDMSION, 126 LOTS BY PNE/EDMONDS CONSTRUCTION:
fah- ww~ {-nuf 9'-'~ 2t5ue~ s'c/.educ'ed m~,
11. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR MAWS
ADDITION N0.3, 6 LOTS BY MAWS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP:
~~ v-s.- favvzu.b-Ze n.ecorr~-~~c~li.~ lr e,ez~y cam.
12. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR
MANUFACTURING AND SALE OF SPECIALTY CANDY FOR THE
LITTLE CHIPMUNK BY PAUL RICKETTS AND BRENT ADAMSON:
c'i~y attn.-hey tb prepares ~/f ~ e/e
13. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR
A QUICK SERVICE RESTAURANT BY MCDONALD'S CORP.:
L'/~Ja~fd~~,.e r. ln~JrePr~.e ~~f ~e/L
14. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR
TWO DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANTS BY RICK THOMAS:
~~, at~-~y ~ ~n~ ~j~ ~ e%
15. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR CENTRAL
VALLEY CORPORATE PARK PHASE 5 BY RON NAHAS:
fab/e i~-enz uht.~ ~Qy q~~ rxfy ar ~e~ue/'t«L by apa~~u,hf-
16. REQUEST FOR VACATION OF A STREET EASEMENT BY W.H. MOORE
COMPANY:
~pGrr {zveza(yee-tecorHrkev~cfutib.~fo City Coe<nt~.Z
17. REQUEST FOR VACATION OF A SANITARY EASEMENT BY CITY OF
MERIDIAN (FOR ASCHENBRENNERS PROPERTY):
`c~S,f ~uvora,~ hecmn<n.enC(a.tib+t fv e~2~ eo,~H~,~,
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION , APRIL 11. 1995
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, Moe Alidjani:
OTHERS PRESENT: Will Berg, Wayne Crookston, Gary Smith, Shari Stiles, Karl Haezle,
Helen Sharp, Dale Sharp, Michael Cavens, Jim Hanson, John Schuf, Robert Golse,
Morgan Plant, Archie Robertson, Wayne Forrey, George Kyle, Carl Lingle, Steve and
Lynna Bolton, Vern Alleman, Robert Smith, Jane Smith, Elwood Rennison, Jon Barnes,
Gene Quinteri, Brent and Gwen Alger, Brent Hadley, David Middleton, Michal Preston, Jim
Witherell, Douglas Miller, Ted Hutchinson, Richard Pavelic, Craig Thompson, Brent
Adamson:
MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING HELD MARCH 14, 1995:
Johnson: Are there any corrections, additions or deletions? A motion for approval please.
Rountree: Mr. Chairman, 1 move we approve the minutes of the previous meeting held
March 14.
Alidjani: Second
Johnson: It has been moved and seconded we approve the minutes as prepared, all those
in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #1: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR ANNEXATION AND
ZONING REQUEST FOR THE LAKE AT CHERRY LANE NO. 5 & 6 BY STEINER
DEVELOPMENT:
Johnson: Are there any corrections or additions or questions regarding these findings of
facts? I make note of the fact we have a revised copy and that is the. one we need to
address. I will start with just some editorial things, page 3, on F, about 7 lines down, it
said beginning with "30 residential lots", "to be developed' is probably the proper term
there. Page 4, "that at the January 10, 1995" and then there is some missing wording,
probably should have been public hearing or meeting, would that fit? I think public hearing
would suffice. And a couple of items on page 16, under N, about the 6th or 7th line down,
(inaudible) is now being done now Cherry Lane Village, I assume at or with just an
editoria- change to insert a word right here after the. word now. Then in the same
paragraph again editorial, mention of about 6 to 8 lines up from the bottom of the page,
mention of many of the items °mentioned" it should read at the November 9, 1994 meeting.
While reading this with the square footage under 11 D that should be 411 as I recall, Shari
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 11, 1995
Page 2
Stiles pointed that out to me instead of 4011 it should be 411. In that same sentence
there the 1301 square foot requirement square feet, 1 would think we want to reference
single family on that since R-15 has different square foot requirements for multi-family or
duplex. Does anybody else have any corrections or discussion regarding these findings
of fact?
Rountree: Mr. Chairman, I make the motion the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
hereby adopts and approves the findings of fact and conclusions as corrected.
Shearer: Second
Johnson: We have a motion and a second for approval of the findings of fact and
conclusions of law as amended, this requires a roll call vote.
ROLL CALL VOTE: Hepper -Yea, Rountree -Yea, Shearer -Yea, Alidjani -Yea
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Johnson: Is there a 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 City Council of the City of Meridian the property requested to
be zoned R-4 be annexed and so zoned and that the property requested to be R-15 not
be annexed and continue on as written.
Alidjani: Second
Johnson: We have a motion and a second to pass a favorable recommendation onto the
City as stated, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #2: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR THE LAKE AT CHERRY LANE NO. 5 i3< 6 BY
STEINER DEVELOPMENT (TABLED MARCH 14, 1995):
Johnson: We have a handout that is pertinent to this item we received this evening. What
would you like to do with this request.
Rountree: Mr. Chairman, I have a question for the City Engineer.
Johnson: Gary Smith
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 11, 1995
Page 3
Rountree: Have you seen this?
Smith: (Inaudible)
Rountree: It is a colored version of a previous submission, I guess my question to Gary
is have the questions that came up previously been resolved and do you have a
preliminary plat on record that shows the appropriate engineering requirements and survey
requirements?
Smith: Let me check just a second. Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Rountree, I believe the
latest one I have is dated 3-8-95. It doesn't show the area in the lower right comer of the
handout as far as the engineering data is concerned. It shows it only as part of phase 2,
part of phase 2 which also includes that portion shown in green in the upper right hand
corner of the plat or of your handout.
Rountree: Thank you Gary, and I would have a question for the Counselor, the Chairman,
on this plat it would appear to me the only thing we could act on is that portion of the plat
that is to lie annexed as R-4.
Johnson: In accordance with the findings yes.
Rountree: Which wouldn't include that area that Gary mentioned.
Johnson: Do you want any clarification from the applicant?
Bradbury: I just wanted to clarify the purpose for providing this drawing that you all have
in front of you. This part that is shown in red here was not intended to be inserted as a
request on the preliminary plat. That is just a concept, we realize that needs to be handled
through a conditional use permit in the event you folks agree to annex it and provide the
zone that is requested. So ignore the lines and look at the color, the purpose of this
drawing was just to make it clear to you, we haven't in the past made. it clear enough what
is being requested for zones for each of the various parcels and that is color coding. With
respect to this section, don't tie lead astray by the fact that there are some lot lines shown,
that is not before you.
Johnson: Thank you
Rountree: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion that we pass the preliminary plat with respect
to the R-4 subdivision Cherry Lane No. 5 and 6 onto City Council with a favorable
recommendation.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 11, 1995
Page 4
Shearer: Second
Johnson: Moved and seconded that we pass a favorable recommendation on the
preliminary plat portion with respect to the R-4 zone all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #3: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR ANNEXATION AND
ZONING TO C-G FOR 74 ACRES BY E.L. BEWS:
Johnson: Any comments or questions regarding these findings of fact as prepared by the
City Attorney?
Rountree: I have one editorial change on page 20, the second line, delete Council at the
start of that line, it should read "Commission of the City of Meridian'.
Johnson: Anything else? Any further discussion? We need a motion for approval.
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.
Rountree: Second
Johnson: We have a motion and a second for approval of the findings of fact and
contusions as prepared, roll call vote.
ROLL CALL VOTE: Wepper -Yea, Rountree -Yea, Shearer -Yea, Alidjani -Yea
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Johnson: Is there a recommendation you would like to pass forward to the City Council?
Hepper: Mr. Chairman, I 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 pem-it, a final plat being approved, or issuance
of a conditional use permit for any proposed used whichever comes first. And that the
property only be developed as a commercial planned development and under the
conditional use process. But if the applicant is not agreeable to these findings of fact and
conclusions of law and is not agreeable with entering into a development agreement that
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 11, 1995
Page 5
the property should not be annexed.
Rountree: Second
Johnson: It is moved and seconded to pass a recommendation as prepared onto the City
Council, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #4: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT FOR A VARIETY OF MIXED LAND USES BY E.L. BEWS:
Johnson: Does anyone have any comments regarding these findings of fact and
conclusions of law?
Rountree: Mr. Chairman, I move that the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
hereby adopts and approves these findings of fact and contusions of law.
Shearer: Second
Johnson: It has been moved and seconded for approval of the findings of fact and
conclusions of law as prepared, roll call vote.
ROLL CALL VOTE: Hepper -Yea, Rountree -Yea, Shearer -Yea, Alidjani -Yea
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Johnson: Would you like to pass a recommendation onto the City?
Rountree: Mr. Chairman, I move that the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
recommends to the City Council that they approve the conditional use requested.
Shearer: Second
Johnson: It is moved and seconded to pass a favorable recommendation onto the City for
approval, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #5: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR ANNEXATION AND
ZONING REQUEST TO R-8 FOR .40 ACRES BY D.W., INC.:
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 11, 1995
Page 6
Johnson: Any comments or changes to these findings of fact as prepared?
Hepper: Mr. Chairman, 1 move the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby
adopts and approves these findings of fact.
Shearer: Second
Johnson: It is moved and seconded that we approve the findings of fact and conclusions
of law as prepared by the City Attorney, roll call vote.
ROLL CALL VOTE: Hepper -Yea, Rountree -Yea, Shearer -Yea, Alidjani -Yea
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Johnson: Any recommendation for the City Council?
Hepper: Mr. Chairman, 1 move the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby
recommends to the City Council of the City of Meridian that they approve the annexation
and zoning as stated above for the property described in the application with the
conditions set forth in the findings of fact and conclusions of law and that the applicant and
owners be specifically required to the all ditches, canals and watervvays as a condition of
annexation and that the applicant meet all the ordinances of the City of Meridian and if the
conditions are not met that the property lie de-annexed.
Rountree: Second
Johnson: A recommendation to the City as stated, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #6: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR GIFT SHOP AND
OFFICE USE BY BRENT AND GWEN ALGER:
Johnson: Any comments regarding these findings of fact, any changes, additions or
deletions?
Alidjani: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion that the Meridian Planning and Zoning
Commission hereby adopt and approves these findings.
Shearer: Second
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 11, 1995
Page 7
Johnson: It is moved and seconded we approve the findings of fact and conclusions as
prepared, roll call vote.
ROLL CALL VOTE: Hepper -Yea, Rountree -Yea, Shearer -Yea, Alidjani -Yea
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Johnson: Any decision or recommendation to the City Council?
Alidjani: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion that 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.
Rountree: Second
Johnson: Moved and seconded to pass the recommendation onto the City Council for
approval, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #7: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR DAY CARE CENTER
BY RICK AND GEORGIANA ELLIOTT:
Johnson: Any discussion? Entertain a motion.
Rountree: Mr. Chairman, I move the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby
adopts and approves the findings of fact.
Hepper: Second
Johnson: It has been moved and seconded that we approve these findings of fact and
conclusions of law, roll call vote.
ROLL CALL VOTE: Hepper -Yea, Rountree -Yea, Shearer -Yea, Alidjani -Yea
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Johnson: A recommendation to the City?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 11, 1995
Page 8
Rountree; Mr. Chairman, I move that the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
recommends to the City Council that they approve the conditional use permit requested.
Shearer: Second
Johnson: A motion and a second to pass a favorable recommendation onto the City as
stated, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #8: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING TO C-G FOR
30 ACRES BY MICHAEL PRESTON:
Johnson: I will now formerly open the public hearing and invite the applicant or his
representative to come forward and address the Commission please.
Michael Preston, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Preston: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission my name is Mike Preston, I reside
at 420 Bitteroot, in Boise. As I stated in my letter to Ms. Stiles, 1 originally, this is the
second or third time t have been before you in relation to this property. I was ready to
come back a third time with an R-8 zone request that with a plan that I felt would respond
to the conditions that this body and the Council instructed me the last time I was before
you in relation to reducing the density, providing more open space next to my lower density
neighbors and taking them into account more. During that process I decided this time I
was going to meet with more people of which I did to get input and so forth. As 1 was
meeting with various people it came to my attention that it seems that a residential zone
for this area was not evidently in the interest of the City of Meridian. At least that is the
impression that I got from talking to various people. So I decided that rather than keep
fighting that, that 1 would look at this property from a commercial basis. A lot has
happened now that I-84 and Meridian Road that I didn't know about. The commercial
properties are being developed a lot quicker than 1 realized and so 1 though maybe I
would make an attempt at C-G but figure out a way in case the commercial end of things
like retail, the higher intensity type commercial development, if that takes a while to get out
toward this area, to come up with a plan where 1 could still develop this property right now
and make it work. So the concept that 1 submitted to you it is purely a concept, as
explained in my letter of introduction this is not something that I am ready to submit to you,
this request is purely for annexation and rezoning. However, I was advised to come up
with a concept that would give you an idea of what l was thinking: The professional office
complex right along the rim in this property fairly close to Franklin Road but along the rim
is something I believe at this time could be developed. That is kind of a core portion of this
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 11, 1995
Page 9
mixed development. I have a high intensity service retail on the comer of Franklin and
Locust Grove and I think someday that would be appropriate there. I also have a retail
along the westerly side of this office complex. It would be my intent if approved to number
1 get a little more input from commercial brokers because (inaudible) in that area, but in
relation to the office I would probably start that project first. Toward the rear of the
property as we get closer to the State Training facility tum that into a supply type
commercial like a lumber yard or something like that, pipe supply or whatever. That is
purely a concept, now the reason I did it was to also show that if my neighbors were ever
interested those neighbors to the east of me between this property and Locust Grove, if
they were every interested in commercial development, which is totally their choice, the
2 layouts would blend together. Now you have in your packet a letter that indicates they
are not interested so that can be very easily re-defined and I thought I was doing them a
favor by giving them access to utilities and other things. If they are not interested I can re-
an'ange my streets very quickly and easily and leave them in peace. Which 1 definitely will
do if that is their desire. I met with the neighbors, I guess I misunderstood where they
were coming from. I was really trying hard to get along with them this time and do
something that was more agreeable to them. Now, it didn't take them very long to let me
know that an R-8 request was absolutely not what they wanted. Quite frankly 1 am a little
tired of fighting everybody and I think with the commercial if that is the City's desire 1 would
be very happy to start that. The access road that I have got there would be a very
convenient rear access from the Meridian interchange to the Nahas-Hon commercial
development. So t think this is something that would be good for the City and I have
every intent of developing it somewhat in this fashion with additional input. I just wanted
to emphasize that the layout is concept only and 1 can if my neighbors don't like it there I
can certainly pull bads and I will do so. I have reviewed all the comments by the City staff
and I have no problem with any of their comments, I am agreeable to all of them.
Johnson: Thank you, are there any questions for Mr. Preston at this time?
Rountree: You indicated if the concept wasn't agreeable to the neighbors you would
(inaudible) what does that mean?
Preston: Well you can see, have you got one in front of you, notice the office street, the
little loop street that I have for office. I've got that very close to their property thinking that
first house south of (inaudible) would be converted to an office building. I can pull that
away from his property so that it will not do that.
Rountree: That would be the second residence shown on here to the south of Franklin.
Preston: Correct, in other words I was trying to do a layout that if they sold to a commercial
developer it would all work together, that was my intent of this drawing. I evidently made
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 11, 1995
Page 10
a mistake, but I can just pull that street back a little bit and just develop the property that
I have asked for or requested here.
Rountree: Have you seen the comments from ACHD?
Preston: Yes
Rountree: You are in agreement with those?
Preston: Yes
Johnson: This is a public hearing, is there anyone from the public that would like to come
forward and address the Commission at this time?
Robert Smith, 335 South Locust Grove Road, was sworn by the City Attomey.
Smith: Mr. Chairman and Commissioners 1 would still like to oppose this type of rezoning,
1 don't think it benefits us people that live on Locust Grove or Franklin Road right now.
The way that the City is growing with the commercial and light industrial proposals that
seem to becoming in at a regular rate I don't think right now would be an appropriate time
with the condition that Franklin Road is unless it is rebuilt and Locust Grove Road is
rebuik. These don't look to be done at any near future dates so I think it would really be
a detriment to our properties. 1 hope you will not change your zoning on this, thank you.
Johnson: Anyone else?
Jim Witherell, 215 S. Locust Grove, was sworn by the City Attomey.
Witherell: I am one of the affected parties that already submitted a letter in writing saying
we oppose this thing, saying the annexation was attempted under questionable
circumstances. One thing has come out that I would like to add we didn't know at the time.
