The URL can be used to link to this page

1995 03-14 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AGENDA TUESDAY, MARCH 14, 1995 - 7:30 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING HELD FEBRUARY 14, 1995: (APPROVED) TABLED FEBRUARY 14, 1995: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING FOR THE LAKE AT CHERRY LANE SUBDIVISION NO. 5 8~ 6 BY STEINER DEVELOPMENT: (CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE FINDINGS FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW) 2. TABLED FEBRUARY 14, 1995: REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR THE LAKE AT CHERRY LANE SUBDIVISION NO.5 8 6 BY STEINER DEVELOPMENT: (TABLED UNTIL APRIL 11, 1995) 3. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF R-8, R-15, AND L-O FOR 180.9 ACRES BY GEM PARK 11 PARTNERSHIP: (APPROVE FINDINGS; RECOMMEND DENIAL) 4. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A FLOWER SHOP RETAIL BUSINESS BY BILL AND JOYCE BREWER: (APPROVE FINDINGS; RECOMMEND APPROVAL) 5. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR CAR STEREO SALES AND INSTALLATION BY RICHARD CESLER: (APPROVE FINDINGS; RECOMMEND APPROVAL) 6. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A CONVENIENCE STORE BY BRYCE JOHNSON AND ROSS HUNEMILLER: (APPROVE FINDINGS; RECOMMEND APPROVAL) 7. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF C-G FOR 74 ACRES BY E.L. BEWS: (CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW) 8. PUBLIC HEARING:REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A VARIETY OF MIXED, PLANNED BUSINESS AND RESIDENTIAL LAND USES BY E.L. BEWS: (CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE FINDINGS OF FACT AND GONCLUSIONS OF LAW) 9. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF R-8 FOR .40 ACRES BY D.W., INC.: (CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW) 10. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A GIFT SHOP AND OFFICE USE BY BRENT AND GWEN ALGER: (CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW} 11. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR CHILDREN'S LEARNING CENTER DAY CARE BY RICK AND GEORGIANA ELLIOTT: (CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW) 12. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY/FINAL PLAT FOR TEN MILE SQUARE BYALBERTSON'S, INC.: (APPROVE PRELIMINARY FINAL WITH CONDITIONS) -MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AGENDA TUESDAY, MARCH 14, 1995 - 7:30 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING HELD FEBRUARY 14, 1995: 1. TABLED FEBRUARY 14, 1995: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING FOR THE LAKE AT CHERRY LANE SUBDIVISION NO. 5 & 6 BY STEINER DEVELOPMENT: C'/~ gtj`~~y' t"/prP~a~ ~~~~/c'/~ 2. TABLED FEBRUARY 14, 1995: REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR THE LAKE AT CHERRY LANE SUBDIVISION NO. S 8~ 6 BY STEINER DEVELOPMENT: /-¢QuPdt ~ be tab%ad until next- s..ret/+~y G'ftCi f!e CEnrt.e ~C. Sr Z.~~/~ iTT..cC 3. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF R-8, R-15, AND L-O FOR 180.9 ACRES BY GEM PARK ii PARTNERSHIP: ~~p/nve f'/{ ~ `'/c. I'eco/nn.e~cL {v Y~-e L'/C fer R'Pn/~' 4. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A FLOWER SHOP RETAIL BUSINESS BY BILL AND JOYCE BREWER: ~~/pr,~vr f/f" d e/c {`QC am rr-cn eC t~ ~JG ~/~' 7`o Rp/'ro vi. L/~}~. LoncYi ~i b+avS 5. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR CAR STEREO SALES AND INSTALLATION BY RICHARD CESLER: aApro~e {/f ~ e/G a/try c~d.~a,.s /-ecoa+.v„ena ~ tom' P/C to apf,.-m~e 6. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A CONVENIENCE STORE BY BRYCE JOHNSON AND ROSS HUNEMILLER: app/~ie ~/f ~ ct` re CO rn rw en. G.' '~O L~/i¢ C'/C 7b kj/Jp~o/2 i~i~"h, ca -nd.)aFYh~r 7. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF C-G FOR 74 ACRES BY E.L BEWS: C/~ att~'1-hay ~ /fir-epaie mil/ ~ Cl~ 8. PUBLIC HEARING:REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A VARIETY OF MIXED, PLANNED BUSINESS AND RESIDENTIAL LAND USES BY E.L. BEWS: e.~j afto-~..ey to pre~va,~e {//~ e/1 9. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND 7~ONING OF R-8 FOR .40 ACRES BY D.W., INC.: C'r~ ~ttvrney ~' {/~ ~ e1L 10. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A GIFT SHOP AND OFFICE USE BY BRENT AND GWEN ALGER: ~''f7-u atfbine~i fG f~~ ~ C'~L 11. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR CHILDREN'S LEARNING CENTER DAY CARE BY RICK AND GEORGIANA ELLIOTT: ~~~ ~tf~~-n-ey fGP~epu-~.e ~/f ~~'/~ 12. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY/FINAL PLAT FOR TEN MILE SQUARE BY ALBERTSON'S, INC.: ~pprou.e ~l~ee~~iY~~ ~-f- wlC~-+dh~ r .!-et ~e~.i~t 6y ('i ~'z~ .S1iZ ~~ Cv.~-GL' uGlMe~tQ'CtG ~ /hG~cll~ R ~~/u~J L'eGls~- ~t-,~cc, u.l'o~ yK G~Pi f `JrypQ'+~ CITY OF MERIDIAP~ PUBLIC MEETING SIGN-UP SHEET NAME PHONE N MB R ~ CITY OF MERIDIAI'~ PUBLIC MEETING SIGN-UP SHEET • MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 14, 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, Jim Shearer, Moe Alidjani: MEMBERS ABSENT: Charlie Rountree: OTHERS PRESENT: Will Berg, Wayne Crookston, Gary Smith, Shari Stiles, Gwen and Brent Alger, Ridc and Georgie Elliott, Wally Lovan, Tim Peterson, Gary Fletcher, Malcolm MacVoy, Wayne Forrey, Tom Webb, Kathy Blades, Gary Lee, Gordon Anderson, Bob Higgens, Michelle Robey, Craig Slocum, Steve Bradbury: MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING HELD FEBRUARY 14, 1995: Johnson: Are there any additions, corrections or deletions? If not then I will have a motion for approval. Shearer: I move we approve the minutes of the February meeting. Hepper: Second Johnson: It is moved and seconded that we approve the minutes as prepared, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #1: TABLED FEBRUARY 14, 1995: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING FOR THE LAKE AT CHERRY LANE SUBDIVISION NO. 5 AND 6 BY STEINER DEVELOPMENT: Johnson: Any discussion regarding this item? Hepper: I have a question for the applicant. Johnson: Is the applicant or his representative here? Hepper: We are doing the overall project is that right? We are not just looking at a portion of it right here? Bradbury: That is right. Hepper: As I understood on the original concept map that we had in phase 1 Moonlake Drive and North Robie Way those were originally designed as R~1 lots is that correct? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 14, 1995 Page 2 Bradbury: That is correct. Hepper: Are they still designed as that, is that the intention of those lots? Bradbury: That is the intention. Hepper: Okay, on the notes it says Lots 1 through 32 Block 8, which would be along Moonlake Drive and Robie Way will contain mixed residential housing as developed in the R-15 zone. Is that a mistake on the notes? Bradbury: I am going to have to say it has to be a mistake, yes. Because that would be incorrect. Hepper: Those are all 80 foot lots, they are all designed to an R-4 standard. Bradbury: That is right, they are intended to be the R-4 standard lots, that is correct. The R-t5 lots would be those lots that are contained on either side of North Tangent Avenue and West Lake View Drive, the little loop there in the center. Those are the R-15 lots. You might note that since this plat was in front of you last time those lots have been expanded from 5,000 foot average to about 6,000 square feet average, reducing the total number of Tots. Hepper: What type of homes would be on those lots? Bradbury: Those would be a, Doug help me. (Inaudible) Johnson: We are not going to be able to pick this up on the microphone. Bradbury: We can share a microphone or I will repeat. For the record, the intention as the applicant has just expressed it is to have those be single family detached dwellings as well. Simply providing a smaller lot for those individuals who don't want to maintain the larger lots, in other words to provide a variety of lot sizes in the subdivision for different needs of different people. Hepper: What will be the square footage of the homes on those lots? Bradbury: That I think would be dependant upon what it is that you folks would want to impose in accordance with your ordinances. I have to tell you that I don't know exactly what the minimums are, if there are any in the R-15. What are we talking about, 1200 • Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 14, 1995 Page 3 square foot I think is what we anticipated. Hepper: t have another question, over on the side where it says building setbacks, minimum lot size. On the building setbacks is there some typos on