Mr. Preston does not own this property, he told us that at the meeting, he said he does
represent the developer, but he had a letter of intent on this at one time and that expired
last May and it was for a trailer park it didn't say anything about manufactured homes it
was for a trailer park. This doesn't make any sense for a developer to come in
representing nobody, not owning the land, planning roads all over our property as well as
most of that square mile of Meridian unless there is a problem between he and the land
owner. We thoroughly suspect, we truly do, when this letter of intent ran out he was given
an extension verbally perhaps saying go ahead and annex it however you can. Well we
are getting down to the point of absurdity now in the way this whole thing has been
handled. It sounds like it is a dispute between the land owner and the developer, some
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 11, 1995
Page 11
owes somebody money and we are not prepared to try and buy into it. Thank you.
Morgan Plant, 300 South Locust Grove Road, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Plant: I would like to recommend the Planning and Zoning Commission that this request
be totally denied. This type of development is not warranted, it is not called for and it is not
compatible with the residences in that area. We are, although not bordered by this
property, are dramatically affected. There are open areas in there which will be I am sure
zoned and approved for residential areas and commercial in our back yard would certainly
be detrimental. I recommend that you soundly refuse this request, it is not compatible for
that area whatsoever. It will greatly depreciate of our property. Thank you.
Johnson: Thank you, is there anyone else?
Wayne Forrey, 52 East Franklin Road, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Forney: Chairman, members of the Commission, I own property not adjacent to this but on
Franklin Road in this neighborhood. 1 also have a business relationship with another
property owner that is closer to this and is annexed into the City, Ed Bews, Bedelco
ownership industrial ground next to the rail road tracks which would be north of this
project. Myself as a property owner in Meridian along Franklin Road, Ed Bews, the owner
of property very near this area, are both in favor or this request and hope that you would
approve it. Always there is going to be some type of conflict, real or perceived between
a commercial property and a residential property. The City does have the ability to ask a
developer to buffer and. scxeen and provide transitions. That is in the Comprehensive Plan
it is in the zoning and development ordinance and it is probably something the developer
or the applicant here would be willing to negotiate with the City. 1 can understand that
other property owners out there may have some reservations about commercial zoning,
I do not, I think it would be good for the City to annex this property at the C-G zoning.
Johnson: Any questions for Wayne? Is there anyone else that would like to address the
Commission? Seeing no one then I will close the public hearing. What is your pleasure.
Rountree: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion that we have the City Attorney prepare findings
of fact and conclusions of law on this application.
Shearer: Second
Johnson: It is moved and seconded that we proceed with having the City Attorney prepare
findings of fact and conclusions of law on the application for Mike Preston, all those in
favor? Opposed?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 11, 1995
Page 12
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #9: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF R~ FOR
39.87 ACRES BY PNEJEDMONDS CONSTRUCTION:
Johnson: I will now open the public hearing and invite the applicant or his representative
to address the Commission.
Ted Hutchinson, 109 South 4th Street, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Hutchinson: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, this property was before you
previously. We are asking that you annex this with a zoning designation of R-4 for
residential development. We are adjoining the city limits on 2 boundaries, the western
boundary is city limits which contains Kearney Place subdivision, Wingate Place
Subdivision. South of the site is Dove Meadows no. 1 and the Capital Christian Center,
I should note that Kearney Place and Wingate Place are both zoned R-8, we are asking
for an R-4 which designates a minimum lot size of 8,000 square feet or larger. As you will
see in the next public hearing with the plat for this particular ground there has been a great
deal of modification from the earlier plat that was proposed. We believe that this is
compatible with the surrounding development and it does comply with the goals and
policies as stated in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. Are there any questions that 1 can
answer for the Commission at this time?
Hepper: Is this Packard No. 1 or No. 2?
Hutchinson: This would be Packard No. 1.
Johnson: Wayne, I have a question here before we get any further in this, item #10 is that
also only for Packard No. 1, is that what we are addressing? So it is really the same, it
has different headings on it.
Hutchinson: One is for the annexation of the ground and the other is for the subdivision
plat. Packard No. 2 will be submitted on your next cut off date.
Johnson: 1 understand that but the wording is different, do you have anything further. Any
questions?
Hepper: You had some open space lots designated, how many are there? Do you know
right off hand?
Hutchinson: I believe there are five of them.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 11, 1995
Page 13
Hepper: I think I spotted five but it is kind of hard to tell.
Hutchinson: Principally landscaping entry way treatment, there is additional landscape
requirements that are going to be part of the covenants for this particular subdivision
(inaudible).
Rountree: How do you get into this parcel?
Hutchinson: The primary access will come through Dove Meadows, the applicant is
working with Mr. Leader to provide that connection of Hickory Way so (inaudible)
accessed along other streets as they are developed. There is an access street into
Meadowood Court which goes into Wingate Lane. This would provide a quick access out
of Wingate Place to Fairview Avenue. Then we are also providing a stub street to the east,
there is a vacant parcel between this parcel and Eagle Road. Then a stub street to the
north which would connect future development to the existing (inaudible).
Rountree: (Inaudible)
Hutchinson: Hickory way, (inaudible) obviously that would have to be completed prior to
the issuance of any permits.
Johnson: Anyone else have any questions? Thank you we will reserve the right to talk
to you later. Is there anyone else from the public that would like to come forward at this
time and address the Commission on this application?
Helen Sharp, 2445 Wingate Lane, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Sharp: I am a little interested in one of the comments he said, one of the accesses would
be on Wingate Lane did I understand that correctly? In time that they would have an
access on or off Wingate Lane?
Rountree: No, coming out of the Wingate Subdivision.
Sharp: I thought he mentioned both.
Johnson: Anyway we will get a clarification on that, if that is your question.
Sharp: I am on Wingate Lane as I mentioned and the subdivision that they are talking
about leaves a lot of us up in the air. We all realize that schooling is a big thing nobody
seems to want to talk about. It is a known fact that those that live in Chateau have
d~culty selling because they cannot get their children into the Chief Joseph school and
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 11, 1995
Page 14
of course it would be right close to that. I also heard at one of these meetings that the
developer would work with the schools on this. I would like to know what the developer
proposes to do unless it is to add to that school and help. We also know that the
difficulties on Locust Grove have not been resolved and 1 admit that I have not seen the
report that was supposed to have been given some time ago on the conditions of Locust
Grove anybody having ridden on that road understands what I am saying. 1 think one of
the things that we are talking about too is the high density here in Meridian. If we needed
or if there was a demand for housing which we know there is not, we saw an article of
course in the paper about the different price ranges, but we know that there is not a
demand at this time. When I consulted reality firms and we have 600 houses and that is
not including the houses that have already been granted permission to be built, I think we
need to consider this very carefully. And another thing that we need to do because of our
hard pan there the drainage of the water problems needs to be addressed. Now, it is tike
anything, if I sell my house in the summer and I have a leaky roof I have to let everybody
know that potential buyer that my roof is leaking. I think this is true of the problems that
we have in the area, ~ we don't have drainage, we have problems with that, the developer
knows he has to tell the builder, the builder knows and has to tell the realtor and the
realtor has to tell the potential customer. Because we know, those of us that live there that
there have been potential lawsuits because of the drainage problems. These people know
it , in fact the people that own the property have commented and said that shouldn't be
developed for that very reason. 1 think with all of these things considered we need to look
at if fairly closely about what we so call a comprehensive plan. 1 am opposing the high
density that is now being proposed.
Johnson: Mr. Barnes
Jon Barnes, 1034 Justin Place, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Barnes: Mr. Chairman and Commission members, I would like to commend the applicant
for Edmonds and Mr. Sigmond for going back and re-designing this subdivision. I think it
is much improved, the law of the streets, it is going to be a much nicer neighborhood for
the City of Meridian. I have worked with and met with the applicant and they have covered
all of my concerns. It is my understanding there on the north side, 1 five in Lot 13 on the
north, above the north boundary of the development there at the end of Justin Place. It
is my understanding that they are going to have a 30 foot setback on those lots on the rear
yard setback on the houses. If they will do that, because the tots are 140 feet deep right
in there that would give us enough of a buffer. We would like a fence if we can twist their
arm and talk them out of that. I think it is much improved, the only suggestion 1 didn't tell
the applicant this as I felt that in my developing that a neighborhood park would be a nice
addition maybe 3/4 or an acre somewhere centered in the middle of that, that could be a
multi-use neighborhood park that the homeowners association could take care of. And
Meridian Planning ~ Zoning Commission
April 11, 1995
Page 15
that is someone's suggestion I would (inaudible) they could design something like that and
it would be very usable, maybe a couple of pathways to it. Because they are going into
the upper end market here for Meridian and I think that would be a good asset. That is all
I have to say thank you.
Johnson: Thank you, is there anyone else that would like (End of Tape)
Vern Alleman, 2101 East Ustick, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Alleman; There are a couple of items that I feel should be addressed that pertain to this
general area. Number one of this pertains to parks, and I think we all realize the need for
parks, in that it keeps children from having to stray all over the development and getting
into more crime situations and so forth. It seems in the planning stage there is some
provision for small parks but they are done away with before developments are completed
and I think that is being borne out by other. Presently there are some designations for
larger parks and school sites, as it is now this is not fair. Let's look at what is causing the
need for parks, schools sites, additional fire protection and police protection, roads and
so forth. These needs are caused by additional development, this being the case shouldn't
these developments pay for these needs. It is pretty much a fact that development close
to schools and parks is worth more than out lying property. With the present system
developments dose to or adjoining designated schools and parks are being developed and
reaping a benefit while those who own designated property are being penalized.
Concerns who would buy property that is designated are shying away from this property
for various reasons while the need for these is accelerating. I think that we can look at the
school situations as one example. It appears the same thing is happening with regard to
parks and so forth. The original plan for this subdivision had a fair sized parcel for a park,
while it is not basically eliminated. I am asking you to be pro-active rather than reactive.
don't want someone in the future to say we have an emergency so we are going to
dictate what you can do with your property. Property should be exchanged when there is
a willing seller an a willing buyer. Although I don't know all the ramifications or answers
I think impact fees are possibly the best and fairest solution. Apparently impact fees can't
be imposed for schools unless it is done statewide. However, impact fees for other needs
can be imposed IocaBy. It is my understanding schools can impose a moratorium if need
be. Number 2 concern is the use of lift stations for the sewers. My question is what
incentive is there for a development to contribute to the overall plan of the sewer. In other
words once a lift station is installed and the needs for that particular development have
been met how will sewer around then beyond that be accomplished? Thank you for
hearing me.
Johnson: Thanks Vem, is there anyone else?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 11, 1995
Page 16
Douglas Miller, 1035 Justin Place, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Miller: We participated in the earlier hearing of this prpposed subdivision. I think the
concerns that many of us expressed as a neighborhood that adjoin this property are still
very valid. Primarily we are concerned about the privacy that is tended to be encroached
upon here as we have built out in the country with lots of space around us on purpose.
The idea of a berm, the idea of fences, the idea of setback 1 think are all very important to
be considered. I think the setback is essential because we do value very much the privacy
that we have built there to begin with. This is a fairly high density relative to the properties
that are built out in that area. I think a fence would be a nice touch as well. So I think
those are primarily the concerns they have been expressed earlier I am not sure they have
been fully resolved. Certainly the design is much improved from the strictly linear streets
that we had before. I think that is basically the things I would like to see and see that be
that something very specific be enforced in the development of this subdivision to make
it a nice neighbor along with the other neighbors that are already there. Thank you.
Johnson: Thank you, I saw another hand along here.
Dale Sharp, 2445 Wingate Lane, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Sharp: I have a question, are we on number 9 or number 10?
Johnson: Number 9
Sharp: It seems like Mr. Barnes and these people are talking about number 10 here. Both
of them go hand in hand because what they're proposing to do is take Hickory lane
through that empty field there to the north of them and then block off Wingate Lane to my
place which is not acceptable. I have been driving that for the 27 years and that is what
they are proposing to do is cut me off there. We did have a meeting with the property
owners on Wingate Lane about a month ago and they are all opposed to this that they cut
that off. And that is what they are thinking about doing. As far as, I have a question, where
are they getting the sewer, where is the sewer coming from? How are they going to get
it down there? He said that he has access that the City, it is bounded on 2 sides and one
of them is Wingate Place, well my property is in between there so it can't be there. I have
5 acres out there and I am not in the City. As far as putting this high density in there and
more subdivisions, we do have a problem with the schools as you are well aware. We
have problems with the water situation. We have problems with traffic and then we are
saying go ahead and do this. As far as they are saying on this subdivision, - think it is Mr.
Barnes, they moved theirs back but how about us over here that lived out there we have
the same problem. -t looks like these lots are quite a bit smaller (inaudible). I think there
are a lot of questions to be answered and addressed before this is ever approved. I
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 11, 1995
Page 17
would, (inaudible) certainly object to.
Johnson: Thank you Mr. Sharp, is there anyone else?
Bob Golse, 2166 North Wingate Avenue, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Golse: I would just like to comment on this, why you would allow such a high density unit
there when you only have 2 accesses in that and the other 2 are going to be blocked off
for years. You have Wingate Avenue or place which is just a small neighborhood and you
sending several hundred cars in and out everyday through either place. These other 2 are
going to be blocked off for years by the looks like. They moved out there to have peace
and quiet and this is the biggest unit around there. And locust Grove, you have all these
subdivisions not even filled and you are opening up another great big one. It just doesn't
make sense except the money and the schools are overcrowded. Thank you.
Johnson: Thank you, is there anyone else that is here for this that would like to address
the Commission?
Don Brian, 2070 North Locust Grove, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Brian: I apologize for being late, I didn't catch the presentation I just caught the last few
testimonies. I don't know what has been discussed or not but one thing 1 am concerned
with as you well know is irrigation water. I don't know if there has been any discussion
tonight on what they are going to do with the head gate on the southwest comer, that is
my head gate and I believe it is on their property and it is right in the intersection of 4
developers and that needs to be addressed in this development. So I just wanted to make
that aware to all of the parties.
Johnson: Thanks Don, that hadn't come up before, I appreciate it. I saw another hand
over here.
John Schey, 2425 East Ustick Road, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Schey: Mr. Commissioners, I guess I live down at the corner of Wingate Lane and Ustick.
I became concerned when they start building up a complex of this nature without the right
of way to go on through to the north because I know in another development that is talked
about in this same area just north of that they are wanting access north to Ustick. They
are going to have to acquire some property to get on through there because they don't
have the width in the existing lane that is there. I assume that they would have to bring that
lane up to considerably better code than it is now before they could develop back in there.
Of course we are concerned about the traffic that is going to throw into that area. Mr. and
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 11, 1995
Page 18
Mrs. Sharp live right there kitty corner from this division right at the end of Wingate Lane
now and 1 certainly go along with them and their concerns because they are back there
in a relatively quiet area. It looks like if this would go through that would change
dramatically as well as the full length of that lane on the way out to the north. Have you
a proposal on this second subdivision I will call it second for lack of a better name, north
of this Packard No. 1, do you recall.
Johnson: There is reference to it in some of the material but there is not a formal
application, you are talking about the Brown property?
Schey: I think that is right.
Johnson: At this point I don't believe we have a submission, we have some comments
relative to that and are aware of that. Because we require any future development in the
vicinity to be commented on we do have something in the record. But at this point it is not
very specific or beyond the conceptual stage. We know it has been purchased and
planning on being developed.
Schey: t would like to go on record of opposing this the way it is now until there is
something more defined as to what their access is going to be. Thank you very much.
Johnson: Thank you, is there anyone else? 1 would like to invite the applicant back at this
time so I can ask a few questions, perhaps you can answer those that came up in the
testimony. I would like to start with the comment regarding the .parks, since there was
originally a 5 acre park in this design originally that was eliminated with the re-drawing of
it. Perhaps you can tell us why that was eliminated since we are in dire need of parks.
Hutchinson: Mr. Chairman, as you are well aware that the previous design did have a
wnsiderable park site contained within the development. Part of the reason one way that
we were able to provide that park was through the use of basically a grid system within the
property which allowed us to maximize the development. Also, as we progress through
the public hearings, and into the City Council we kind of not only did the overall design
meet with some opposition but that included some opposition to the park. The City doesn't
have a parks and recreation department or the ability to take care of that and even though
we were proposing the homeowners association which would be responsible for that park,
it wasn't met with a great deal of enthusiasm with regard to a park of that size. So, when
we had to change the basic layout again the economy for the number of lots to yield
something that is going to be economical was also affected. We've had really no net gain
in the number of lots even though we have taken out that considerable piece of park
ground.
Meridian Planning i~ Zoning Commission
April 11, 1995
Page 19
Johnson: 1 think 2 lots were eliminated as I recall.
Hutchinson: In fact some of the comments were that they preferred larger lots in the
development rather than the large park site.
Johnson: Mrs. Sharp brought up a comment regarding Wingate Lane itself and what effect
your development would have on that. There seemed to be some confusion as to what
exactly was said there. Can you clarify that for us?