that also? It would be on the right hand legend there. Bradbury: Are you on lower part, on the notes or somewhere else? Hepper: It is on the right hand side right below developer, it says acreage zoning, building setbacks. It says front 30 feet, rear 50 feet that is 80 foot on a 100 foot lot that only leaves you 20 foot to build. Bradbury: That is going to be a pretty skinny house. I would suggest that those are probably in error as well. And are probably intended for, that is not right. That 50 foot is too big, it is probably supposed to be 20 feet. Johnson: Well that is something we will need to get clarified on those notes, get them corrected. They are obviously mistakes because it wasn't their intent to (inaudible). Bradbury: There is no doubt in my mind that is in error. I can tell you this that the intention would be to meet or exceed whatever the setbacks that are imposed by the City's ordinance is. Hepper: Then on the left hand side of the main street coming in on North Tangent Avenue would those all be R-4 lots? That would be lot 9. Bradbury: Yes Hepper: So the only R-15 we are looking at right now is (inaudible). Bradbury: That is right only the ones that go around that small loop there in the center. Hepper: Then these phase 2, I guess that is both sides of the road when you come in, those would be developed later and brought before the Commission is that right? Bradbury: Yes, that is right, both of those areas that are easterly of the areas that have lots drawn on them would be submitted. The design for those areas would be submitted in a separate application under either the conditional use provision or the planned unit development provision of your code. Johnson: Anyone else have any questions, comments? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 14, 1995 Page 4 Bradbury: I might point out that you will probably recall that when we were here last time there was a question raised by the representative from the Ada County Highway District which is I think in part what caused the matter to be tabled. Since that time the developers representative has met with the Highway District and they have apparently come to an agreement as is reflected on the plat that you have before you now. What that did in essence it also reduced the number of proposed R-4 lots down from I think it was a proposed 54 down to 50. It reduced the lots along that most northerly tier. It pulled that street back and connected it into the adjacent subdivision. Johnson: Thank you very much. This requires findings of facts and conclusions of law. Hopper: Mr. Chairman, I move we have the City Attorney prepare findings of fact on this. Shearer: Second Johnson: Moved and seconded to have the City Attorney prepare findings of fact and contusions of law on the request for annexation and zoning for the Lake at Cherry Lane Subdivision No. 5 and 6, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #2: TABLED FEBRUARY 14, 1995: REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR THE LAKE AT CHERRY LANE SUBDIVISION N0. 5 AND 6 BY STEINER DEVELOPMENT: Johnson: We really can't do much on this can we Wayne unfit we get the annexation and zoning? Crookston: That is correct. Once you approve of the annexation then the Commission can act on the plat. Alidjani: So do you suggest that we table the plat until the next meeting until the findings are prepared? Crookston: You can take any testimony that wants to be presented, if somebody wants to present some testimony, you can do that. Then I would recommend that you table it until you act on the findings for the annexation. Johnson: We have had the public hearing, is there anything you want to add on the plat at this point? Anyone have any questions or comments? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 14, 1995 Page 5 Shearer: I would assume that we would want to hold this and get the corrections back for the next meeting at what time we have. Johnson: Is that a motion? State your motion. Shearer: I request that this be tabled and brought back before the Commission at the next meeting when we, after the findings of fact and conclusions of law. Alidjani: Second Johnson: We have a motion and a second, all those in favor of Mr. Shearer's motion? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #3: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF R-8, R-15 AND L-O FOR 180.9 ACRES BY GEM PARK II PARTNERSHIP: Johnson: You have the findings of facts and conclusions of law before you, are there any corrections, deletions or discussion regarding these findings of facts? What is your pleasure, we need a motion on the findings. Alidjani: Mr. Chairman I make a motion the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts and approves these findings of fact and conclusions of law. Shearer: Second Johnson: It has been moved and seconded that the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission adopt and approve the findings of fact and conclusions of law as presented, roll call vote. ROLL CALL VOTE: Hepper -Yea, Rountree -Absent, Shearer -Yea, Alidjani -Yea: MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Johnson: Any decision or recommendation you wish to pass onto the City Council at this time? Alidjani: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion that the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends to the City Councl of the City of Meridian that they deny the annexation and zoning as stated above for the property described for the reasons Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 14, 1995 Page 6 stated in the conclusions of law which are based on the findings of fact. Shearer: Second Johnson: We have a motion and a second to recommend denial of the annexation and zoning request, atl those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #4: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A FLOWER SHOP RETAIL BUSINESS BY BILL AND JOYCE BREWER: Johnson: Again, you have these findings are there any comments or corrections you would like to make at this time? We need a recommendation, a motion. Hepper: Mr. Chairman, I move the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts and approves these findings of facts. Alidjani: Second Johnson: It is moved and seconded that we approve the findings of fact and conclusions as prepared, roll call vote. ROLL CALL VOTE: Hepper -Yea, Rountree -Absent, Shearer -Yea, Alidjani -Yea MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Johnson: Recommendation for the City Council gentlemen? Hepper: Mr. Chairman, I move 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. Alidjani: Second Johnson: It has been moved and seconded to pass a favorable recommendation onto the City Council, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 14, 1995 Page 7 ITEM #5: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR CAR STEREO SALES AND INSTALLATION BY RICHARD CESLER: Johnson: Any comments or discussion regarding the findings of fact as prepared by the City Attorney? Can we have a motion? Alidjani: Mr. Chairman, 1 make a motion the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts and approves these findings of fact and conclusions of law. Hepper: Second Johnson: It has been moved and seconded to approve the findings of fact as prepared, roll call vote. ROLL CALL VOTE: Hepper -Yea, Rountree -Absent, Shearer -Yea, Alidjani -Yea MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Johnson: A recommendation for the City. Alidjani: Furthermore, I make a motion that 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 law. Hepper: Second Johnson: It is moved and seconded that we pass a favorable recommendation along to the City Council, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Johnson: These findings of fact once approved will be available, you can get a copy from the City Clerk in the morning, sometime tomorrow anyway. ITEM #6: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A CONVENIENCE STORE BY BRYCE JOHNSON AND RUSS HUNEMILLER: Johnson: Any discussion regarding these findings of fact? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 14, 1995 Page 8 Crookston: Mr. Chairman I need to step down due to a conflict of interest. Johnson: Step down please, you are being replaced by Mr. Riddlemoser. Any discussion regarding these findings of fact? I need a motion then on the findings. Hepper: Mr. Chairman, I move the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission adopts and approves these findings. Shearer: Second Johnson: We have a motion and a second for approval of the findings of fact and conclusions of law, roll call vote. ROLL CALL VOTE: Hepper -Yea, Rountree -Absent, Shearer -Yea, Alidjani -Yea MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Hepper: Mr. Chairman, I move the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council of the City of Meridian that they grant the conditional use permit requested by the applicant for the property described in the application in accordance with the findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth herein. Alidjani: Second Johnson: It is moved and seconded that we pass the recommendation as stated onto the City Council, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #7: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF C-G FOR 74 ACRES BY E.L. SEWS: Johnson: At this time I would invite the applicant or his representative to come forvvard and address the Commission. The public hearing is now open. Wayne Forrey, 52 East Franklin Road, was sworn by the City Attorney. Forrey: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission my name is Wayne Forrey and I am representing Ed Bews and also Bill Davis Construction. We have been working gee over a year now with the City looking at development of the I-84 Eagle Road area and looking at development opportunities with St. Luke's hospital, making sure there is good Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 14, 1995 Page 9 compatible development in that area. About ten months ago in May of 1994 we submitted an annexation request to the City. At that time the request was for Mixed Planned Use Development to comply with the Comprehensive Plan and then some discussions lead to the change to a request for Health Service zoning. That was heard I think in June of 1994 and at that time your Commission tabled the annexation request to give City staff time to update the zoning and development ordinance to get all of the changes in that document to comply with the comprehensive plan and look at a new health service zone. It came off of the table I think about October or November of 1994 and then it was tabled. again with no date certain, just indefinitely because no one was really sure when the health service zone would be incorporated into the new zoning ordinance. Johnson: Even if it would be. Forrey: Or if it would be. In the meantime Ed Bews received some serious inquiries about buying a portion of that property. Of course it was contingent upon annexation and the proper zoning. So on February 1, there was a meeting with Mayor Kingsford, Ed Bews, Bill Davis, myself and Gary Fletcher of St. Luke's Hospital and during that meeting we looked at the scenario of updating the zoning ordinance, the possibility of a different or a new zone in that area to accommodate a mix of uses. We looked at the time constraints, we did not want to hold up the hospital in any way. And the suggestion of the Mayor was that we because .the uses that Ed anticipated were more business and commercial in nature, the Mayor's suggestion was that we apply for a zone that currently exists in the Meridian ordinance the C-G zone, Commercial General. And also because Ed and Bill and myself believe also that there are some appropriate non-commercial uses at that site, town homes, patio homes, nursing center, a retirement center and medical services, which are not allowed in the commercial zone because we felt there was a potential that it could blend well. The Mayor suggested that we apply for a conditional use permit to allow some of those other uses in addition to the regular commercial uses. So we developed a list of anticipated land uses submitted that in the application and so we are requesting C-G zoning with annexation and the next item on your agenda is a conditional use permit which would allow by conditional use 6 land uses that currently are not addressed in the C-G ordinance or the C-G portion of your development ordinance. I would like to go through the staff report just quickly to respond to some comments. I am looking at the first page here the March 10 memo from the public works department and the Planning and Zoning Administrator, general comment #2. It asks that the well that is on the Bews property be removed from domestic service. Right now, we would ask that condition be modified and give permission to Ed Bews to retain that for domestic use by the City. We are currently negotiating with the City to see if the City would want to purchase or acquire that well for city use and it would be domestic City use. On the next page item #8 Johnson: 1 wonder Wayne, excuse me for interrupting, but those comments are directed Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 14, 1995 Page 10 towards the next item on the agenda, not relating to this one. Forrey: Would you like me to wait then? Johnson: I think that would be appropriate. Forrey: Okay, I am sorry I didn't notice that you are correct. Well, let me summarize then, we picked a zone that is in the ordinance today. It doesn't require any waiting for any ordinance changes. We think that zone will work for this conditional use permit to allow a good development in that area: I would be happy to answer any questions. Johnson: Any questions for Mr. Forrey? What we are dealing with here is just annexation and zoning at this point, to C-G. This would require findings of facts unless you have any further questions. We need to hear from the public, rf there is anyone else here that would like to testify on this? Is there anyone else that would like to come forward on this application? Gary Fletcher, 190 East Bannock, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Fletcher: I am not here necessarily in support or in opposition to the application. I just want to be sure Mr. Chairman and members of the Commission that we have had several meetings with Mr. Bews and his representatives talking about compatible development of our respective properties and how we might work together to maximize the benefit to the community. We have also talked about how we might collaborate on utilities and appropriate traffic patterns and really haven't gotten specific in that regard. 1 would say our position is one that certainly some of the uses that are anticipated by Mr. Bews and his property are compatible with what we are trying to do and we see them as working together to benefit the community. So certainly there is no opposition from our point of view and we look forward to working with Mr. Bews and the further development of our respective properties and think it would be advantageous if the property were annexed into the City so that collaborative effort coudl continue. I would be glad to answer or respond to any questions you might have. Johnson: Any questions of Mr. Fletdier? Thank you Gary I appreciate that. Anyone else from the public that would like to address the Commission at this time? Seeing no one then I will close the public hearing. Shearer: Mr. Chairman, I move we have the Attorney prepare findings of fact and conclusions of law on this project. Alidjani: Second Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 14, 1995 Page 11 Johnson: It has been moved and seconded that we have the City Attorney prepare findings of fact and conclusions of law for the application by E.L. Bews for annexation and zoning to C-G, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #8: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A VARIETY OF MIXED, PLANNED BUSINESS AND RESIDENTIAL LAND USES BY E.L. BEWS: Johnson: I will now open the public hearing and invite Mr. Forrey to come back and continue. Wayne Forrey, 52 East Franklin Road, was sworn by the City Attorney. Forrey: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission what this is, is a list of anticipated uses out of our conditonal use application. The second page is a map and the property in yellow is the Bews property. Out of that list of 12 anticipated land uses 6 are permitted in the C-G zone that is with the green "P" that you see there. Items 6 through 11 the retirements center, nursing home, town houses, apartments, patio homes and medical services are not addressed at all in your zoning ordinance. So, in our discussions with the Mayor and trying to get this project to move forvvard inside the confines of your existing ordinance. Our approach is that with C-G zoning and a conditional use permit for those items 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 on that list we feel that it would work. And so, as general retail or a hotel-motel is developed that would be a permitted use in the C-G zone. The retirement center or nursing home would require a conditional use permit to come back before this body and the City Council. I would like to go through the staff comments just briefly. I will start over again, on the March 10 memo from the public works department and the Planning and Zoning Administrator, item #2, Ed Bews does have a well, a large municipal quality well on the property. Rather than vacate that or remove that we would like to have that opportunity to continue to negotiate with the City. The City has expressed an interest in acquiring that, Ed has been testing it. We want to have the door open so that can continue to happen. On the next page, item #8, Americans with Disabilities Act is a federal law, it has no local jurisdiction. So it is inappropriate the way that is worded because there are businesses and there are situations which are exempt from Americans with disabilities Act. If it does trigger than it is triggered at the federal or state level and the builder or contractor has to construct accordingly. But it is not something that the City monitors, it is not something that the City has authority to impose in an action like this. I would ask that 8 be modified or removed. Item #3 under site specific requirements, our May 1994 application did include 1!2 of the adjacent right of way in the legal descriptions that were submitted. Under site spec requirements under the planning department, comment #1, Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 14, 1995 Page 12 we are not requesting a planned development zone so we are not applying under Section 11-9-607 of the zoning and development ordinance, I don't feel that comment is applicable. Same with #4, this is not a PD request and so comment #4 would be not applicable. Md then comment #8 on page 3, I would ask that it be modified to say at minimum Council should require detailed site review at Council level for each use proposed except for those uses that are allowed in the C-G zone. Because if it is zoned C-G there will be permitted uses, it would not be required detailed site plan review. That is the end of my comments Mr. Chairman I would be glad to answer questions. Johnson: Thank you Wayne, questions of Mr. Forrey, comments. Hepper: I have a question Wayne, is it possible under the permitted uses for the C-G zone is it possible a different use could be brought in there other than those proposed that would be allowed in the C-G zone? Forrey: You mean something other than the 12 here on the list? Johnson: Other than the 6. Hepper: Other than the 6 permitted uses that go with the C-G zone, you have some anticipated uses. Would it be possible that one of those may disappear and something else could be in there? Forrey: Yes, that is entirely possible, there is 74 acres and that is a very strategic interchange. It is very possible Johnson: So you are not restricting yourself just to these permitted uses because there are other permitted uses, is that what you are saying? Forrey: Yes, that is correct, what I am saying these are the 12 that Ed Bews, Bill Davis, myself, working with the hospital, the realtors, talking to business people, those are generally the 12 that we would put money on, that we would be money on that would be developed at that site. Hepper: I guess my question is, what if some other use wants to come in there that is compatible with the C-G zoning that may not be compatible with other uses proposed. Forrey: If it is a permitted use than the ordinance would allow it, rf it is not than we would have to come back here for a conditional use permit. I think maybe that should be spelled out in the development agreement. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 14, 1995 Page 13 Johnson: I guess you lost me just a little bit there Tim, do you have anything specific in mind that might occur? Hepper: I don't know maybe a truck stop or something out on Franklin Road there that may not be compatible with some of the residential stuff that is in the area. Although that may be allowed in the C-G zone it may not be compatible with a planned town house and patio homes even though it is all C-G zoned. Forrey: And it is possible that the hospital, Gary Fletcher may have a problem with a truck stop or may not I don't know. Hepper: That is just a potential, it could any of a million different things. I am just wondering if, to me it is hard to allow a conditional use when we don't know what the use is. I would almost be tempted to agree with your concept but say that maybe I would like to see the whole thing conditioned. If these things come through that you have figured would be the things that probably would go than 1 would figure those would probably be reasonable things. My concern is that is just an anticipated use, it is a concept and there could be other things that may not be as compatible. Forrey: The comprehensive plan does indicate a high intense use for this area. So, I am reasonably certain that we are not going to be here talking about single family detached homes. It is business oriented, the majority of this ground would be commercial and that is why we chose the C-G as the base zone. About 80% of this property is going to be enveloped in a business C-G zone type use. There also needs to be a transition to the east. As you get to the east end of this property the Comprehensive Plan says that you transition to residential the farther we get from Eagle Road. So at some point here we have that transition. Johnson: Has there been an consideration given to what might be in it for the City of Meridian, something in terms of a fire station? Forrey: Yes, in fact we talked to to Fire Chief about a satellite fire station at this site, he did not want one. He preferred to have one on the south side of that interchange on Eagle Road. The other thing is the water well, Ed is discussing with Gary Smith, taking. that well, dedicating a well site to the City, maybe even large enough well site to have a storage on site. I guess there is some air, oxygen Gary, oxygen in the water and it may need to be let off. Carbon Dioxide, there may need to be, more than a normal well site, maybe larger I think, to have some kind of a filtering or settling tank or something to delete that off. That is all under discussion, so that is only thing I know of that is public Mr. Chairman. Alidjani: Wayne I have a question, on #6 through 11, is this a specific use that you are Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 14, 1995 Page 14 asking on your conditional use permit? Forrey: Yes Alidjani: The attachment "C", page 1, particularly talking about what you just gave us, correct, so with that conditional use permit you are not having any other uses except the 6, 7, 8, 9, 10,.11 that you are asking for. Forrey: That is correct, and what I would like to happen is that say, well Ed has been approached by a developer that wanted 10 acres for a retirement center, item #6 on this list. What I hope would happen in the development agreement, if you look right now in the C-G zone a retirement center is not addressed, presumably not allowed. Yet, working with St. Luke's and other folks we feel that is a pretty good location for a retirement center. Ed has been approached to buy 10 acres of his ground for a retirement center. So what we would like to see is come back, if this is approved we know that a retirement center could be a possible use at that site, come back for a conditonal use permit with site plans, landscape, parking, drainage, building elevations eta Johnson: I need to echo some of Tim's concerns here. I know the City of Meridian is committed to, I don't know if protecting is the right word but I will use that, protecting the success of the St. Luke's project because it is a major project and they were there before you were so to speak. In that regard, I kind of lean toward anything going in there being conditioned or approved. Just because although Tim's example might be a little bizarre maybe it isn't, you know something there that would have a negative impact on that development as well as other developments that you are going to do within your 74 acres. Because this is kind of a guess, a conceptual guess on what might happen out there. I don't feel real comfortable about that, right now I have to look up an auto travel plaza to see if that is in anyway shape or form a truck stop that you have on your list, 1 am not sure what that is. Forrey: Hopefully it is a big Chevron (inaudible) car wash. Johnson: The auto services is kind of a broad catch all too. In other words what I think I am trying to say is that whatever we do out there we sure want to do it right. I am sure you do too. But we need the safeguards in place in the event you and I aren't around. Forrey: Is that the same safeguards that are at the Meridian interchange? Johnson: I can't answer that, a lot of that was before me. Forrey: Want to make them both competitive, make them both attractive to investors. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 14, 1995 Page 15 Johnson: I guess you can look at it that way. But, (inaudible) from our past mistakes, not continue them. Hepper: I don't think we are necessarily saying that there is any proposed use that we would deny right across the board that we wouldn't want out there, we are just saying we want to take a look at it, not necessarily give up our rights to place restrictions on their use. Maybe their hours of use, landscaping or accesses or somethign like that. I think if we keep that as a conditional use that we also keep the ability to control some of that stuff. Alidjani: Tim, explain to me one item, I hear your concern and Mr. Chairman's concern, is it item #7 instead of 8, because if he is getting a general commercial zoning, anything is permitted is already said and done we asked the City Attorney to prepare findings. Now, the next item is just a conditional use permit. I think your 2 concerns is with the general commercial not the conditional use permit or is your concern the mixture of both when they get mixed together. What is your concern, I head the example. Hepper: I think my concern is on the C-G also, not necessarily the conditonal use part. We have had other C-G parcels, we just had one out on Overland Road and Meridian Road. That was passed C-G with a conditional use. I think there are several of them around town that we want to look at and see what they are doing to make sure that we have the ability to place the restrictions on there if we feel that it is necessary. tf we allow conditional use without a conditional use then they can go strictly according to the City ordinance and we don't have any right to place any further restrictions on here. Alidjani: Maybe I had better put this question to the City Attorney, are we (inaudible). Shearer: I think what Moe is saying and what you are saying (inaudible) included in the findings of fact and not item #8. Alidjani: The #7, item #7 was asking for zoning and annexation of C-G zone and it is over. The public hearing is closed we have jumped to #8 and that is only a conditional use permit. So any concern we had should be reflected on findings of fact later in time. Am I right or wrong Mr. Attorney? Shearer: We will put that sucker in the findings of fact and get on with number 8, becauue the number 8 deals with the conditional use which is items 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11. What tim is talking about is items 1 through 5 and 12 and 13 on. Crookston: Well, the conditional use of course it contingent upon the property being annexed and zoned (End of Tape) so to that extent they are somewhat, quite similar because if it is not annexed or zoned then you lose the ability to even deal with the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 14, 1995 Page 16 conditional use aspects of it. But also, it is one piece of property which is being discussed. The development can be made a part of or a condition of the annexation. So I don't think it is unreasonable to discuss it, but you are right to the extent that the C-G zoning is part of the annexation and zoning request. They are somewhat intermingled. Alidjani: Well, thank you for saying t am right. Johnson: Well, I think our concem is obvious, we have 3 choices, tum it down totally, or condition what we want to do, or just approve the conditional use permit the way it is and how that things come out the way we want. I am more concemed naturally with the permitted uses that are in the C-G zone that we have already done. I am not too concerned with the Conditional use permits because we are going to handle those individually when they come up and that is my concern. Any further discussion? Alidjani: I have one more question to ask Wayne, do you or the developer have any problem that this basic C-G zoning be within your conditions of any activities happens over there for any reasons for any usage be all conditioned? Basically (inaudible) what Tim and Jim (inaudible) and have a transfer station. Forcey: If that is your wish we will comply with it, but I want you to understand this. From the developers side and from a business owners side, in my particular business going to a bank to borrow money and telling your banker your use is a conditional use is always difficult to borrow money on. It is aMrays difficult to sell property when you say to someone well, I think it will work but we have to go through 70 days minimum in Meridian to have a public hearing process before you get permission. Johnson: That would be a new record. Forrey: So those 2 things financing where the banks like to see commercial zoning and they aren't as familiar with the conditional use process as we are all familiar and then the delay. That puts the developer at a bit of a disadvantage. It is just something else that we have to deal with. If it is your desire that all uses out there be conditional use, if that is the way it is going to be with other properties around there then we will do it. Johnson: I think our desire is compatibility and the safe guards against insuring that zone to happen. Forrey: We have worked with the hospital close and we will continue to. Johnson: I accept at least I accept your offer to have everything conditioned. Anyone else from the public like to address the Commission on this application? If not then I will close Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 14, 1995 Page 17 the public hearing. We need some action on the conditional use permit. Alidjani: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion that we have the City Attorney prepare findings. Shearer: Second Johnson: It has been 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 #9: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF R-8 FOR .40 ACRES BY D.W.. INC.: Johnson: I will now open the public hearing and invite the applicant or his representative to come forward and address the Commission. Gary Lee, 250 South Beachwood, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Lee: Mr. Chairman and Commissioners, the application tonight before you is zoning and annexation on four tenths of an acre (inaudible). The property in question consists of a 20 foot wide strip along parcels owned by Monroe, Barker and Kinkerstrom. That piece of ground is known as Dixie Lane. The ownership of the property. is in question and without clear title. In addition there is a 10 foot strip of property along the eastern side of Mirage Meadows that was in the same situation, there was question of title on that parcel as well when Mirage Meadows was platted. Wingate Subdivision which was proposed in 1993 and approved I would like to hand out a reduced copy of (inaudible). As you can see on the westerly side on the left part of this page there is a strip of land between the proposed Wingate Subdivision and Mirage Meadows and that is the piece that we are talking about. At the direction or suggestion I guess of the City Attorney Wayne Crookston to Dan Wood the developer of Wingate we needed to get that piece of property straightened out, get the title in order and proceed with annexation of that strip so that the pieces come together. Dan Wood proceeded with that quiet title action and was successful. Has obtained ownership along with Monroe's and Barker of that piece of ground, both the 20 foot Dixie Lane Strip and 10 foot piece that was left off of Mirage Meadows. The preliminary plat for Wingate is going now into a final plat process and we have taken into the account the 20 foot and 30 foot strip of land and distributed it throughout that portion of the development. I brought kind of a work sketch that we developed at the office fora final plat. (Inaudible) The configuration is basically the same, there was some modifications in some street alignment due to the shift in there to make lots usable and at the same we have generated some storm drainage facilities in there that Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 