Hutchinson: For this particular development there would be nothing that would affect
Wingate lane at all. Wingate Place Subdivision has one ~nnection into this development,
there are existing streets, Meadowood Drive and Wingate Lane as it goes through
Wingate Place and Keamey Place subdivisions. But Wingate Lane north of the 1/2 mile
mark would be unaffected with this particular development. The access would primarily
be out Hickory Way which is through Dove Meadows subdivision and then out onto
Fairview Avenue. Future developments as you are aware with the Packard No. 2 the
Sharp's do have access to an easement, any development would have to take that
easement into full consideration and to provide for them full access to that easement so
they could continue to use Wingate lane. However, it is not our proposal to utilize
Wingate Lane as any type of access into the development. In fact it would be rather
inconvenient through the layout to provide for the continuation of Wingate Lane. The
developers did contact many of the property owners along Wingate Lane, in fact in an
attempt to work something out with them or to purchase additional ground so that Wingate
might become a viable option of an access point to the north the Highway District is
certainly looking for some access collector size to help with the traffic problems in this
particular area. In an attempt to meet with that requirement I did contact some property
owners, in fact they have purchased some property on Wingate, however none of our
plans are for the improvement of Wingate or for the utilization of Wingate for any of the
traffic through this development. As I stated the Sharp's will still have access to their
easement and will be able to use that fully.
Johnson: Mr. Sharp asked what seemed to be a reasonable question and that is that your
plan shows larger lots for the lack of a better term as buffering between Carol Subdivision
and your development there, but the larger lots didn't seem to extend those that would be
in the Wingate area now and has the same buffering technique.
Hutchinson: Basically we were caught between a rock and a hard spot here in trying to
provide some transition from the larger lots in Carol Subdivision and those Ipts to the north
to the smaller lots which are in fact zoned R-8 in the Wingate Place and Kearney Place.
The vast majority of the lots which are presently surrounding the Sharp property are
already considerably smaller than the Sharp's property and also quite a bit smaller than
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 11, 1995
Page 20
the lots that we proposed in our development.
Johnson: 1 am confused, where are those lots?
Hutchinson: Those lots are directly south and abutting the Sharp property in Kearney
Place Subdivision No. 3.
Johnson: Already existing.
Hutchinson: Already existing, Kearney Place No. 3 and 2 and Wingate Place No. 1 are
all R-8 subdivisions. Those are located, Wingate Place Subdivision begins down in here
and extends up into here and Kearney Place is here and the Sharp's property is here.
This is already developed at R-8 with the smaller lots and (inaudible). As you can see on
our color code, this map is color coded into 3 lot sizes, the lighter gray area is lots which
are 8,000 to 10,000 square feet in size. As you can see those are interspersed throughout.
The next shade is lots which are 10,001 square feet to 15,000 square feet, that is this
lighter color and they are interspersed throughout. And then the larger lots which are over
15,000 square feet would be the darker shaded lots in the development.
Johnson: We would appreciate it if you would leave that with us. And then following up
on additional comments and questions I would like Gary Smith our City Engineer to
address the question where does the sewer come from and comment on lift stations.
Smith: Mr. Chairman, Commission members, when this subdivision was originally
proposed to us we made the developer aware that ultimately the sewage was going to
have to flow toward the south slough sewer interceptor which has been built to Locust
Grove at this point. This development standing on its own we talked about an interim lift
station near its northwest corner that would pump back to the south but that would
ultimately be abandoned as the property to the north developed. Since that time and in
fact just recently (inaudible) it is my understanding there has been additional property
purchased by this developer to the north and somewhat to the west that would in fact
facilitate an extension of a sewer line from this parcel to connect to the south slough or an
extension of the south slough interceptor. (Inaudible) to the west of the Brown property
which I understand was purchased by this developer or is in the process of being
developed. That would need to be crossed but 1 guess the thing that 1 look at is the time
interval that lift stations will be used, and it appears to me that the proposals that is being
made and the one that is reportedly coming to us at the next meeting that the temporary
lift station would indeed be temporary.
Johnson: That is basically the way that the City looks at lift stations is it not, that it is
temporary?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 11, 1995
Page 21
Smith: Yes, we just don't want to participate in permanent lift stations because they are a
high maintenance, high operating cost and sometimes there is no alternative for one
reason or another. We have had a couple pieces of property that have qual~ed for that.
Generally speaking our lift stations are or can be abandoned at some future time as gravity
sewer becomes available.
Hutchinson: Mr. Chairman, this issue of the temporary lift station, we have been made
well aware of that and have worked with Mr. Smith concerning the temporary nature of this
and the need to extend the south slough trunk. The developers in this case are working
toward that end, they would love to connect the whole project to central sewer without
having to utilize a lift station. And that is their ultimate goal through the build out in this
particular area. We are aware that the lift station is temporary in nature and we have
every intention of keeping it that way.
Johnson: Thank you, could you briefly tell me what is in this for the City of Meridian?
Hutchinson: Mr. Chairman, that is an interesting question. I don't know that there is any
easy answer to this particular type of question. What we are providing is an upper end
development, we are not asking for the R-8 or smaller lots. The majority of the
development that we are proposing is in fact larger than 8,000 square foot lots. Because
the lots are larger, naturally the house sizes will be larger, it will increase the tax base that
is provided to the City of Meridian. And that would be above and beyond the homeowners
extension which does have a cap on it. Hopefully it would put it in an area that will
generate more income for the City of Meridian. Plus we are hoping that through this
development we will be able to provide additional sewer service with the extension of a
proposed sewer tnmk line along the south slough. This would facilitate the development
of that truck line for additional sewers in that particular area.
Johnson: I was hoping you would give us some lots we could sell or maybe a site for a
fire station or a site for a school or a park or something. I don't think that is an unusual
request.
Hutchinson: The developers would probably be open for negotiation on any and all of
those items.
Alidjani: How about the concern that Mr. Don Brian had with regard to the irrigation?
Hutchinson: The irrigation waters will have to be protected so that those who are using
that irrigation water will have full access to those. The developer is talking with Mr. Leader
who is the other property owner at the southwest comer where the head gate is located.
We will also be working this out with the irrigation district to make sure that Mr. Brian has
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 11, 1995
Page 22
full access to his head gate and irrigation waters.
Johnson: Any other questions of the developer? The public hearing is still open I will give
anybody one last shot here before we close. Mrs. Sharp
Sharp: We heard before he was going to help with the schools and you said hey donate
a school building I am up for that. I think he avoided the issue as long this was going to
be a temporary maintenance fee on this lift station that can go on. Why grant it when they
haven't got that sewer extension yet through the slough, we know where it had to go, we
know what the property owners have done about granting the ability to put that sewer in.
So why open the door for them when it is going to create problems down the road. They
haven't got access to the sewer right now, why not wait until they do. Let's have a little
foresight, thank you.
Sharp: I wouldjust like to remind everyone that Wingate Lane is a private lane and what
they are contemplating doing is crossing that from this one subdivision to this one to
Packard over into Brown's and over into the one just east of me and then crossing over
into Brown's. So they are saying they are going to take the sewer from there and this
Wingate Lane is a private lane, it is not for the convenience because they come in and
want to develop. They say we will just use this and cross over and block it off and the heck
with the property owners on there. It is a convenience for them and not for everyone else.
So, there are so many questions on this thing I just can't believe it. I don't think they are
presenting it in the right light when they do it in piecemeal fashion. Thank you.
Johnson: 1 will close the public hearing at this time. What would the Commission like to
do on this application?
Alidjani: Mr. Smith, (inaudible)
Smith: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Alidjani, the small scale drawing that I have that
shown the proposed Number 2 phase of the this subdivision it appears that part of
Wingate Lane is incorporated into a future public street. And so in a quick look the sewer
line would travel down this public street that overlays a portion of Wingate Lane.
Alidjani: (Inaudible)
Smith: Yes, correct.
Johnson: Any other questions? We need some action.
Shearer: Mr. Chairman, I move we have the Attorney prepare findings of fact and
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 11, 1995
Page 23
conclusions of law (inaudible)
Rountree: Second
Johnson: It has been moved and seconded that we have the City Attomey prepare
findings of fact and conclusions of law on this application, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #10: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR PACKARD
SUBDIVISION, 126 LOTS BY PNE/EDMONDS CONSTRUCTION:
Johnson: This is Packard No. 1, I will now open the public hearing. Would the applicant
like to address the Commission, you need to be sworn again, it is a new public hearing.
Ted Hutchinson, 109 South 4th Street, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Hutchinson: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, now we are to the meat of the
annexation parcel. We are proposing to subdivide the parcel which we were just
discussing the annexation on. This is a residential development we are proposing R-4 the
lot sizes in this development are 8,000 square feet and larger. As indicated in the prior
public hearing a number of the lots we have it broken out on this particular diagram, again
from 8,000 to 10,000 square feet, from 10,000 to 15,000 square feet and then from 15,000
to on up. This includes the open space areas, in this particular proposal there is
landscaped entry ways, and as you come in it would be on both sides of Hickory Way with
an open area as soon as you got into the development. Then there are drainage lots and
a couple of small open space lots within the development. Then we are proposing as well
a landscaped easement that will affect all of the lots within the development so that there
will be a 15 foot wide landscape easement which will contain street trees, and additional
landscape treatment as well as entryway treatment for each of the individual lots. Mr.
Richard Pavelic is here tonight as a consultant on this, he has done the landscape layout
proposal to give you an example of what we are proposing for this particular development
to move this development into an upper scale better than moderate price development for
the City of Meridian. Again, the issues that have risen concerning the sewer. This
particular development standing by itself would use a temporary lift station, however we
have picked up additional properties and that property will be coming to you as Packard
subdivision No. 2 and we have provided a copy of that plat to you, I believe that is in your
packets. We picked up the Borup property which is immediately adjacent to north or our
property which lies between the Sharp property and is adjacent to Carol Subdivision on
the west side. We then picked up the Brown property which the annexation request has
already been submitted on the Brown property it was tabled pending the development
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 11, 1995
Page 24
again that will be coming to you. That takes us up to the South Slough, now the South
Slough is where the trunk line will be for the gravity flow sewer. We hold the majority of
the property that lies between the north boundary of Packard Subdivision No. 1 and the
South Slough. We also have been working negotiating with Mr. Alleman concerning that
easement so that we could cross his property with the South Slough and that would come
from Chamberlain Estates which is proposed on the south side of the Slough on the east
side of Locust Grove between Locust Grove and Mr. Alleman's property. So we are able
to provide the property for the access for sewer services for this particular area including
the Packard development which will as stated be served by a temporary lift station. Again
the traffic issues, we have had a traffic study that was done for the original Packard
Subdivision property, the Highway District looked at this and they agreed that it would just
take a minor amendment to that traffic study to include the BrowNBorup piece. The
developers have been talking to Mr. Reichert, he is looking at coming on board with this
particular development. The layout includes Mr. Reichert's property so that would account
for the 3 houses that exist on that number 2 property. So we are able to provide a means
for providing the sewer. Wingate lane will not be affected by this development, the only
ones that are living on Wingate that will be affected will be the Sharp's and they are going
to have complete and full access to their easement which gets them to Wingate Lane. A
portion of that which crosses the Reichert and Borup property and the Brown property
some of that will be dedicated to public streets. However, the street will no connect to
Wingate lane as an access point for this development. After all of the discussions that
happened when we originally brought this in and the discussions with the Brown
application for the annexation we knew that Wingate was going to be a major problem.
We talked to the property owners and made an attempt to purchase the property so that
we could if necessary go out Wingate. That fell through and didn't work appropriately and
therefore we are not going to utilize Wingate Lane with the small exception of dedicating
a public street which will run where the easement is now but will be fully developed and
still provide the Sharp's with an access to Wingate Lane from their house through Wingate
Lane to Ustick Road. We are not going to interrupt that particular easement. At this time
I would like Mr. Pavelic to come up and go through the landscape proposals, the
easements that we are going to propose and the street treatment. I think it is something
different that in the development that I have seen in and around Meridian I don't think we
have seen anything that is quite like it. 1 think you will be quite pleased with what you see.
Richard Pavelic, 5737 Gekler Way, Boise was sworn by the City Attorney.
Pavelic: We have 2 exhibits to try and give some indication of how this development will
not only fit in with the existing neighborhood but also what we intend to do to ensure the
quality of this development is maintained. The first exhibit is the one that in fact Mr.
Hutchinson has been referring to. What we intend to do is besides having the lot
(inaudible) in this diagram to control basically the street frontage along the entire project
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 11, 1995
Page 25
(inaudible) and what we hope to do there is to create more or less neighborhood wide
quality of landscaping. We want to try and pair up the driveways (inaudible) we know that
there will be instances we will not be able to accomplish this, but what it does do where
we wilt be successful is to provide longer, broader strips of landscaping that would have
the division of street trees that would control the type of fencing and other elements that
could be placed within that strip. It would also be the developer's desire to provide the
street trees for the entire development. The second exhibit I would like to point out to you
is the concept for the entrance way to the project. This basically indicates the type of detail
that the developer feels is compatible with this type of development and is not a matter of
leaving it up to every individual come along. What we would propose to do would be in
the entrance areas and those areas immediately adjacent to the open space the
developer would in fact be installing the landscaping as indicated here. The other areas
as I mentioned earlier he would be looking at the provision or the planting of the trees, but
within the covenants of the overall neighborhood subdivision there would be clear and
definite controls over the quality and the types of materials that individual homeowners
could in fact place in there. We feel that this would eliminate some of the conflicts that tend
to come up with typical subdivisions and we think that this is a prudent move on the
developers standpoint to leave an overall comprehensive view. What we would have is
a landscape plan that would set what would be desirable to have within that easement and
there would also be indications of what type of driveway treatment we would be looking
at possibly some (inaudible) of concxete in the street itself. We would be looking at some
possibly looking at some stone or other elements to give base to the signage. And
basically look at the detail of the project that we would have more uniform quality control
over the mail box locations and those sorts of items. We feel that this is the right direction
to do and the developers had indicated a willingness to take this concept and make it an
attractive development here. Are there any questions?
Johnson: Any questions of Mr. Pavelic?
Rountree: Yes, the second drawing there, I know it is conceptual but you show the smaller
solid green circular plantings at the comer, up towards the corner of the intersection right
in there, what is that material?
Pavelic: That would basically a low shrub plant, it would be conscious of views and safety
issues, but we would be looking at low shrub plantings and that would give some color and
definition to those intersections.
Shearer: Have you selected a (inaudible) species?
Pavelic: I think we are looking at a Red Oak in terms of a sizable tree that would mature.
We would also be looking at flowering trees on the sides of the houses where you have
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 11, 1995
Page 26
circumstances where you probably would need some privacy and those areas we would
be looking at conifers of mixed types.
Rountree: Going back to the drawing, (inaudible) you have considerable effort in layout
of the landscaping, but the upper most lot there we run into situations where somebody
is going to want to build a fence on that lot at some point in time in the future. If you would
incorporate that into your concept it would be helpful for the City so we don't have to look
at variances and safety situations and that sort of thing.
Pavelic: I thought I had mentioned it, and maybe I didn't, in the package that would go as
part of the provision of the covenants and restrictive covenants would be a community or
neighborhood wide fence (inaudible) cover those issues.
Hepper: Did you say that the developer would provide the trees for the
Pavelic: We are looking at the developer taking the responsibility for the street trees and
they would be a random planting more or less and try to group them along the street.
Hepper: That type of configuration, would that be throughout the subdivision not just in
the entry way?
Pavelic: Yes
(End of Tape)
Sharp: I would like them to show those drawings so that those in the audience know just
exactly where they are talking about this development.
Johnson: This is a separate public hearing Wayne, doesn't she have to be sworn again?
Crookston: I'm sorry she does.
Helen Sharp, 2445 Wingate Lane, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Sharp: I would like to see that these, I think some of us are a little confused as to just
exactly where this is. I couldn't help but think of the little anecdote if you show a child a
shiny penny he will overlook that dull quarter and that is what 1 think we are looking at
now. You can put all the beautiful trees and all that you like we still have a subdivision
and we don't really need it. What it amounts to he is saying we don't jeopardize Wingate
Lane or the access for the Sharp's, that. is me at the end of the lane. They have easements.
along the lane (inaudible) when they approached us about buying some of the property,
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 11, 1995
Page 27
it did cross and it zig-zagged. They wanted to put trees at the end of the lane so they could
down the lane, if we have access from our end of the lane down to the end of the land
would that not give everybody on the lane access to Wingate Lane too. We have been
told by several people that who did or did not sell on the lane and we find out they did not.
We were getting conflicting stories from developers and (inaudible). If you open the door
and give them what they want then they could do what they want with the next piece which
is the Borup's (inaudible) sewer again. They don't have that yet, they don't have it and
they are still talking about a temporary lift station, are they talking 6 months or 6 years or
60 years. I think we need to get something in concrete and 1 think like I say we are
showing a shiny penny to overlook that dull quarter.
Johnson: Well I know now why I came home from Grandma's house with shiny pennys
in my pocket, I never figured it out before, now 1 know why. My whole life is a dull quarter.
Let's display those drawings over there as best we can so the public can see them.
Doug Miller, 1035 Justin Place, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Miller: One of the concerns I have that I think has already been brought up but I would like
to reinforce it is it appears to me that we have very much a piece meal planning process.
Case in point is my property apparently bounds on both of these developments, both of
these proposals being discussed under 9 and 10. I have seen no information about the
one which is directly west of my property and that is part of the reason we have had some
confusing testimony here because we are not clear on how these things connect.
Johnson: Let me clarify something for you that might help you a little bit. We don't
actually have anything on that piece of property directly to your west, but what we do have
in our application is a requirement that if they are aware of any development or any
pending development that is adjacent or contiguous to an application then they are to
disclose that to us. Because we want to know what the ramifications are and the proximity
of a specific application. So you are right in what you say, but on the other hand they are
following our guideline mentioning what is down the road perhaps. Does that kind of help
you a little bit?
Miller: It helps a little bit but I think the issue is still there.
Johnson: It is 2 separate applications, that is the distinction you need to make. Right now
we are looking at the one that is south of your property.
Miller: And what is planned for the one west of the property. I keep hearing references to
that sewer connection, road connection, irrigation connection. I think it reinforces the point
that we need to see a big picture both in terms of planning for the sewer, planning for the
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 11, 1995
Page 28
egress and ingress out of these properties, planning for the irrigation right of ways that go
through there. It is very confusing to us to even respond to these kind of applications when
we don't see how they connect. I think we have a lot of references that are potentially
going to happen and connections here. It seems to me it would make a lot more sense if
we try to plan them all in sort of a group. Because there are a lot of contingencies that I
am hearing, both in the connection of the roads, connections of the sewers, how it affects
people's right of ways on private lanes. I would suggest that the approval of one piece
which is contingent on too many future pieces is not a wise thing to do. 1 think I agree with
a lot of the comments that have been said is that we are making decisions in a piece meal
way and we are going to pay for it in the long term.
Johnson: That is kind of a definition of Planning and Zoning, is piece meal.
Miller: But does it need to be?
Johnson: Yes it does because we are not Brigham Young, we don't have that luxury of
planning a whole city at once.
Don Brian, 2070 North Locust Grove Road, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Brian: Since this is concerning a preliminary plat I would like to bring up the ditches again
and make sure they are tiled with the project or before the project and it doesn't get caught
up in drffereM phasing like has happened at Dove Meadows which we have lost the final
phase of Dove Meadows and the ditches are still open and a mess. This property, the
ditch, my water feed, if I can step over to the map. My live water comes from this border
all the way (inaudible) perimeter. I would like to see that all get taken care of before they
do the whole project or with phase 1. So they don't do phase 1 and have a nice entry here,
is this the entry at the come(? Where is my head gate? (Inaudible) Like I stated t would
like to see that all get tiled at the initiation of the project so that is taken care of and we
don't have to deal with it later, 2 years down the road when they do phase 3 or 4 or
whatever.
Johnson: You made reference to losing the last phase of Dove Meadows, could you
elaborate on that?
Brian: Dove Meadows development went in 2 years ago, it started through Planning and
Zoning 2 years ago and is going in 3 phases or 2 phases. They have done phase 1, the
final phase is where my ditch comes in which they are required to bury all the ditches that
cross their property. They have not buried that ditch because it is in the final phase, well
that final phase of that project ran out of time. They have lost the final plat, so it has to go
through again. So nothing is being done with my ditch out there and it is an ongoing
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 11, 1995
Page 29
problem. We have had meetings down here at City Hatl concerning that very thing what
we need to do. As they develop these properties they wait until the certain phase to bury
these ditches so you have problems with those ditches and no man's land that no one
takes care of them unless you pursue the developer to make sure they are cleaned and
taken care of which is a hassle in itself and then when you get that many developers down
the line I have to find 4 or 5 different people to get the ditches Leaned. If they go in before
the development starts and do that ground work first and get it out of the way then they
don't have to wont' about me coming here and (inaudible). That is all I need to bring up,
any questions?
Johnson: Any questions for Mr. Brian? Thanks Don, anyone else?
Jon Barnes, 1034 Justin Place, was sworn by the City Attomey.
Bames: I am just a developer and I can't read 9 and 10 and 1 don't want to be redundant.
I would just recommend approval, I would suggest, I like all the landscape treatment that
they are doing but I would strongly encourage the developer to put a larger kind of a park
like an acre park in there. I would like to have them held to a 30 foot rear yard setback on
those lots that boundary us on the north there, those deep 140 lots and a fence on the
north side. I encourage you to do this, thank you.
Johnson: Thanks Jon
Dale Sharp, 2445 Wingate Lane, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Sharp: I would recommend that they disapprove this (inaudible) we don't have the sewer
accessibility, we don't have the access down Wingate Lane. And what they proposed to
us and they came and talked to us and they came and talked to me and I have the chart
right at home what they said. They said they wanted to come from Hickory Lane across
and over Wingate Lane and block me off there. As far as, how are you going to stop those
people from in these subdivisions from going down Wingate Lane are you going to fence
them off or are you going to put berms and fences up there and stop that, well they should.
Shearer: Is Wingate paved?
Johnson: No it is a gravel road.
Shearer: I doubt anybody is going to drive up a gravel road when they have a paved one.
Sharp: 1 disagree with you there, I live there and they do drive up that gravel road. We
would like to have 30 foot setbacks on these lots down closer to us too. Just because they
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 11, 1995
Page 30
live in (inaudible) doesn't mean they should have any more rights than what we do. I know
that Jon is a developer and of course (inaudible) as far as that goes I just think (inaudible).
schools to support the subdivisions like this and so I recommend (inaudible).
Johnson: Thank you, I saw a hand over here.
Craig Thompson, 2950 Wingate Lane, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Thompson: First of all I have been here for awhile, I have been trying to understand what
is happening and I am completely confused. We are involved with this we live on Wingate
Lane and when they say it is going to make Wingate Lane accessible to the Sharp's how
are they going to do that, are they going to build an overpass over Wingate Lane. If they
intersect it we are vulnerable because the traffic is going to pass there. We pay for the
road, we pay for the gravel that goes on it and I really don't want anybody else to drive on
it except the ones that live there. They mentioned about bringing trees in and rock this
and that and I like it just the way it is. I just hope that they leave it that way. Thank you.
Johnson: Thanks Craig, anyone else? Anybody have any other questions of the
Developer? Wayne, can we act on this or should this item be tabled until we handle No.
9?
Crookston: It should be tabled until you have acted on #9.
Johnson: We needed to take the testimony and at this point we really need to table the
item don't we.
Hepper: I have a question for the developer, the park issue was brought up. I was just
wondering originally there was a lot of park area designated in this and I guess we are
little bit sensitive. There was so much there the first time and now there isn't any. What
is the feasibility of having a small neighborhood park in the area, is there any particular
reason why there couldn't be or shouldn't be?
Hutchinson: Mr. Hepper, as I indicated earlier in fact we have no net gain in the number
of lots, in fact we lost a couple of lots. in the design. Part of the reason that the land was
taken up is the new configuration of the streets it doesn't lend itself really to that large of
a park area and still be able to yield a development that is going to be economical for total
development. We have looked a couple of designs, we have toyed with working this out
whether or not we can get a couple of smaller pocket parks within the development. We
will have to sit down with the developer and see if there is a proposal in there that might
work. We recognize the need for open area for the people in the development. We were
a little dismayed at the response to our previous development proposal when we did get
i •
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 11, 1995
Page 31
further down the public hearing process. We thought that 5 acre park was an extremely
nice amenity given the location. But whether or not we can come up with something that
will be feasible again we will have to push the numbers and the configuration past the
developer and see if they think it is possible.
Hepper: Since this will probably be table I just wanted to point out right in the middle of
the project there appears to be 2 very odd shaped lots, one is almost 18,000 - 19,000
square feet and the other is 17,000, it would be Lot 10 and Lot 29. Between the 2 of them
that would be 35,000 square feet which would be almost 3/4 of an acre.
Hutchinson: We also recognize that those lots the way they are configured in this drawing
they need (inaudible) changing the flag so it didn't go onto the culdesac it would go onto
Justin Way which is the street in the middle. So there would be some reconfiguration
there. We may be able to configure to provide a pathway from the culdesacs to Justin way
but again we have to look at this in a little more detail. I think your information and input
here tonight is going have a great deal of impact on pushing that through to see what we
can come up with.
Hepper: I don't think a small neighborhood park would be out of the question. 1 guess the
economics and feasibility of it dictate whether you are willing to do it or not. We would
have to look at it.
Hutchinson: We will sit down with the developer on this thing and make sure that is one
issue that we go over quite heavily.
Johnson: Anyone else? I will now close the public hearing.
Rountree: Mr. Chairman, I move that we table this item until our next regularly scheduled
meeting on May 9th.
Shearer: Second
Johnson: It has been moved and seconded that we table this item until the May 9th
regular meeting of Planning and Zoning, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Johnson: For those of you that might be confused as to what is going on in this (inaudible)
this item, the findings of fact and conclusions of law on item #9 will be at our May 9th
meeting at that time those findings of fact will incorporate the testimony we took tonight
plus how the application legally stands with our ordinances, then we will act on that on
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
Apri- 11, 1995
Page 32
May 9th and then it will go for another public hearing to the City Council when it can be
on their agenda which will probably either the last regular meeting in May or the first one
in June. So you will have another opportunity to a public hearing and that is the purpose
of me explaining that.
FIVE MINUTE BREAK
ITEM #11; PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR MAWS
ADDITION NO. 3, 6 LOTS BY MAWS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP:
Johnson: I will now open the public hearing and invite the applicant or his representative
to address the Commission.
Ted Hutchinson, 109 South Fourth Street, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Hutchinson: Members of the Commission, this is an application fora 7 lot subdivision,
believe your staff report or something on the original application said 6 but there are 7
residential lots and one drainage lot. This is the final addition to Maws Addition
subdivisions at Pine Avenue and Locust Grove Roads. This is going to be north of Pine
with frontage on Adkins Lane. Each of these lots have been designed to comply with the
zoning requirements of the R-8 zone. The lots are, when they were originally proposed as
part of the master plan for the Maws Additions they were proposed at 60 foot wide lots,
however the approval expired before the last phase could be submitted and we have
redesigned these to comply with the current zoning standards. They are at least 65 feet
in width and 1 believe they are about 6500 square feet, they are about 100 feet deep. This
will be the final phase for Maws Addition, I think it is compatible with what has been
approved and cronstn~cted in the area. We would ask that you recommend approval of this
application to the City Council. With that are there any questions that I might answer for
the Commission?
Johnson: Thanks Ted, any questions for Mr. Hutchinson?
Hepper: Does that street go on to the north, where does that street terminate at?
Hutchinson: Mr. Hepper, Adkins Lane terminates up there, it simply dead ends I believe
Danbury Fair, Shari said Danbury Fair is the subdivision to the north. They haven't quite
worked out what they are going to do as far as access to Adkins Lane whether or not they
are going to access it or not. The last conversation we had with the Highway District about
Adkins Lane we'd be required to do improvements and possibly a temporary turn around
but again the temporary turn around would be at the end of the current street. Whether or
not that becomes a through street will depend on Danbury Fair's ultimate decision whether
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 11, 1995
Page 33
or not they are going to connect.
Hepper: You will build a county approved road to the far side of the Maws addition?
Hutchinson: From, the Highway District is requiring some off site improvements from the
southwest comer of Maws to Pine Avenue. I believe they are requiring some widening
and pavement in that area and then we would have to construct the street improvements
in front of Maws Addition on Adkins.
Johnson: Did you have any problems with any of the comments from our staff or agencies
involved.
Hutchinson: No, those were all okay.
Alidjani: (Inaudible) all those 7 lots are going to have the improvement street wise on
Adkins Lane?
Hutchinson: Yes, they will have, right now it is just gravel, we will have to make the half
street improvements. They will have curb, gutter and sidewalk on Adkins Lane and
pavements widening out.
Alidjani: I guess. the next question 1 have you may not have the answer for it or not, but
Danbury does not open up to go through, what is going to happen to that street. It is not
55 foot bads to back, curb to gutters there are no curbs, no gutters, no sidewalks, so where
are we going from there?
Hutchinson: I would imagine the property to the west develops the Highway District will
require they make improvements on the west side. If Danbury does not come through then
I guess it would simply wait until that western property does develop.
Alidjani: In your proposal how many feet (inaudible) black topped?
Hutchinson: If you excuse me a moment I will have to look at the Highway District
requirements I believe they specified what, half plus 10, so there is a considerable
widening of the pavement.
Johnson: Anyone else? Anyone from the public that would like to address this issue, this
application? Seeing no one then I will close the public hearing. This would require
findings of fact.
Rountree: Technical question I guess, does this violate our requirement of a culdesac, the
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 11, 1995
Page 34
length and there is noway to tum around for emergency service, etc. I guess that is a
question for Gary or Shari?
Stiles: Danbury Fair will continue through to the south, that is a requirement of their
preliminary plat. As it currently is it would exceed but it is not going to be a culdesac in the
future, there will be a through street.
Rountree: So in the interim we would consider this a culdesac street for the purposes of
providing emergency services and a little bit of traffic around and through that.
Stiles: One of my comments is they should have 1 thought that I had a comment they
should have a temporary turn around that the Fire Department would likely require one
until that was a through street.
Johnson: Any other discussion? This does not require findings of fact and conclusions
of law this is a preliminary plat. What would you like to do so we can move on?
Rountree: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion that we pass a favorable recommendation onto
the City Council provided that they meet all the conditions set forth by ACRD and City staff.
Alidjani: Second
Johnson: We have a motion to pass a favorable recommendation onto the City with the
conditions as stated by Mr. Rountree, and a second, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #12: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR
MANUFACTURING AND SALE OF SPECIALTY CANDY FOR THE LITTLE CHIPMUNK
BY PAUL RICKETTS ANt) BRENT ADAMSON:
Johnson: I will open the public hearing and invite the applicant or his representative to
address the Commission.
Brent Adamson, Skyline Drive, Boise County, was swum by the City Attorney.
Adamson: My partner and I are rather new at this political process so hopefully you will
guide us along as we stumble. We do have a few responses to some things that were
contained in your packet that you handed back to us. In the first and mosffinancially
obligating is the paving of the alley way.
Meridian Planning 8 Zoning Commission
April 11, 1995
Page 35
Johnson: Is that an ACRD requirement?
Adamson: In their original committee it was and then they rescinded that and opened that
back up to the City of Meridian to consider it and respect to the percentage of cost of
paving versus what we are doing here. I guess since we are, Paul and I are the owners
of the building we are just replacing one tenant with another one. We feel that this is an
unfair burden on us as far as we don't own the property that goes from the back of our
property clear to first street. So for us to pave that entire thing and to pave both sides
would be not seemingly unequitable. Another requirement that you folks had concerning
the parking spaces and that you indicated that there are 15 and up parking spaces
required for 3,000 square foot of retail space. Retail space within the building by both
companies that are in there both tenants that are in there at the current, the proposed
tenant Little Chipmunk and Son Shine Heating and Cooling total retail space is between
200 and 300 feet not 3,000. Neither of them operate in the retail business within the
building other than the Little Chipmunk proposes 200 to 300 square foot of retail space at
the front end of their portion.
Johnson: Since that was an engineering department comment could add to that?
Comment on that Gary please, we are talking about definition and public area is.
Stiles: Chairman Johnson and Commissioners the only plan I got was this plan that you
had in your packet which shows 30 by 100 and I don't know if that is the size of the entire
lot or the building. But I think all the uses need to be addressed as far as the parking is
required.
Johnson: I am not sure I heard you, but I'm not too sure I understood you, in other words
are you saying without me putting words in your mouth, but I guess I will, are you saying
that they need to adhere to retail parking per square footage and you are using the 3,000
because that is all you had in your drawing?
Stiles: Yes, this is a very rough sketch that I can't tell how the interior is being used.
Johnson: Is Son Shine Heating and Cooling a retail business or is that just a contractors
office?
Adamson: It would be more under a contractors office and storage. It has displays in the
windows right now which are being vacated due to the fact that the Little Chipmunk is
going to be occupying it. But we do not do retail business out of the store, our work is
done either in the customers home and the repair business or on developments such as
has been heard here tonight on a particular property. Our property is for storage and
offices.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 11, 1995
Page 36
Johnson: Go ahead if you had some other comments you wanted to address.
Adamson: The only other one we had a little bit of a problem with and I am not sure,
maybe just a clamcation point. Ada County Highway and. part of theirs were estimating 42
additional trips per day would be generated by the Little Chipmunk and their operation.
I would estimate that would be less than what Carpet Headquarters the previous tenant
generated while they were there given the fact that the majority of their business is in the
manufacture and the retail is the minimal part. So that would in essence lessen the
impact than what Carpet Headquarters.
Johnson: That is an awful small impact anyway, it is probably not material here. Does
anyone have any questions of the applicant? Thank you Mr. Adamson, is there anyone
else from the public that would like to talk to us about this application and address the
Commission? Seeing no one then I will close the public hearing, discussion, comments,
questions? This is a conditional use permit so it would require findings of fact.