14, 1995 Page 18 weren't reflected in the original preliminary plat. The other item that we would like to discuss about this application and the Ada County review documents that you have in your packets. They had made a special recommendation to the City of Meridian to review the possibilities of dedicating this parcel of land to the City for a pedestrian and bike path facilities. I had discussed this particular comment with Ada County Highway District Technical review committee about 10 days ago and suggested to them that we not dedicate the entire strip for access, pedestrian access. It would make sense to go ahead and use that piece south of Oakcrest Drive to provide that pedestrian access to the Avest property or the future Fred Meyer site, but it would be difficult to extend it north towards Kearny Place. The biggest reason is that the last phase of Kearney Subdivision was to include a culdesac layout that would be situated on what is now Gordon and Margaret Wood's property. If we were to put a 20 foot pathway from there up to Chateau Drive it would seriously damage that layout. As you can see that last phase of Kearney it is very critical to have that width to get that culdesac to work. In addition the owners have expressed concern about having a pedestrian walk path in their back yard in that area and would not be favorable to that situation at all. I believe that concludes my discussion, if you have any questions I would be glad to answer them. Johnson: Thank you Gary, any questions for Mr. Lee? This is a public hearing anyone from the public like to address the Commission on this issue? Seeing no one then I will close the public hearing. Hepper: Mr. Chairman, I move we have the City Attomey prepare findings of fact and conclusions of law on this property. Alidjani: Second Johnson: We have a motion and a second to have the City Attorney prepare findings of fad and conclusions of law for annexation and zoning of R-8 for .40 acres by D.W., Inc., all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #10: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A GIFT SHOP AND OFFICE USE BY BRENT AND GWEN ALGER: Johnson: At this time I will open the public hearing and invite a representative or the applicant to be sworn in and address the Commission. Gwen Alger, 120 East State Avenue, was sworn by the City Attomey. Meridian Planning ~ Zoning Commission March 14, 1995 Page 19 Johnson: Just basically encapsule what you have planned there or you can just make yourself available for questions, whatever you want to do. Alger: I am going, I already have an existing shop in one building, I am just moving it over to another building. I am going to add, it is a historic home built in 1908, it is going to be restored and eventually registered. There are 3 rooms upstairs that I would like to make into office studios, in other words one person office, non-traffic type offices. Johnson: This is just like 2 doors down from the east to where you are now. Any questions of Gwen? Hepper: Did you see the comments from the Meridian Fire Department? Alger: Yes Hepper: It said if the upstairs is opened up to the public the upstairs will need to be changed to meet the codes. Alger: And the upstairs won't be open to the public. Johnson: Thanks Gwen, this is a public hearing is there anyone that would like to address this application in front of the Commission? Seeing no one #hen I will close the public hearing. We need findings of fact on this gentlemen. Alidjani: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion that we have the City Attorney prepare findings. Shearer: Second Johnson: We have a motion and a second to have the City Attorney prepare findings of fact and conclusions of law, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #11: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR CHILDREN'S LEARNING CENTER DAY CARE BY RICK AND GEORGIANA ELLIOTT: Johnson: I will now open the public hearing and ask that the representative for the applicant or the applicant address the Commission at this time. Georgians Elliott, 1903 North Waterfall, was sworn by the City Attorney. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 14, 1995 Page 20 Elliott: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission I am here as a future owner/operator to represent Bright Beginnings Learning Center for a conditional use permit. The property in consideration is located 1/8 of a mile east of the Watertower on Watertower Lane known currently as Lot 7 of Honor Park Subdivision No. 2. The property at this time is zoned commercial. The property is approximately 1 acre consisting of 208 feet across the front of the property. Located also at the front of this property is at this time a 45 foot driveway. We plan to alter this existing driveway to 30 feet across and install a second driveway also 30 feet across at the opposite end of the property for easy access to drive, smooth traffic flow pattern per the Ada County Highway District recommendations. Across the front of the property and along the street there will be a standard 5 foot sidewalk which will be in accordance with the City. The parkway between the sidewalk and the parking lot will be approximately 10 feet wide with 1 to 2 feet high planted rolling knolls of grass. The sign for the business will be placed in the center of the grass with flower gardens surrounding the sign. The sign will be in accordance with the standards of the City of Meridian for zoning and development. Flowers will be changed seasonally to add beauty to this area and in addition the flowers around the sign there will be flowers around the center. The area located around the electrical box at both entrances to the drywell will also be planted in rolling grass from varying height from 1 to 2 feet and also accented with flowers and trees around the perimeter of these objects. There will be a parking lot consisting of 25 spaces provided for customers and employees which will meet the off street parking and will be in accordance with the City of Meridian zoning and development ordinance. Paving and striping will also be in accordance with the City of Meridian. The parking lot will also include 2 handicapped spaces with cut out curbs and a graduated incline walkway to the front door that will meet the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The building to be built will be approximately 3025 square feet, it will be built out of textured gray cinder block approximately 10 feet high with a pitched roof. The roof will be cobalt steel blue which will include 2 skylights in the center. In the front there will be 2 bay windows one on each side of the front door and there will be approximately 3 windows down each side of the rear of the property. Over the windows on the side and rear will be cobalt blue awnings to add to the exterior decor and to help shade and control the heat inside. In addition to adding to the decor of the business itself these extra items will attract other business to these area. The gray cinder block and cobalt blue that has been chosen will blend in nicely with the other existing facilities within the area. The rolling grass and abundance of trees and flowers will add to the cheery atmosphere of Meridian. The advantage to having a day care center at the business complex adds to the attraction of not only future business but businesses with employees who need day care. The convenience to the businesses existing is exceptional. The hours of the day care will be from 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. Monday through Friday. A 1/2 acre of the property will be used for playground, the playground will consist of a large multi-colored play structure that will be permanently cemented into the ground. Under the structure will be decorative and safe wood chips. The rear of the property will be a replicated Old town of Meridian which will Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 14, 1995 Page 21 include a cafe, bank, police station and post office for the children to play in. The structures will not exceed 4 feet in height and can be easily moved around the property as the need arises. Winding throughout the town along the grass will be cement road (inaudible) for the children to ride big wheels and tricycles. In the middle of the road course will be a large sand box. The remainder of the area will be in grass used for play yard with a 1/2 acre being solely devoted to the play area of the use, the use of story will only be