Shearer: Mr. Chairman, I move we have the attorney prepare findings of fact and
conclusions of law.
Rountree: Second
Johnson: It is moved and seconded to have the City Attorney prepare findings of fact and
conclusions of law for the application for the Little Chipmunk, all those in favor?
Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #13: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A
QUICK SERVICE RESTAURANT BY MCDONALD'S CORPORATION:
Johnson: I will now open the public hearing, if the applicant or his representative is here
we would like to address the Commission at this time and just explain the application.
George Kyler, 5000 Southwest Meadows Road, Lake Oswego, Oregon, was sworn by the
City Attorney.
Kyler: We have read your standard requirements for developing our restaurant on the pad
of the proposed Fred Meyer shopping center and don't see any objections to any of your
requirements. I wanted to clarity something in the first requirement is a retain to storm
water to be retained on site. I believe on site you probably mean not in the public road
and the 40 acre development which includes the Fred Meyer development. Otherwise we
Meridian Planning & Zoning. Commission
April 11, 1995
Page 37
are dove tailing our development pretty much with the approvals required on the plat.
Johnson: Any questions of Mr. Kyler? Anything additional you had to add? Thank you
very much, anyone from the public that would like to address the McDonald's application?
I will close the public hearing at this time.
Shearer: This includes (inaudible)
Crookston: Jim I have not looked over the application so 1 don't know what they are
specifically asking for.
Johnson: What was your question, there are a lot of people who have looked over the
application.
Rountree: Their description of the proposal talks about a quick serve restaurant, enclosed
play area or play place and drive thru.
Shearer. I just wanted to be sure that this includes a drive thru, a drive in window portion
of this thing so we don't have to come back for something.
Crookston: I don't have that application sheet, but it does have the, the application for the
drive thru windows, I would say that would be included.
Johnson: Any other comments? This takes findings of fact too.
Rountree: Mr. Chairman, I move we have findings of fact prepared for this item.
Shearer: Second
Johnson: Moved and seconded we have the City Attomey prepare findings of fact on the
application by McDonald's for a conditional use permit, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #14: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR
TWO DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANTS BY RICK THOMAS:
Johnson: I will now open this public hearing, is the applicant or his representative here?
Michael Caven, 6874 Fairview Avenue, was sworn by the City Attomey.
~ !
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 11, 1995
Page 38
Caven: Chairman and members of the Commission we have reviewed your staff report,
we don't have any objections. We do need a clarification on item #2 page #2, it talks about
the need for a request for a variance for tiling the Eight Mile Lateral. From my
understanding there is not an ordinance speaking to the size of laterals and the need for
tiling. It is my understanding the position has been on laterals 48 inches or more in
diameter that has not been made to file those. So I assume that is why the need to require
us to go through a variance on that.
Johnson: You are right about the practice, it still requires a variance request. The variance
request is granted by the City Council not by us. Anything else?
Caven: Yes, t had another question and this is regarding Ada County Highway District,
I have not had a chance yet to sit down with them, we spoke briefly this evening about
some ideas, but they are requiring the curb, gutter and sidewalk and asphalt on Gem
Avenue. Which our property does not abut to that road. And so there is some question
in that regard to us being responsible for the curb, gutter and sidewalks and asphalt on
Gem Avenue. There is 80 feet of separation, there is some question of who owns the 80
feet between my property and Ada County. If it is the irrigation district, if it is Ada County
Highway District. I think we can get with Ada County and the imigation district and work
something out along these lines but that was a concern of ours. That would be all we had.
Johnson: Any questions of Mr. Caven?
Hepper: 1 have a question, is this a concept here or is this the actual layout?
Caven: It would be the actual layout pretty close. We have one of the restaurant sites is
spoken for and the 30,000 square foot building is actual the thing that might change is if
we get a sit down restaurant instead of a drive thru restaurant on the other pad. But at this
time we would like to show the drive thru on that side.
Hepper: Okay, Building A is the one that you've got leased or a tenant for?
Caven: t think we flip that, and we flip that to the north side so that would be where oh it
is Building A I didn't get it changed on the plat.
Hepper: Would that be a sit down restaurant or fast food?
Caven: It is a combination, we have a sit down restaurant on half of the building and the
fast food on the other half.
Hepper: And the landscaping that you have drawn in there would that be indicative of
s •
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 11, 1995
Page 39
what you are going to do?
Caven: Yes and that was worked out with your planning staff and the set backs and so
forth.
Johnson: Did 1 understand you to say that you do have a tenant then locked up or is that
kind of?
Caven: We are in negotiations subject to the outcome of what is happening through the
process. We have people that have signed intents.
Johnson: You are not prepared at this time to tell us Wendy's is coming to Meridian?
Caven: No
Johnson: We have everything else we might as well have a Wendy's. Any other
questions of Mr. Caven?
Rountree: On your concept you show, it looks like the sidewalk wrapping around the eight
Mile Lateral over to Gem Avenue, is that in your plans?
Caven: No, that was engineered from Seattle, it has that on the drawing. Our property Tine
ends before the bridge on the south side of the bridge and that is what we have proposed
that it would end.
Rountree: You also have a note on the concept a proposed future location of possible
future bridge across Eight Mile Lateral.
Caven: Right, if that, if we were to move forward at this point we are not wishing that
acxess across there. At the point that if we did then we would feel some responsibility for
curb, gutter and sidewalk and the improvement of Gem Street because then we would be
attached to road. But at this point we don't have, we are not asking for that access. It is
not often on a concept or anything else that we get that we actually get a landscape plan
with species listed, but I would recommend that you have Seattle architect look at
something other besides Red Maple (inaudible).
Johnson: Thank you Michael, is there anyone from the public that would like to discuss
this?
Gene Quinteri, 2710 Laurelhurst Drive, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 11, 1995
Page 40
Quinteri: When we expanded our bowling lanes in 1985 we received permission from the
Ada County Highway District to improve the South 29 feet of the Gem Street (End of Tape)
right of way for parking for our bowling patrons. This we have done and that was given to
us in 1985. The only thing we object to I think the development of the property across is
very fine. We have one concern, and the drawing shown on this plot plan they gave us,
under item 4 of that plan it shows a culvert or bridge across the Meridian or Nampa
Meridian Irrigation District canal. If that were limited to a 6 or 8 foot foot bridge we would
have no objections. But if it is going to be 30 to 40 foot in length to provide both ingress
and egress in the area acxoss the canal that would eliminate some 4 or 5 parking spaces
for us which are critical to us. We would like to go on record as objecting to that portion
of the plot only. We are not objecting to the drive thru windows.
Johnson: Thanks Gene, are there any questions of Mr. Quinteri on that? Are (here any
references from our agencies with respect to the foot bridge or bridge?
Rountree: I think ACRD made mention that if access point, page 3, item 4 specific site
requirements. Well, that is E. First, so they don't speak to that item specifically.
Johnson: Did you seen anything in there about that other than just the drawing?
Quinteri: No other objections to the plot.
Johnson: Thanks Gene, does anyone else have any objections? Is there anyone else
from the public? Seeing no one I will close the public hearing at this time.
Shearer: Jim, I think we ought to ask the developer whether he is thinking a foot bridge
there or.
Rountree: He said he wasn't thinking of anything (inaudible}.
Johnson: Feel free to ask him if you want to ask him a question Mr. Shearer.
Shearer: My only question was if you do put that bridge in is that going to be a foot bridge
or a drive (inaudible).
Caven: Well, if we put it in the decision will be made to put it in if it needs to be access for
vehicles. At this point we see no need for vehicle access. We wouldn't request a foot
bridge.
Johnson: Thank you, the public hearing has been closed. This is a request for a
conditional use permit so it would take findings of fact and conclusions.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 11, 1995
Page 41
Shearer: Mr. Chairman, I move we have the Attorney prepare findings of fact and
conclusions of law for this project.
Rountree: Second
Johnson: Moved and seconded to have the City Attomey prepare findings of fact and
conclusions of law, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #15: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR CENTRAL
VALLEY CORPORATE PARK PHASE 5 BY RON NAHAS:
Johnson: I will now open the public hearing and ask the that the applicant or his
representative address the Commission. We have a written request dated April 10, 1995
a request that this application be tabled until further notice. I believe we would have to
table that to a date certain, is that true?
Crookston: Yes
Johnson: This is from Jean Gasaway at Roylance and Associates, PA, assuming she has
the right to do that.
Shearer: I move we table that to a date certain.
Johnson: Did anyone come here prepared to testify in a public hearing on this matter?
Apparently no one.
Rountree: Second
Johnson: You second the motion to be tabled, all those in favor? Well he is talking May
9th I guess, right, we can only go to the next meeting is that right?
Crookston: Well, you need a specific date it could be May 9th of 1998.
Rountree: May 9th
Johnson: Do you think just tabling a month will work Gary from what your understanding
your discussion with him? I haven't had any discussion with him so I don't know. Okay we
will just do it.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 11, 1995
Page 42
ITEM #16: REQUEST FOR VACATION OF A STREET EASEMENT BY W.H. MOORE
COMPANY:
Johnson: Is there a representative that would like, come see us and tell us what you want
to do. He doesn't have to be sworn does he?
Moore: On the Meridian Business Park there is re-subdividing the original plat which was
3 lots, 3 blocks into several smaller lots in each block. On the plat on note 2 there is a 5
foot easement for future street adjacent to the 50 foot street right of way. Mr. Priester will
not sign the plat because he recognizes that easement as a public right of way. I have a
letter from and I think you have a copy of it from the Ada County Highway District Attorney
stating that they did not accept that as an easement or as a public right of way. We are
requesting that note on that plat be vacated referring to the 5 foot future public street
easement.
Johnson: Any questions? Okay, our City Clerk has instructed as what our action is on this
issue on the last page of your documents there. In other words we have to make a
recommendation to the City Council.
Rountree: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion that we pass a favorable recommendation to
the City Council for the vacation of the subject easement.
Shearer: Second
Johnson: Its been moved and seconded that we recommend to the City Council a
favorable approval of the vacation of the easement for W.H. Moore Company, all those in
favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #17: REOUEST FOR VACATION OF A SANITARY EASEMENT BY CITY OF
MERIDIAN (FOR ASCHENBRENNERS PROPERTY):
Johnson: Is there someone here that would like to address the Commission on that issue,
Gary Smith, would you like to do that?
Smith: Mr. Chairman, Commission members, the Lake at Cherry Lane No. 3 subdivision
required that a certain length of the existing sewer line serving all of the property to the
south of the Lake No. 3 be relocated into a public right of way that was being platted as
part of that subdivision at the Lake No. 3. When they moved the sewer line to conform to
their platted right of way they had to adjust or construct a short length of line from their
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 11, 1995
Page 43
relocated line back to the existing line in Mr. Aschenbrenner's property. In order to get to
that existing line in Achenbrenner's property they had to cross had to create a new
alignment across Aschenbrenner to make that connection. Mr. Aschenbrenner after some
monetary consideration granted an easement to The take No. 3, the developer.
Johnson: How much monetary consideration?
Smith: I am not absolutely certain, 1 was told a number but that is only hearsay. In the
process of granting that easement Mr. Aschenbrenner requested and we concurred that
the existing length or sewer easement should be vacated and obviously that corresponding
length of sewer line is being abandoned. So that is the reason for this request. It was, Mr.
Aschenbrenner requested that it be vacated as part of him granting the other easement.
It is about 60 some feet long is all it amounts to by 20 feet wide.
(Inaudible)
Smith: Yes, we don't need to easement and Mr. Aschenbrenner doesn't want it clouding
his property for future development obviously.
Crookston: Is there sewer line in it, in the easement?
Smith: Yes, there is an abandoned length of I think it is 15 inch diameter sewer tine.
Crookston: And that is no longer needed?
Smith: No sir, it has been replaced with a new piece of pipe. We have, the relocated
sewer in the Lake No. 3 which is not an officially platted subdivision or recorded
subdivision we have asked for an easement from the developer which he said he would
give to us so that we have an actual easement there for the sewer line. The rest of it until
such time that plat is recorded.
Johnson: Any other questions?
Alidjani: (Inaudible)
Smith: I was told tonight that it clashes with the rest of my outfit.
Crookston: It is only the rabbit's ears.
Johnson: Okay, so do we want to do this or do we want to be obstinate?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 11, 1995
Page 44
Shearer: I move that we recommend to the City Council that we abandon this easement.
Johnson: Okay, we have a motion for abandonment,
Crookston: I would recommend that you recommend approval of the vacation of the
easement, it is tired and it needs a break.
(Inaudible)
Rountree: Second
Johnson: Moved and seconded to grant the vacation of a sanitary easement, all those in
favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Johnson: I have one other question for you Gary before you leave, I want you to absolutely
guarantee us that Don Brian will get water this summer.
Smith: We are working real hard at that.
Rountree: I move we adjourn.
Shearer: Second
Johnson: Moved and seconded we adjourn, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:22 P.M.
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
APPROVED:
nl-s~7~-
JI J NS N, AIRMAN
ATTES
/aC
WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CLERK
~ CITY OF MERIDIAl~
PUBLIC MEETING SIGN-UP SHEET
e
~t ~ ~ yn~ ~L~ g8~f - a ore
~ o~ ~a-2ti cs g87 - /o so
~ CITY OF MERIDIAl~
PUBLIC MEETING SIGN-UP SHEET
•
BEFORE THE MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONINO COMMISSION
SRERINAR INDUSTRIES, INC.
D. MICHAEL PRESTON
ANNERATION AND REZONE APPLICATION
SW CORNER OF FRANKLIN ROAD AND LOCUST OROVE ROAD
MERIDIAN, IDAHO
FINDINOS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The above entitled matter having come on for public hearing
April 11, 1995, at the hour of 7:30 o'clock p.m., the Petitioner,
Shekinah Industries, Inc. appearing through D. Michael Preston,
before the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Meridian
and the Commission having duly considered the evidence and the
matter, makes the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions:
FINDINGS OF FACT
A. That notice of a public hearing on the Rezone Application
was published for two (2) consecutive weeks prior to the said
public hearing scheduled for April 11, 1995, the first publication
of which was fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing; that the
matter was duly considered at the April 11, 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.
B. That this property is located within the City of Meridian
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PRESTON Page 1
and the titled owners are Montee and Beverly McClure and IVADCO,
Inc.; that no consent by the owners of record has been given to the
City for the rezone of the property; the property is described in
the application which description is incorporated herein.
C. That the property is presently zoned by Ada County as R-T
and is used for agricultural purposes; that the Applicant requests
that the property be zoned C-G, General Retail and Service
Commercial; that no specific use for the property was presented.
D. That the property has frontage on Franklin Road, is south
of industrial zoned land, is easterly of the Meridian Cemetery, is
north of undeveloped land and the State of Idaho Department of law
Enforcement land and building; that there is very low density
residential development to the east and south of the land.
E. That the C-G District is described in the Zoning
Ordinance, 11-2-408 B. 9. 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.
F. That the land is 30 acres and the present use of the land
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PRESTON Page 2
to be annexed is one home and pasture land for cattle and horses.
G. That D. Michael Preston testified that as he was meeting
with various people it came to his attention that a residential
zone for this area was evidently not in the interest of the City of
Meridian. He stated he decided that he would look at this property
from a commercial basis, so the concept that he submitted was
purely a concept. This was not something that he was ready to
submit to the Commission; this request was purely for annexation
and rezoning. He stated that he had high intensity service retail
on the corner of Franklin and Locust Grove and that someday that
would be appropriate there; that he also had retail along the
westerly side of this office complex. Toward the rear of the
property, as we get closer to the State Training facility, he would
turn that into a supply type commercial like a lumber yard or
something like that, pipe supply or whatever. If the neighbors are
not interested, he could re-arrange the streets very quickly and
easily and leave them in peace, which he said he would definitely
do if that is their desire. He stated that he was really trying
hard to get along with them this time and do something that was
more agreeable to them. He stated that the access road that he had
there would be a very convenient rear access from the Meridian
interchange to the Nahas-Hon commercial development. He thought
that this was something that would be good for the City and he had
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PRESTON Page 3
every intent of developing it somewhat in that fashion with
additional input. He just wanted to emphasize that the layout was
concept only. He stated that he could certainly pull back and that
he would do so.
He stated that he had reviewed all the comments by the City
staff and had no problem with any of their comments and was
agreeable to all of them. He also stated that he had seen the
comments from ACRD and had no problems with them.
H. That there was testimony at the hearing objecting to the
Application which was principally as follows:
1. That Robert Smith stated he would still like to oppose
this type of rezoning. I don't think it benefits us
people that live on Locust Grove or Franklin Road right
now. The way that the City is growing with the
commercial and light industrial proposals that seem to be
coming in at a regular rate, I don't think right now
would be an appropriate time with the condition that
Franklin Road is unless it is rebuilt and Locust Grove
Road is rebuilt. These don't look to be done at any near
future dates so i think it would really be a detriment to
our properties. I hope you will not change your zoning on
this, thank you.
2. That Jim Witherell testified he was one of the affected
parties that already submitted a letter in writing
saying they opposed this thing, saying the annexation was
attempted under questionable circumstances. One thing
has come out that I would like to add that we did not
know at the time. Mr. Preston does not own this
property. He told that to us at the meeting. He said he
does represent the developer, but he had a letter of
intent on this at one time and that expired last May.
3. That Morgan Plant stated he would like to recommend to
the Planning and Zoning Commission that this request be
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PRESTON Page 4
totally denied. This type of development is not
warranted; it is not called for and it is not compatible
with the residences in that area. We are, although not
bordered by this property, dramatically affected. There
are open areas in there which will be zoned and approved
for residential areas and commercial in our back yard
would certainly be detrimental. I recommend that you
soundly refuse this request. It is not compatible for
that area whatsoever. It will greatly depreciate our
property.
I. That a petition was submitted to the Commission signed by
eight people, some of whom testified at the public hearing; that
the petition is incorporated herein as if set forth in full; that
the petition sets forth objections to the Application and requests
that it be denied; that a summary of the objections is as follows:
1. That Applicant's petition for commercial development
includes land owned by those objecting and they do not
desire their land to be so developed.
2. That the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for
Applicant's previous application prohibit this
Application for development.
3. That the Application is inconsistent with the Meridian
Comprehensive Plan.
4. That since there was no use submitted as part of the
Application, that the Application was frivolous.
5. That because the Application is frivolous, it is also
litigious.
6. That a portion of the land to be developed is wetland
area and is also regulated by the Federal Emergency
Management Agency and the Bureau of Reclamation.
J. That there was testimony in favor of the Application from
Wayne Forrey who testified as follows:
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PRESTON Page 5
That he owned land in Meridian and he had a business
relationship with another property owner who owned land that
is closer to this and it is annexed into the City. That as a
property owner in Meridian along Franklin Road, Ed Bewa, the
owner of property very near this area, is in favor of this
request and hope that you would approve it. Always there is
going to be some type of conflict, real or perceived between
a commercial property and a residential property. The City
does have the ability to ask a developer to buffer and screen
and provide transitions. That is in the Comprehensive Plan.
It is in the zoning and development ordinance and it is
probably something the developer or the applicant here would
be willing to negotiate with the City. I can understand that
other property owners out there may have some reservations
about commercial zoning. I do not I think it would be good
for the City to annex this property at the C-G zoning.
K. That Bruce Freckleton, Assistant to the City Engineer,
submitted comments; that any existing irrigation/drainage ditches
crossing the property and included in this project, shall be tiled
per City Ordinance 11-9-605 M unless a variance application is
submitted; that any existing domestic wells and/or septic systems
will have to be removed from their domestic service but that wells
may be used for non-domestic purposes; that water service is
contingent upon positive results from a hydraulic analysis by the
City computer model and domestic water is presently located in
Franklin Road approximately 3,150 feet west of Locust Grove Road;
that City policy requires extension of City utility lines to and
through a development; that a 12-inch diameter water line will need
to be built in Franklin Road from its point of connection to
existing water east to Locust Grove Road and south along the length
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PRESTON Page 6
of this property's frontage; that sewer service would be via
connection to the Five Mile Creek Sewer Trunk Line; that a new
legal description needs to be submitted pursuant to Meridian City
Resolution No. 158 that includes said Rights-of-Way.
L. That Planning and Zoning Director, Shari Stilea submitted
comments; that this area is designated as Mixed/Planned Use
Development, which requires that all uses be approved under the
conditional use permit process; pathways for pedestrian/bicycle
access must be incorporated throughout the development; plans will
be required to be submitted in conformance with the requirements of
Section 11-9-607; Applicant is to enter into a development
agreement with the City; a minimum of ten percent of the site must
be landscaped; a minimum setback of 35' beyond the required rights-
of-way along Franklin Road shall be provided; a minimum landscape
setback of 20' beyond the required rights-of-way along Locust Grove
Road shall be required; that a minimum of 45 feet from the
centerline of Locust Grove Road shall be required; that a minimum
of 20' landscaped setback will be required adjacent to residential
development; that Nampa & Meridian will have to be contacted for
approval of any rerouting of irrigation and other water lines; that
a portion of the site appears to be in the 100-year flood plain and
that will have to be addressed by the Applicant.
M. That in prior requests for annexation and zoning the
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PRESTON Page 7
former Planning Director had commented that annexation could be
conditioned on a development agreement including an impact fee to
help acquire 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.
N. That the Meridian Police Department, the Meridian Fire
Department, Central District Health Department and the Nampa
Meridian Irrigation District all submitted comments and they are
incorporated as if set forth in full.
O. That the property included in the annexation and zoning
application is within the Area of Impact of the City of Meridian.
P. That the parcel of ground requested to be annexed is
presently included within the Meridian Urban Service Planning Area
(U.S.P.A.) as the Urban Service Planning Area is defined in the
Meridian Comprehensive Plan and in the Meridian Area of Impact.
Q. That Meridian has, and is, experiencing a population
increase; that there are pressures on land previously used for
agricultural uses to be developed into residential subdivision lots
and other uses.
R. That the property can be physically serviced with City
water and sewer if the Applicant extends and constructs the lines
and facilities.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PRESTON Page 8
S. That the following pertinent statements are made in the
Meridian Comprehensive Plan:
1. Under ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, Economic Development Goal
Statement.
Policies, Page 19
1.1 The City of Meridian shall make every effort to
create a positive atmosphere which encourages
industrial and commercial enterprises to locate in
Meridian.
1.2 It is the policy of the City of Meridian to set
aside areas where commercial and industrial
interests and activities are to dominate.
1.3 The character, site improvements and type of new
commercial or industrial developments should be
harmonized with the natural environment and respect
the unique needs and features of each area.
1.5 Strip industrial and commercial uses are not in
compliance with the Comprehensive Plan.
1.6 It is the policy of the City of Meridian to support
shopping facilities which are effectively
integrated into new or existing residential areas,
and plan for new shopping centers as growth and
development warrant.
1.8 The City of Meridian intends to establish a Design
Review Ordinance which will foster compatible land
use and design within the development, and with
contiguous developments; and encourage innovations
in building techniques, so that the growing demands
of the community are met, while at the same time
providing for the efficient use of such lands.
2. Under LAND USE, Mixed-Use Areas Adjacent to I-84,
Overland Road and Franklin Road, Page 28.
5.6 The development of a variety of compatible land
uses should be provided in specific plans and
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PRESTON Page 9
proposals for future development.
5.8 Development in these areas should be based on
functional plans and proposals in order to ensure
that the proposed uses conform to the Comprehensive
Plan policies and are compatible with the
surrounding neighborhoods.
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.
5.10 Development should be conducted under Planned Unit
Development procedures and as conditional uses,
especially when two or more differing uses are
proposed.
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.
5.12 Strip development within this mixed-use area is not
in compliance with the goals and policies of the
Comprehensive Plan.
5.13 Clustering of uses and controlled access points
along arterials and collector streets will be
required.
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.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PRESTON Page 10
S.15U The mixed-use area in the vicinity of the
Overland Road/Franklin Road/ Eagle Road/I-84
interchange is a priority development area.
3. Franklin Road (East and West entrances) are listed as
Minor Arterials and as Entryway Corridors.
4. Under COMMUNITY DESIGN, Policies, at Page 73
1. Entrance Corridors Goal Statement - Promote,
encourage, develop and maintain aesthetically
pleasing approaches to the City of Meridian.
2. Policies,
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.
4. Neighborhood Identify Goal Policies, Page 74
a. 6.4U Limit the conversion of predominantly
residential neighborhoods to nonresidential
uses, and require effective buffers and
mitigation measures through conditional use
permits when appropriate nonresidential uses
are proposed.
T. That in the Rural Area section of the Comprehensive Plan,
Land Use, Rural Areas, page 29, it states as follows:
"Land covered by this policy section has characteristics which
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PRESTON Page 11
generally allow for agricultural and rural residential
activity due to the existence of irrigation systems, soil
characteristics and relative freedom from conflicting urban
land uses. Where community growth creates pressure for new
development, it must be recognized that agricultural land can
no longer economically continue to be identified or used as
agricultural land to the exclusion of orderly city growth and
development."
U. That Section 6.3, of the LAND USE section of the
Comprehensive Plan, states that land in agricultural activity
should so remain in agricultural activity until urban services
(municipal sewer and water facilities) can be provided.
V. That Section 6.7U, of the LAND USE section of the
Comprehensive Plan, states as follows:
"Existing rural residential land uses and farms/ranches shall
be buffered from urban development expanding into rural areas
by innovative land use planning techniques."
W. That the property is included within an area designated
on the Generalized Land Use Map in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan
as a Mixed/Planed Use Development area.
X. That Planned Development is defined in 11-2-403 B, at
page 20 of the Zoning Ordinance booklet, as follows:
"An area of land which is developed as a single entity for a
number of uses in combination with or exclusive of other
supportive uses. A PD may be entirely residential,
industrial, or commercial or a mixture of compatible uses. A
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PRESTON Page 12
PD does not necessarily correspond to lot size, bulk, density,
lot coverage required, open space or type of residential,
commercial or industrial uses as established in any one or
more created districts or this Ordinance."
and a Planned General Development is defined as follows:
"A development not otherwise distinguished under Planned
Commercial, Industrial, Residential Developments, or in which
the proposed use of interior and exterior spaces requires
unusual design flexibility to achieve a completely logical and
complimentary conjunction of uses and functions. This PD
classification applies to essential public services, public or
private recreation facilities, institutional uses, community.
facilities or a PD which includes a mix of residential,
commercial or industrial uses."
Y. That under 11-2-409, ZONING SCHEDULE OF USE CONTROL, B
Commercial, Planned Commercial Development is a permitted use in
the C-G district and Planned Unit Development - General, is an
allowed conditional use in the C-G district.
Z. That Section 11-2-416 E 2.c. provides that this
Commission is to transmit its recommendation to the City Council
within forty-five (45) days, but also states that the Commission
may continue the matter from meeting to meeting if it finds that it
does not have sufficient information to make a decision.
AA. That proper notice was given as required by law and all
procedures before the Planning and Zoning Commission and City
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PRESTON Page 13
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 Planning and Zoning commission has judged these
annexation, zoning and conditional use applications under Idaho
Code, Section 50-222, Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code, Meridian
City Ordinances, Meridian Comprehensive Plan, as amended, and the
record submitted to it and things of which it can take judicial
notice.
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.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PRESTON Page 14
E. That the Council may take judicial notice of government
ordinances, and policies, and of actual conditions existing within
the City and State.
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 is 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 Citv of Idaho Falla, 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, and Section 11-9-605 M., which pertains to the tiling
of ditches and waterways and 11-9-606 14., which requires
pressurized irrigation.
J. That the City adopted the Comprehensive Plan at its
meeting on January 4, 1994, and has not amended the Zoning
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PRESTON Page 15
Ordinance to reflect the changes made in the Comprehensive Plan;
thus, uses may be called for or allowed in the Comprehensive Plan
but the Zoning Ordinance may not address provisions for the use; it
is concluded that upon annexation, as a condition of annexation,
the City may impose restrictions that are not otherwise contained
in the current Zoning or Subdivision and Development Ordinances.
K. The Applicant has not stated or represented intention as
to development and stated no proposed use of the property, other
than stating that the desire is to have commercial development;
therefore it cannot be determined if the use would be in compliance
with the Comprehensive Plan, which lack of information is of
concern to the Commission. Any uses would have to comply with the
Zoning Ordinance and any conditions placed on the property as part
of its annexation.
L. That it is concluded that the City could annex the
property and zone it C-G but once the property was zoned C-G, the
Applicant could place many different uses on the property without
additional approval from the City other than building permits,
which limits the control that the City should have over the
development and the uses of the property due to the mandates of the
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PRESTON Page 16
Comprehensive Plan.
M. That it is concluded that since the Comprehensive Plan,
under LAND USE, Page 28, Mixed-Use Areas Adjacent to I-84, Overland
Road and Franklin Road, in Section 5.10, states that all
development should be conducted under Planned Unit Development
procedures and as conditional uses and since the City should have
control over any uses that are to be placed on the land, it is
therefore concluded that development of the parcel of land, if
annexed, should be conditioned on being developed as a Commercial
Planned Development, which is allowed in the General Retail and
Service Commercial (C-G) district, or under the conditional use
permit process.
N. Therefore, it is concluded that the property could be
annexed and zoned General Retail and Service Commercial (C-G), but
only capable of being developed as a planned commercial development
and under the conditional use permit process.
O. That if annexed, as a condition of annexation and the
zoning of C-G, the Applicant shall be required to enter into a
development agreement as authorized by 11-2-416 L and 11-2-417 D;
that the development agreement shall address, among other things,
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PRESTON Page 17
the following:
1. Inclusion into the development of the requirements of 11-
9-605
a. C, Pedestrian Walkways.
b. G 1, Planting Strips.
c. H, Public Sites and Open Spaces.
d. K, Lineal Open Space Corridors.
e. L, Pedestrian and Bike Path Ways.
f. M, Pressurized Irrigation
2. Payment by the Applicant, or if required, any assigns,
heirs, executors or personal representatives, of any
impact, development, or transfer fee, adopted by the
City.
3. Addressing the subdivision access linkage, screening,
buffering, transitional land uses, traffic study and
recreation services.
4. An impact fee to help acquire a future school or park
sites to serve the area.
5. An impact fee, or fees, for park, police, and fire
services as determined by the city.
6. Appropriate berming and landscaping.
7. Submission and approval of any required plats.
8. Submission and approval of individual building, drainage,
lighting, parking, and other development plans under the
Planned Development guidelines, including plans for the
storage units.
9. Harmonizing and integrating the site improvements with
the existing residential development.
10. Establishing a 35 foot landscaped setback and landscaping
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PRESTON Page 18
the same.
11. Addressing the comments of the Planning Director, Shari
Stiles.
12. The sewer and water requirements.
13. Traffic plans and access into and out of any development.
14. And any other items deemed necessary by the City Staff,
including design review of all development, and
conditional use processing as required under the Meridian
Comprehensive Plan.
P. That Section 11-2-417 D of the Meridian Zoninq Ordinance
states in part as follows:
"If property is annexed and zoned, the City may require or
permit, as a condition of the zoning, that an owner or
developer make a written commitment concerning the use or
development of the subject property. If a commitment is
required or permitted, it shall be recorded in the office of
the Ada County Recorder and shall take effect upon the
adoption of the ordinance annexing and zoning the property, or
prior if agreed to by the owner of the parcel. .";
it is concluded, however, that it is more appropriate for a
development agreement to be entered into when plans for development
are better known and therefore as a condition of annexation a
development agreement must be entered into prior to issuance of a
building permit or prior to plat approval, which ever comes first.
Q. That it is concluded that the annexing and zoning of the
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PRESTON Page 19
property could be in the best interests of the City of Meridian,
and it is concluded that the annexation should be conditioned on
meeting the requirements of these Findings of Fact, particularly
paragraphs S. and V. and the Conclusions of Law, and if they are
not met the land should not be annexed or, if annexed, it should be
de-annexed.
R. That the requirements of the Meridian City Engineer, Ada
County Highway District, Meridian Planning Director, Central
District Health Department, and the Nampa & Meridian Irrigation
District, shall be met and addressed in a development agreement if
the property is annexed.
S. That if annexed, 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 and that pressurized
irrigation shall be installed and constructed, and if not so done
the property shall be subject to de-annexation.
T. That if annexed, the Applicant will be required to
connect to Meridian water and sewer and resolve how the water and
sewer mains will serve the land; that the development of the
property shall be subject to and controlled by the Subdivision and
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PRESTON Page 20
Development Ordinance and the development agreement, and it shall
only be developed as a commercial planned development or under the
conditional use process.
U. That if annexed, these conditions shall run with the land
and bind the applicant and its assigns.
V. With compliance of the conditions contained herein, the
annexation and zoning of General Retail and Service Commercial (C-
G), could be in the best interest of the City of Meridian.
W. That if these conditions of approval are not met, the
property shall not be annexed, or if already annexed, it shall be
de-annexed.
X. That it is ultimately concluded that there was
insufficient information given to the Commission for it to arrive
at a recommendation to the City Council; that among other things
there was insufficient information as to the development of the
property, the uses propoaed, how adjacent residential properties
would be buffered, the layout of proposed uses, how uses would be
constructed so as to have as little impact on surrounding
properties, and other things; that it is in the best interests of
the City to know more about an intended development of a parcel of
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PRESTON Page 21
property and what its impact on adjacent properties is going to be
prior to annexation and development.
Y. That it is concluded that this matter should be tabled to
allow the Applicant to provide more information to the Commission
so that the Commission can make a recommendation to the City
Council.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PRESTON Page 22
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
COMMISSIONER SHEARER
VOTED ,/G't
VOTED '/I"f~,` ~~~'
VOTED-fJj`'I~-'l
COMMISSIONER ALIDJANI
CHAIRMAN JOHNSON (TIE BREAKER)
DECISION AND
VOTED
VOTED
The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby decides
that the Application shall be table to allow the Applicant to
provide the Commission additional information before making a
recommendation to the City Council of the City of Meridian.
MOTION:
APPROVED•~~--
DISAPPROVED:
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PRESTON Page 23
~ ORIGINAL
BEFORE THS MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL
PNE/EDMONDS CONSTRUCTION
ANNE7CATION AND ZONING
MERIDIAN. IDAHO
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The above entitled annexation and zoning application having
come on for consideration on April 11, 1995, at the hour of 7:30
o'clock p.m. on said date, at the Meridian City Hall, 33 Sast Idaho
Street, Meridian, Idaho, and the Planning and Zoning Commission
having heard and taken oral and written testimony and the Applicant
appearing through Ted Hutchinson, and having duly considered the
matter, the Planning and Zoning Commission makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. That notice of public hearing on the annexation and
zoning was published for two (2) consecutive weeks prior to the
said public hearing scheduled for April 11, 1995, the first
publication of which was fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing;
that the matter was duly considered at the April 11, 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 included in the application for
annexation and zoning is described in the application, and by this
COUNCIL FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Paae - 1
reference is incorporated herein; that the property is 39.87 acres
in size; it is located between Locust Grove Road and Meridian Road
and between Fairview Avenue and Ustick Road; surrounding
subdivisions are Dove Meadows, Wingate Place Subdivision, Kearney
Place Subdivision, Chateau Meadows Subdivision, which are in the
City of Meridian, and Carol Subdivision, which is not in the City;
the South Slough, also known as the Finch Lateral, runs along the
North boundary of the proposed subdivision.
3. That the property is presently zoned by Ada County RT
(Rural Transition) and the proposed use is requested to be for R-4
Residential development.
4. Most of the general area surrounding the property is
either developed or is proposed to be developed.
5. That the property is adjacent and abutting to the present
City limits.
6. The Applicant is shown on the subdivision application to
be the owner of record of the property.
7. That the property included in the annexation and zoning
application is within the Area of Impact of the City of Meridian.
8. That the entire parcel of ground is included within the
Meridian Urban Service Planning Area as the Urban Service Planning
Area is defined in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan.
9. That the Application requests that the parcel be annexed
and zoned R-4 Residential; that the present use of the property is
for one house and for agricultural uses; that the applicant
indicated that the intended development of the property is for an
COUNCIL FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Paae - 2
R-4 type subdivision use with lots ranging from 8,000 to over
18,000 square feet; that the Applicant did submit a request for
approval of a subdivision plat at the time of submitting the
application for annexation. That after the public testified the
Applicant, through Ted Hutchinson, stated that Wingate Lane would
not be affected by this development and it was not their proposal
to utilize Wingate Lane, he explained the situation with larger
lots being next to Carol Subdivision but not next to the lots where
the Sharps and others live, that the developer would like to extend
the South Slough sewer to serve the development but they will have
to use temporary lift stations. He also stated that the irrigation
water would be protected.
10. There were several property owners in the immediate area
who testified about the Application; the testimony can be
summarized as follows:
a. Helen Sharp testified that there were already
difficulties with lgr, that the density was already too
high in Meridian and that there was no need for
additional houses, that there were water drainage
problems that need to be addressed, and that she was
apposed to the high density.
b. Jon Barnes testified that the redesign of the subdivision
was much improved, that he understood that there was
going to be a 30 foot setback on the lots next to his in
Carol Subdivision when the lots are already 140 deep,
that he would like a fence between the new homes and
Carol Subdivision and that a neighborhood park would be
nice.
c. Vern Alleman testified that his concern was over parks
and that not enough of them are provided in developments,
that impact fees are possibly the best and fairest
solution to need created by additional development, and
his additional concern was the use of lift stations for.
sewers.
COUNCIL .FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 3
d. Douglas Miller testified that he was concerned about
privacy, that the idea of berms, fences and setbacks was
very good, that the density was fairly high in regard to
the other areas where people had already built, and that
the design was much improved.
e. Dale Sharp stated that she was opposed to the subdivision
because of the school and traffic problems; that he did
not want Wingate Lane cut off; he questioned where th`e
sewer was going to come from; that he had the same
problems as Mr. Barnes, but nothing was being done for
him and his land.
f. Bob Golse testified that he questioned by such high
density would be allowed with only two accesses and that
there would be too many cars coming in and out of the
subdivision for the limited access.
g. Don Bryan testified that he was concerned with the
irrigation water, that he wanted know what was going to
be done with the head gate on southwest corner, which is
his headgate and it needed to be addressed in this
development.
h. John Schey testified that he was in agreement with the
testimony of Mr. and Mrs. Sharp and that he was concerned
about the traffic and stated that the subdivision did not
have sufficient access.
11. That the property is in an area marked on the Generalized
Land Use Map of the Meridian Comprehensive Plan as a single family
residential area; that in the Comprehensive Plan property inside
the Urban Service Planning Area may be developed at greater
densities than one dwelling unit per acre.
12. That in the Rural Area section of the Comprehensive Plan,
Land Use, Rural Areas, Section 6.3, it does state that land in
agricultural activity should so remain in agricultural activity
until urban services can be provided.
13. That Meridian has, and is, experiencing a population
increase; that there are pressures on land previously used for
COUNCIL FiNDINGS OF FACT ~ CONCLUSIONS OF LAN Paae - 4
agricultural uses to be developed into residential subdivision
lots.
14. That the property can be physically serviced with City
water and sewer if the Applicant extends the lines and constructs
and installs necessary equipment and facilities.
15. The Assistant to the Meridian City Engineer and Meridian
City Planner did submit comments and such are incorporated herein
as if set forth in full. That some of the comments of the Meridian
Planning Director were that perimeter fencing is required prior to
construction; that a development agreement is required as a
condition of annexation; that the previous plat showed a 5-acre
park but the subdivision was redesigned with some small "pocket"
parks; that there is no school capacity to serve the subdivision;
that some block lengths exceed 1,000 feet; that pedestrian walkways
will be required from Chandra through to Meadow Wood Court with a
lighting system; and that frontage on several lots does not meet
the 80 foot minimum requirement for R-4.
16. That the Assistant to the City Engineer commented and
they are incorporated herein as if set forth in full; that some of
the general comments were that any existing irrigation ditches
crossing the property shall be tiled; that the high seasonal ground
water needed to be established; that water service is contingent
upon positive results from a hydraulic analysis; that sidewalks to
meet City ordinance must be constructed; that perimeter fencing is
required prior to obtaining building permits; existing wells and/or
septic systems will have to be removed and that the wells may be
COUNCIL FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 5
used ,for non-domestic and irrigation purposes; determine high
seasonal ground water; provide sidewalks in accordance with
Meridian ordinance; the preliminary plat map needs to be stamped,
signed, and dated by a land surveyor. That the site specific
comments are incorporated herein as if set forth in full, some of
which were that the legal description does not follow the
boundaries of adjacent plats and correction needs to be made; that
a temporary sewer lift station will need to be installed; and that
a master street drainage plan needed to be submitted.
17. That the Ada County Highway District, Meridian Fire and
Police Departments, Meridian School District, Nampa S Meridian
Irrigation District, Central District Health Department, and other
agencies submitted comments and they are incorporated herein as if
set forth in full.
18. That the R-4, Residential District is described in the
Zoning Ordinance, 11-2-408 B. 3 as follows:
R-4) Low Density Residential District: Only Single Family
Dwellings shall be permitted and no conditional uses shall be
permitted except for Planned Residential Development and
public schools. The purpose of the (R-4) District is to
permit the establishment of low density single-family
dwellings, and to delineate those areas where predominately
residential development has, or is likely to occur in accord
with the Comprehensive Plan of the City, and to protect the
integrity of residential areas by prohibiting the intrusion of
incompatible non-residential uses. The (R-4) District allows
for a maximum of four (4) dwelling units per acre and requires
connection to the Municipal Water and Sewer systems of the
City of Meridian.
that the R-4 zoning district requires a minimum of 1,400 square
feet to be included in houses in that zone.
19. That the Meridian Comprehensive Plan, under Land Use,
COUNCIL FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAi~i Paae - 6
Residential Policies, 2.1U states as follows:
"Support a variety of residential categories (urban,. rural,
single-family, multi-family, town houses, apartments,
condominiums, etc.) for the purpose of providing the City with
a range of affordable housing opportunities."
20. That the Meridian Comprehensive Plan, under Land Use,
Rural Areas, 6.3 c., it states as follows:
"Within the Urban Service Planning Area development may occur
in densities as low as 3 dwellings per acre if physical
connection is made to existing City of Meridian water and
sewer service and the property is platted and subdivided .
.'
21. That the Meridian Comprehensive Plan, under Land Use,
Rural Areas, 6.4, it states as follows:
"Residential development is allowed in the rural area provided
that said development does not exceed the Rural Residential
Agricultural density, unless it is inside the Urban Service
Planning Area and City sewer and water is provided, then Low,
Medium and .High density residential may be considered. All
residential development must also comply with the other
appropriate sections of this plan."
22. That the Meridian Comprehensive Plan, under Housing,
Housing Policies, at page 66, it states as follows:
"1.1 The City of Meridian intends to provide for a wide
diversity of housing types (single-family, modular, mobile
homes, multi-family, town houses arrangements), ."
"1.3 An open housing market for all persons, regardless of
race, sex, age, religion or ethnic background."
"1.4 The development of housing for all income groups close
to employment and shopping centers should be encouraged."
23. That there is a population influx into the City of
Meridian at the present time which has been going on for some time
and is likely to continue; that the land is relatively close to
Meridian and economic conditions are making it difficult to
COUNCIL FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 7
continue farming in the area.
24. That the City Engineer has previously submitted comment
in different applications that a determination of ground water
level and subsurface soil conditions should be made; that such a
comment is equally applicable to this Application.
25. That in prior requests for annexation and zoning in this
area the Zoning Administrator has commented that annexation should
be conditioned on a development agreement including an impact fee
to help acquire a future school or park site to serve the area and
that annexations should be subject to impact fees for park, police,
and fire services as determined by the City and designated in an
approved development agreement.
26. That in 1992 the Idaho State Legislature passed
amendments to the Local Planning Act, which in 67-6513 Idaho Code,
relating to subdivision ordinances, states as follows:
"Each such ordinance may provide for mitigation of the effects
of subdivision development on the ability of political
subdivisions of the state, including school districts, to
deliver services without compromising quality of service
delivery to current residents or imposing substantial
additional costs upon current residents to accommodate the
subdivision.";
that the City of Meridian is concerned with the increase in
population that is occurring and with its impact on the City being
able to provide fire, police, emergency health care, water, sewer,
parks and recreation services to its current residents and to those
moving into the City; the City is also concerned that the increase
in population is burdening the schools of the Meridian School
District which provide school service to current and future
COUNCIL FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Paae - 8
xeaidents of the City; that the City knows that the increase in
population does not sufficiently increase the tax base to offset
the cost of providing fire, police, emergency health care, water,
sewer, parks and recreation services; and the City knows that the
increase in population does not provide sufficient tax base to
provide for school services to current and future students.
27. That pursuant to the instruction, guidance, and direction
of the Idaho State Legislature, the City may impose either a
development fee or a transfer fee on residential property, which,
if possible, would be retroactive and apply to all residential lots
in the City because of the imperilment to the health, welfare, and
safety of the citizens of the City of Meridian.
28. That Section 11-9-605 C states as follows:
"Right-of-way for pedestrian walkways in the middle of long
blocks may be required where necessary to obtain convenient
pedestrian circulation to schools, parks or shopping areas;
the pedestrian easement shall be at least ten feet (10')
wide."
29. That Section 11-9-605 G 1. states as follows:
"Planting strips shall be required to be placed next to
incompatible features such as highways, railroads, commercial
or industrial uses to screen the view from residential
properties. Such screening shall be a minimum of twenty feet
(20') wide, and shall not be a part of the normal street right
of way or utility easement."
30. That Section 11-9-605 H 2. states as follows:
"Existing natural features which add value to residential
development and enhance the attractiveness of the community
(such as trees, watercourses, historic spots and similar
irreplaceable amenities) shall be preserved in the design of
the subdivision;"
31. That Section 11-9-605 R states as follows:
COUNCIL FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Paae - 9
"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 apace corridors
may be required for the protection of residential properties
from adjacent arterial streets, waterways, railroad rights of
way or other features. As improved areas (landscaped), semi-
improved areas (a landscaped pathway only), or unimproved
areas (left in a natural state), linear open space corridors
serve:
1. To preserve openness;
2. To interconnect park and open space systems within rights
of way for trails, walkways, bicycle ways;
3. To play a major role in conserving area scenic and
natural value, especially waterways, drainages and
natural habitat;
4. To buffer more intensive adjacent urban land uses;
5. To enhance local identification within the area due to
the internal linkages; and
6. To link residential neighborhoods, park areas and
recreation facilities."
32. That Section 11-9-605 L states as follows:
Bicycle and pedestrian pathways shall be encouraged within new
developments as part of the public right of way or as separate
easements so that an alternate transportation system (which is
distinct and separate from the automobile) can be provided
throughout the City Urban Service Planning Area. The
Commission and Council shall consider the Bicycle-Pedestrian
Desicrn Manual for Ada County (as prepared by Ada County
Highway District) when reviewing bicycle and pedestrian
pathway provisions within developments.
33. That Section 11-9-605 M, PIPING OF DITCHES states, in
part, as follows:
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.
COUNCIL FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Paae - 10
34., That proper notice was given as required by law and all
procedures before the Planning and Zoning Commission were given and
followed.
CONCLUSIONS
1. That all the procedural requirements of the Local
Planning Act and of the Ordinances of the City of Meridian have
been met; including the mailing of notice to owners of property
within 300 feet of the external boundaries of the Applicant's
property.
2. That the City of Meridian has authority to annex land
pursuant to 50-222, Idaho Code, and Section 11-2-417 of the Revised
and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian; that exercise of
the City's annexation authority is a legislative function.
3. That the Planning and Zoning Commission has judged this
annexation and zoning application under Section 50-222, Idaho Code,
Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code, the Meridian City Ordinances, the
Meridian Comprehensive Plan, as amended, and the record submitted
to it and things of which it can take judicial notice.
4. That all notice and hearing requirements set forth in
Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code, and the Ordinances of the City of
Meridian have been complied with.
5. That the Commission may take judicial notice of
government ordinances, and policies, and of actual conditions
existing within the City and State.
6. That the land within the proposed annexation is
contiguous to the present City limits of the City of Meridian, and
COUNCIL FINDINGS OF FACT ~ CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Paae - 11
the annexation would not be a shoestring annexation.
7. That the annexation application has be'e'n initiated by the
Applicant, PNE/Edmonds Construction, and the annexation is not upon
the initiation of the City of Meridian.
8. That since the annexation and zoning of land is a
legislative function, the City has authority to place conditions
upon the annexation of land. Burt vs. The Citv of Idaho Falls, 105
Idaho. 65, 665 P.D 1075 (1983).
9. That the development of annexed land, if annexed, 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, 11-9-605 M, Piping of Ditches, and
Section 11-9-606 B 14., which pertains to pressurized irrigation;
that the Applicant would be required to connect to Meridian water
and sewer; that the development of the property would be subject to
and controlled by the Subdivision and Development Ordinance; that,
as a condition of annexation the Applicant is 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, M, and prior comments of the previous Planning Director, Wayne
Forrey, relating to the lack of adequate recreation facilities and
that land set aside for a future park would be desirable, that the
City is in need of land set-asides for future public service use;
that the development agreement shall, as a condition of annexation,
require that the Applicant, or if required, any assigns, heirs,
COUNCIL FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Paae - 12
executors or personal representatives, pay, when required, any
development fee or transfer fee adopted by the City; that there
shall be no annexation until the requirements of this paragraph are
met or, if necessary, the property shall be subject to de-
annexation and loss of City services, if the requirements of this
paragraph are not met.
10. That proper and adequate access to the property .has not
been shown and the Applicant must work to obtain better access.
11. That since the Applicant's property is in an area marked
as a single family residential area, the annexation and zoning
Application is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan and does
not conflict with the Rural Areas policies; however, there are very
large lots in the Wingate Lane area and in Carol Subdivision and
they shall be buffered by the Applicant and the subdivision
covenants shall let the home owners in the proposed subdivision
know that those lots are there and that the buffering must remain;
that this matter shall be addressed in the development agreement.
12. That the development of R-4 as suggested by the Applicant
would be compatible to the homes across Wingate Lane and in Carol
Subdivision if they are buffered as required above; that R-4
development would be compatible with the lots and homes in Chateau
Meadows, Dove Meadows, Wingate Place Subdivision, and Kearney Place
Subdivision.
13. Therefore, based on the Application, the testimony and
evidence, the Findings of Fact and Conclusions, and the Ordinances
of the City of Meridian, it is ultimately concluded that
COUNCIL FINDINGS OF FACT ~ CONCLUSIONS OF LAW'. Page - 13
Applicant's property should be annexed and zoned and the zoning of
the property should be R-4 Residential; that the conditions would
be those stated above if the property is eventually annexed and
zoned; that the annexation would be orderly development and
reasonable if the necessary buffering is completed between this
subdivision and the lots in the Wingate area and in Carol
Subdivision; that the property shall be subject to de-annexation if
the requirements of these Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
are not met.
14. That it is concluded that a fence should be placed along
Wingate Lane to prevent home owners on this land from gaining
access to Wingate Lane, particularly because it is a private lane,
until .
15. That the South Slough runs along the north boundary of
the property, and as a condition of annexation the South Slough
must be landscaped to fit into other improvements that have been
made along the slough with a pedestrian and bike path or it must be
tiled; that the South Slough shall be addressed in the development
agreement.
16. That all ditches, canals, and waterways required to be
tiled by City Ordinance shall be tiled as a condition of annexation
and if not so tiled the property shall be subject to de-annexation.
17. With compliance of the conditions contained herein, the
annexation would be in the best interest of the City of Meridian.
18. That if these conditions of approval are not met the
property should not annexed.
COUNCIL FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 14
~~
r~
19. That these conditions shall run with the land and bind
the applicant and its assigns.
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
ALIDJANI
CHAIRMAN JOHNSON (TIE BREAKER)
RECOt~DdENDATION
(ti
VOTED ~~
VOTED ~
~1,
VOTED
VOTED L,
The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends
that the Application for annexation and zoning be granted under the
terms and conditions of the Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law
and any other requirements set by the City Council; if the
Applicant shall not meet these conditions, the Application shall be
denied or the land shall be de-annexed.
MOTION: P
APPROVED ~ ~ DISAPPROVED:
COUNCIL FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Paqe - 15
• i ORIGINAL
BEFORE THE MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR RETAIL
SPECIALTY CANDY AND NUTS
THE LITTLE CNIPMINR
PAUL RICRETTS & BRENT ADAMSON, APPLICANTS
114 E. IDAHO STREET
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
The above entitled matter having come on for public hearing
April 11, 1995, at the hour of 7:30 o'clock p.m., the Petitioner,
Brent Adamson 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 of Law:
FINDINOS OF FACT
1. That a notice of a public hearing on the Conditional Uae
Permit was published for two (2) consecutive weeks prior to the
public hearing scheduled for April 11, 1995, the first publication
of which was fifteen (15 ) days prior to said hearing; that the
matter was duly considered at the April 11, 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.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - LITTLE CHIPMUNK
PAGE 1
2. That this property is located within the City of Meridian
and the Applicants are the owners of the property; that the
property is described in the application which description is
incorporated herein.
3. That the property is zoned Old Town, which requires a
conditional use permit for the operation of production and sale of
specialty candy.
4. That the Old Town District is described in the Zoning
Ordinance, 11-2-408 S. 12. as follows:
(OTl 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 has been in use for several years; that
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - LITTLE CHIPMUNK
PAGE 2
at present it is used by SonShine, Inc. to conduct business of
heating cooling and appliance repair and Carpet Headquarters to
conduct business of sale and installation of carpet and floor
covering; that Carpet Headquarters is vacating, to be replaced by
the Little Chipmunk.
7. That sewer and water is available to the property.
8. That the Applicants stated in the Application that since
Carpet Headquarters is retiring, this provides a quality location
for new business to commence operation; that this property is both
desirable for this usage due to location and convenience; that the
Applicants agree to pay any additional fee regarding trash, sewer,
or water.
9. That Mr. Adamson testified before the Commission that the
comment made by the Ada County Highway District's original
committee, dated April 5, 1995, stated that the Applicants be
required to pave the 16 foot alley from the east property line of
the parcel to East First Street; that the District's comments dated
on April 6, 1995, the Highway District rescinded and opened paving
of the alley back to the City; that the Applicant stated that he
and Mr. Ricketts are the owners of the building and that they are
just replacing one tenant with another and that this is an unfair
burden on them as far as they do not own the property that goes
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - LITTLE CHIPMUNK
PAGE 3
from the back of their property to First Street and that to pave
both sides would not be seemingly unequitable.
10. That Mr. Adamson also testified regarding the Planning
Director's' comment over the required parking spaces; that the
retail space within the building is between 200 and 300 feet, not
3,000 square feet, which would require the fifteen parking spaces;
that neither Son Shine Heating and Cooling or Little Chipmunk,
operate in the retail business within the building other than the
Little Chipmunk proposes 200 to 300 square foot of retail space at
the front end of their portion; that currently Son Shine Heating
and Cooling occupies a portion of the building and that is for a
contractors office and storage.
11. Mr. Adamson also stated that the Ada County Highway
District's comment of the estimated traffic generating 42
additional vehicle trips per day would in fact be much less as the
majority of their business is in the manufacture and that the
retail is the minimal part.
12. That the Meridian Planning and Zoning Administrator,
Shari Stiles, and Assistant City Engineer, Bruce Freckleton
submitted comments and they are incorporated herein as if set forth
in full; that applicant shall submit a detailed remodeling plan to
Building and Fire Departments and to the Public Works Department to
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - LITTLE CHIPMUNR
PAGE 4
determine compliance with Codes; that paving and striping shall be
in accordance with the standards set forth in 11-2-414 D.4 and 11-
2-414 D.5; that all signage shall meet 11-2-415; that off-street
parking shall be provided in accordance with Section 11-2-414; that
Applicant shall pave the alley from east property boundary to East
First Street and obtain a right-of-way permit from Ada County
Highway District and shall submit a copy to the City of Meridian;
that fifteen (15) parking spaces are required for 3,000 s.f. of
retail area and only seven are shown; that the materials and debris
in alley need to be removed; that the Central District Health
Department will need to review and approve this facility and that
FDA approval is also required because of interstate shipment of
candy; and that the Applicant's shall provide written documentation
of these approvals.
14. That the Ada County Highway District (ACRD) submitted
site specific requirements and they are incorporated herein as if
set forth in full; that the condition of the 16-foot alley from the
east property line of the parcel to East First Street affects the
appearance of the City, and the District leave the decision as to
the paving of the alley with the City.
15. That Central District Health Department, Meridian Fire
Department, Meridian City Police Department and the Nampa Meridian
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - LITTLE CHIPMUNR
PAGE 5
Irrigation District submitted comments and they are hereby
incorporated herein as if set forth in full.
16. That proper notice has been given as required by law and
all procedures before the Planning and Zoning Commission have been
given and followed.
17. That no other testimony was offered regarding this
application.
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 Reviaed and Compiled Ordinances of
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - LITTLE CHIPMUNK
PAGE 6
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 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.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - LITTLE CHIPMUNR
PAGE 7
C1
•
i. The development and uses will not result in the
destruction, lose 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.(77777)
6. The requirements of the Ada County Highway District and
the Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District must be met; that paving
of the alley behind the parcel from the east boundary line to East
First Street shall not be required, but the Applicant shall pave
the alley on their property.
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
Fire and Life Safety Code, all parking and paving requirements.
8. That the structure on the property must be brought up to
all codes prior to issuance of an occupancy permit.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - LITTLE CHIPMUNK
PAGE 8
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
SHEARER
ALIDJANI
VOTED /~
VOTED L2 '
CHAIRMAN JOHNSON (TIE BREAKER)
DSCISION AND
VOTED
VOTED
ION
The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends
to the Meridian City Council 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 w.
MOTION:
A
APPROVED: DISAPPROVED:
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - LITTLE CHIPMUNK
PAGE 9
I
ORr~~i;.;t. .
BEFORE THE MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR OUICR
McDONALD'S CORPORATION
NORTH OF FAIRVIEW AVENUE AND LOCUST GROVE ROAD
FINDINCiB OF FACT AND
The above entitled matter having come on for public hearing
April 11, 1995, at the hour of 7:30 o'clock p.m., the Petitioner
appearing through George Kyler, 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 April 11, 1995, the first publication
of which was fifteen (15 ~ days prior to said hearing; that the
matter was duly considered at the April 11, 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 Applicants is not the owner of the property; that the
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - McDONALD'S
PAGE 1
property is owned by AVEST, and the description of the property is
incorporated herein.
3. That the owner of the property granted permission for
this conditional use application.
4. That the property is zoned C-G, General Retail & Service
Commercial, which requires a conditional use permit for the
operation of a quick service restaurant with enclosed play place
and drive-thru.
5. 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:
IC-G1 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;
6. That the use proposed by Applicant is a specifically
allowed conditional use in the Zoning Schedule of Use Control, 11-
2-409.
7. That the property is located on the north side of
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - McDONALD'S
PAGE 2
Fairview Avenue and west side corner of Locust Grove Road in the
Avest Plaza.
8. That the Meridian Planning and Zoning Administrator,
Shari Stiles, and Assistant City Engineer, Bruce Freckleton
submitted comments and they are incorporated herein as if set forth
in full; that sewer and water assessments will be determined during
the building plan review process; that service of sewer and water
to this site will be via mains to be installed as part of the Avest
Plaza Subdivision and that a drainage plan by an architect or an
engineer, shall be submitted for all off-street parking areas as
required by Ordinance 557; that a redesign layout to accommodate 35
foot landscape setback (34 foot shown) along Fairview Avenue beyond
Ada County Highway District right-of-way; that a detailed landscape
plan shall be required as part of the building permit process and
that all signage shall meet 11-2-415.
9. That the Ada County Highway District (ACHD) submitted
site specific requirements and they are incorporated herein as if
set forth in full; that a five (5) foot wide concrete sidewalk on
Fairview Avenue abutting the parcel be constructed and the location
of sidewalk be coordinated with District staff; that Applicant
dedicate 54 feet of right-of-way from the centerline of Fairview
Avenue abutting parcel; to provide pavement tapers for acceleration
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - McDONALD'S
PAGE 3
and deceleration at approved access points in accordance with
District standards; that a raised median be installed in the center
of Fairview Avenue from Locust Grove Road to 50 feet east of
driveway "A" or the western access on Fairview, which shall be
restricted to right-in\right-out turns only; driveway "A" shall be
located as proposed, 240 feet east of Locust Grove Road's east
right-of-way as measured from the driveway's near edge.
10. That Central District Health Department, Meridian Fire
Department, Meridian City Police Department and the Nampa Meridian
Irrigation District submitted comments and they are hereby
incorporated herein as if set forth in full.
11. 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
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - McDONALD'S
PAGE 4
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 seta 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 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.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - McDONALD'S
PAGE 5
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
Fire and Life Safety Code, all parking and paving requirements.
8. That the structure on the property must be brought up to
all codes prior to issuance of an occupancy permit.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - McDONALD'S
PAGE 6
APPROVAL OF FINDINOS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts and
approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions.
ROLL CALL
COMMISSIONER HEPPER
COMMISSIONER ROUNTREE
COMMISSIONER SHEARER
COMMISSIONER ALZDJANI
CHAIRMAN JOHNSON (TIE BREAKER)
Lam. ~ ~I~
VOTED
L/~
VOTED
DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION
The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends
to the Meridian City Council that they approve the Conditional Uae
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.
MOTIO
DISAPPROVED:
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - McDONALD'S
PAGE 7
• ORIG[(v~L
BEFORE TBE MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
WILD SHAMROCR PARTNSRSNIP
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AT EAST FIRST STRSET AND MERIDIAN ROAD
RICK TROMAS
MERIDIAN. IDAHO
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
The above entitled matter having come on for public hearing
April 11, 1995, at the hour of 7:30 o'clock p.m., the Petitioner
appearing through Mike Craven, 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 April 11, 1995, the first
publication of which was fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing;
that the matter was duly considered at the April 11, 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.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - THOMAS
PAGE 1
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 a
drive through sales window; the Application requests approval of
two drive through sales windows at restaurants adjacent to East
First Street.
4. That the General Retail and Service Commercial District
is described in the Zoning Ordinance, 11-2-408 B. 11. as follows:
IC-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.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - THOMAS
PAGE 2
6. That the location of the property is between East First
Street and Meridian Road, south of the Eight Mile Lateral and Gem
Street.
7. That proper notice has been given as required by law and
all procedures before the Planning and Zoning Commission have been
given and followed.
8. That the owners of record are Harold E. Thomas and Rick
E. Thomas and they have requested the conditional use and consented
to the Application.
9. That the Applicant's representative, Mike Craven,
testified regarding the comment from the Planning Director, Shari
Stiles, having to do with a variance request for tiling the Eight
Mile Lateral; that his understanding of the City's position has
been on laterals 48 inches or more in diameter have not been made
to tile. Commissioner Johnson stated that it still requires a
variance request and that the City Council grants them.
10. Mike Craven also questioned the comment from the Ada
County Highway District (ACHD) regarding the curb, gutter and
sidewalk and asphalt on Gem Avenue; that their property does not
abut to that road; that there is 80 feet of separation and
questioned who owned the 80 feet, if it is the irrigation district
or the Ada County Highway District.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - THOMAS
PAGE 3
11. Mr. Craven testified that one of the restaurant sites has
been spoken for and the 30,000 square foot building is actually the
one which might change to a sit down restaurant instead of a drive-
thru restaurant on the other pad, but at this time they are showing
the drive-thru on that side; that at some future point the concept
of a footbridge across the Eight Mile Lateral would be considered,
thereby having some responsibility for curb, gutter and sidewalk
and the improvement of Gem Street, but at this point, the Applicant
is not asking for that access.
12. That Gene Quinteri testified regarding the improvements
he made of the South 29 feet of his property when the expansion of
the bowling lanes occurred; that his only objection to this
application would be to the size of foot bridge planned; that a 30
to 40 foot bridge would provide both ingress and egress in the area
across the canal causing four (4) to five (5) parking spaces to the
bowling lanes to be eliminated; that he would not object to a six
(6) or eight (8) foot access and wants to go on record as objecting
to that portion of the plot only; that he is not objecting to the
drive-thru windows.
13. That no other public testimony was given.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - THOMAS
PAGE 4
14. That the City Planning Director and Assistant City
Engineer submitted comments regarding this application and they are
incorporated herein as if set forth in full..
15. That off-street parking, paving and striping, all signage
and sidewalks shall be provided in accordance with City Ordinances.
16. That sewer and water assessments shall be determined
during the building plan review process; that sewer and water
service to the site shall be coordinated with the Public Works
Department and that a drainage plan shall be submitted for all off-
street parking areas; that water service is contingent upon
positive teat results from a hydraulic analysis.
17. That a 90 foot road right-of-way is required on Meridian
Road; that a variance needs to be requested for tiling of the Eight
Mile Lateral and if granted, that no fencing be required in lieu of
tiling as it would serve no useful purpose; that eleven (11) feet
of landscaping will remain when and if the Ada County Highway
District takes the full right-of-way on East First Street; that the
parking spaces shall be 9' x 19' with a 25 foot driveway width with
designated spaces along Meridian Street for compact spaces if
dimensions remain as shown and that applicant should negotiate
license agreement with Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District to allow
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - THOMAS
PAGE 5
landscaping within the Eight Mile Lateral easement for aesthetic
purposes.
18. That the Meridian Police Department, Meridian Fire
Department, Central District Health and the Nampa Meridian
Irrigation District they are incorporated herein as if set forth in
full.
19. That The Ada County Highway District (ACHD) submitted
site specific requirements, and they are incorporated herein as if
set forth in full, and which include providing a deposit to the
Public Rights-of-Way Trust fund to the District for required street
improvements of 5-foot wide sidewalk on Meridian Road abutting the
parcel, constructing a 7-foot wide attached sidewalk on East First
Street abutting the parcel, constructing curb, gutter, 5-foot
sidewalk and match existing pavement along Gem Avenue abutting the
parcel, the dedicate 30-feet of right-of-way from the centerline of
Meridian Road abutting the parcel (an additional five (5) feet),
and sidewalks shall be provided in accordance with City Ordinance.
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
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - THOMAS
PAGE 6
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.
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.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - THOMAS
PAGE 7
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 uses 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 drive way for drive-in window shall not be used
for deliveries nor shall it be allowed to impose or impede on other
uses in the area.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - TBOMAS
PAGE 8
7. That the Applicant shall meet the requirements of the
Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District and the Ada County Highway
District.
B. That if the Applicant desires to place a pedestrian
bridge across the Eight Mile Lateral the City would have no
objection to that, but there shall be no vehicle access from Gem
Street to the parcel.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - THOMAS
PAGE 9
~,
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
COMMISSIONER ROUNTREE
COMMISSIONER SHEARER
COMMISSIONER ALIDJANI
CHAIRMAN JOHNSON (TIE BREAKER)
VOTED,
VOTED
VOTED
VOTED
VOTED
,~~ l
r
~~ d
i~~
DECISION AND
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 an Conclusions of Law.
MOTION:
APPROVED DISAPPROVED:
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - THOMAS
PAGE 10