used on rare occasion when parents of our children enroll our students into some function that is to be participated in the parks such as soccer, baseball, swimming. Bright Beginnings in no way will use the park for recreational uses. I would like to license Bright Beginnings for 100 children, the building according to the Fire Department can hold approximately t30 children. Because of flexible hours and school schedules although I am requesting licensing for 100 at no time will there actually be 100 children at the site. Once the building is complete and the license is obtained will be provided to the City immediately. I currently hold an Idaho Teaching Credential. The exterior of the property will be fenced with a chain link fence of 5 feet prior to the first day of operation. Inside the perimeter of the fence 10 to 20 foot maple and aspen trees will be planted not to interfere with the operation of the City's water and sewer lines. Since the piece of property backs up to the park the tree line of the park will be continued down the west from the perimeter of the piece of property for a continuous park like setting. Any new businesses coming to the area will not only have the park to enjoy but the convenience of a day care center. Any existing irrigation or drainage crossing the property to be included in this project shall be tiled per the City ordinance and handled by our architect Jerry Wolfe. In addition Jerry Wolfe will also submit a plan for the drainage and off street parking to the City Engineer as required. Detailed site and building plans will be provided for approval as part of the building permit process by Jeny Wolfe. Do you have any questions? Johnson: I am sure we have some, anyone from the Commission? I have just an obvious question while they are thinking. And you may have answered it, but you read too fast for me, if you are not going to need it for 10 children and you said in now way would there ever be 100 children there why are you getting licensed for 100. Is there a certain breaking period there on licensing? Elliott: There is a certain breaking period on licensing and because of the before and after school kids they come in and they leave. So you would not have them on the premises all day long. Johnson: What would be the next logical step down for licensing? Elliott: 75 Johnson: And 75 isn't adequate is what you are saying? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 14, 1995 Page 22 Elliott: Not really Johnson: Anyone else have any questions? Hepper: The City Engineer had a comment on item #7 about the size of the building being large enough to support that many children, I guess if you wouldn't have that many children in there. Does the State set the standard. Elliott: The Fire Department sets the standard how the large the building has to be to accommodate the children. Alidjani: What is the (inaudible) Elliott: 35 square feet Alidjani: Per child Elliott: Per child Hepper: And that would allow 80 children in there at any one time? Elliott: Yes, which I hope we don't have to do at one time. Crookston: I have a question, how do you control the number of children you have when there may be more than 80 there. Elliott: With adequate staff. Crookston: But I mean if it is 35 square feet per child but how many is that for, that would be 3500 square feet for 100. You could, I don't know the situation but I am posing a question. Let's say you had 95 kids there on site what would you do. Elliott: The way that I have it set up to run the business is before and after school care. The after school kids would only be there for approximately 1 1/2 hours. Meanwhile the full time children that have been there through pre-school all day have gone home. Do you see where there is a lapse there? Crookston: I am just wondering though it appears to me it is just an off sight chance that the kids that are there during the day don't go home for some reason, are you going to say that you will take them home. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 14, 1995 Page 23 Elliott: No, what I would do at that point is if it looks like enrollment is going to be too high I won't take them so that the center is not so full that we are busting at the seams although that would be nice. Crookston: I guess part of my question is do you intend to operate on the basis that you are only going to take so many people? Elliott: Right Crookston: So you will not have let's say monthly day care to say to Sally Smith I will take you kid for July and then it turns around and in July you have 95 other kids there and she comes in and says she wants you to take her child,. what do you do? Elliott: Well she would register first of all and pay registration fees, her spot is saved and nobody can take her spot. So once you come up to your amount that you are going to take that is it you don't go over that. Because of the registration process that is how you eliminate having too many or not enough. Hopefully we will have too many. Crookston: 1 agree, your not out there to not make money. Hepper: 1 guess another question on that is what if some of the kids weren't picked up on time due to weather or some other thing or perhaps some other kids arrived early and you exceeded your allowed use by the Fire Department? At no time according to the Fire Department should there be more than 80 students in there. Have you got any contingencies in there. Elliott: When the parents enroll the child in the center they will specifically state the times of day that there child will be there. If there child is going to be there from 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. then I will (inaudible) and not take any more to go over that amount. If they are going to be picked up at 3, they are picked up at 3, they will have an alternate person come pick them up if the parents are not available to pick them they will be called. Hepper: So you will have a list of names of alternate people if the child is not picked up you can make a phone call and see that they are picked up so that you don't exceed your capacity. Alidjani: One other question in regard to the (inaudible) how many by State law (inaudible) for the boys and girls? Elliott: 5 for boys and 5 for girls, 1 am going to have it separated, 10 is what is required. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 14, 1995 Page 24 Alidjani: Ten total? Crookston: That is not 10 (inaudible) Elliott: Ten toilets Alidjani: The 25 or 35 foot per child does it include the bathroom area? Elliott: It does not include the bathroom or the kitchen. Johnson: If you pull the bathroom and kitchen out then we are down in the areas of 70 somewhere. Elliott: That is where we got the 80 we subtracted the bathroom and kitchen out and multiplied it and that is where we got the 80. Johnson: If you take 35 and it is 3025 it gives 86 and then I don't know the size of your kitchen and bathroom you pull that out that would be very close to 70 something or 80. Well I think you can see our concern, being over crowded and not being able to comply with the safety standards for the kids. We take special care in anything dealing with children particularly day care centers, child care. Have you reviewed all these comments by the public works department? Elliott: Yes Johnson: Do you have any questions or concerns with any of the other recommendations? Either site specific? Elliott: No Johnson: No problem with parking or landscaping? Elliott: None Johnson: Does anyone else have any questions? Crookston: 1 just have one more, do you have your day care license now? Elliott: No, I cannot apply for it until the building is actually there but do I have an Idaho Teachers Credential in teaching at this time for Meridian. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 14, 1995 Page 25 Alidjani: (Inaudible) Elliott: I have run an in home day care out of home with 10 kids (inaudible) and I have been teaching for 6 years. Crookston: One more, how many employees are you going to have? Elliott: Seven Johnson: This is a public hearing, anyone else from the public that would like to address the Commission on this? Seeing no one then I will close the public hearing at this time. This application would require findings of fact if that is your pleasure. Alidjani: I would like to ask a question from Gary or Shari. (Inaudible) State Law (inaudible) Stiles: The Uniform Building Code requires 35 square feet per child for that kind of an occupancy. Alidjani: (Inaudible) Johnson: We can address that in the findings though. Shearer: They will address that when they do the building permit also. Johnson: Any other discussion or comments? Shearer. I move we have the Attorney prepare findings of fact and conclusions of law for this project. Hepper: Second Johnson: We have a motion and a second to have the City Attomey prepare findings of fact and conclusions of law, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #12: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY/FINAL PLAT FOR TEN MIL E SQUARE BY ALBERTSON'S, INC.: Johnson: At this time I will open that public hearing and invite the applicant or his Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 14, 1995 Page 26 representative to address the Commission. Gordon Anderson, 960 Broadway Avenue, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Anderson: Albertson's is requesting to get a preliminary and final approval fora 2 lot subdivision. The existing parcel is an almost 7 acre parcel bounded on the north by Cherry Lane and on the east by Ten Mile. What they are going to request along with this subdivision is that they get a zero lot line designation between proposed shops A and proposed Albertson's store. There was a hearing last week by the City Council on that zero lot line. The City prepared their comments and Albertson's indicated to be in agreement with all of the comments which are pretty much standard for preliminary final approval with the exception of Note No. 2 which is on page 3. Albertson's position is that they want to grant an easement for public utilities, drainage and irrigation but they would like to be define more specific than just a 10 foot easement that abuts the right of way on Ten Mile and Cherry Avenue. The way they intend on accomplishing that is to find out where the designed utilities are going to be and then have speck easements in just those areas alone. If the utility companies are in agreement with that that is what we would like to do in lieu of item #2. Johnson: Before we move on do you have any comments on that, have you been approached any discussion on that Gary or Shari? Are you saying then that is too broad and not definitive enough of a statement is that what you are saying? Anderson: It is especially with 2 accesses they don't want the utility company in there tearing up a driveway and not allowing access and they would like to have a little bit of control where the utilities are going to be in order to best facilitate ingress and egress to the center. Johnson: Could you give us a comment on what the usual practice is Gary? I think what I am understanding here is Albertson's wants influence of say on where the easement goes and is that possible I guess is my question? Smith: Yes 1 think so. This is a typical note that we use for residential subdivisions for utilities that extend along the front of the lots outside of the (inaudible). Johnson: You don't anticipate a problem with the request or concern here? Smith: As long as we have, we do this for the purpose of the other utilities not necessarily sewer and water, but power, gas, telephone. t don't know where those folks are located, if they are within the public right of way then they don't need the easement, if they are not then they need the easement I would assume. We do that for their purposes. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 14, 1995 Page 27 Anderson: If I could comment, typically what will end up in the 10 foot adjacent to the property line inside the property would be their risers or pedestals, transformer pads and we can accommodate that with an easement that just sun'ounds that utility. That is what we are after. Smith: I guess 1 would relent to the utilities, if that is, in a subdivision that not generally the case they are in that easement they are outside the public right of way and they are within that easement. Because we only have a limited distance between back of sidewalk and the edge of the right of way and so they do stray over into the private property or into that utility easement. So that, like 1 said earlier that is standard statement, standard requirement that we use on subdivisions to allow the utility to locate. (Inaudible) on final plats we normally always get comments from the utilities whereby they state they are requesting certain easements, certain width of easements. Johnson: I was under the impression they kind of dictated or at least requested where the easement would be, whatever fits their needs. Smith: Right Johnson: It is really nothing that we decided for them was my impression. Smith: Correct, and typically our utilities, the sewer and the water part of this thing is located within a public right of way or right on the edge. So there isn't a problem from the City utility standpoint. One thing that, and I may have missed it in this review by my staff is one thing that we do need consideration from Albertson's for is an easement to extend sewer and water services to the property to the west which is owned by Wally Lovan. I visited with the architect for Albertson's concerning this issue and it may not have gotten transmitted to my staff to include that as a review comment but 1 have talked to Mr. Craig Slocum from CHSOA conceming that issue. Crookston: Mr. Chairman, there is a comment from Idaho Power that says we require a permanent 10 foot wide public utility easement along all lots adjacent to a road right of way dedicated to public or private use. Johnson: Which is also probably a standard comment. Anderson: If they are not going. to need it we would like the right to not have that easement on the commercial subdivision. It may conflict with setbacks or other issues that could come up. Johnson: I don't think we are in a position to grant any exception to that is my own feeling Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 14, 1995 Page 28 are we Wayne? Crookston: It really depends on what the utilities want because they have the ability to condemn if they need to. Johnson: Absolutely. Smith: Mr. Chairman, I think this (inaudible) as the utility being out of its designated corridor and if another utility wants to locate within their designated corridor then they simply get permission from that utility. If we had permission from the utilities to not require these easements then I would think that would be appropriate. Shearer: Why are you concemed about this, isn't that supposed to be a landscaped area in the first 10 feet off the (inaudible) paving clear out to the existing right of way? Something sounds fishy here to me. Anderson: I am not real concerned with it personally but Albertson's does have concerns with maintenance of the utilities in that easement, closing down driveways, not accommodating the owner of the property needs due to the utilities needs. The utility may need to dig up that line, may need to occupy part of the driveway, may need to close it down or close all the driveways down. So as an owner needs to keep his doors open that is their concern and it has happened in the past. They have had better success with limiting the areas where those utilities are or maybe not limiting but specifying where the utilities need the easement, giving them the easement in that area only and not having a blanket easement that surrounds the property like that. So, if Idaho Power doesn't need that 10 foot or if they need it along a strip or portion of the property they would like to provide that for them and in just that area. Johnson: Well, we appreciate your comments but I don't think this body can resolve that. I think that is between Albertson's and the utility really. Anything else you would like to comment on? Anderson: Another issue is that of ingress/egress which is on page 2, item 11. Both properties have the same zoning designation, the proposed plat and the property to the west. Albertson's doesn't know what the intended design is going to be for that, it is hard for them to provide a future access corridor or location without know what the intended use of that is. They don't want to incumber a large portion of their property, they are having a hard time figuring a way to provide access in the future without accommodating the existing conditions which would be maintenance over that access, right of the ingress/egress. How can they limit that access to a future use. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 14, 1995 Page 29 Johnson: Well, you can certainly understand the position of the property owner to the west can you not? Anderson: Does that mean that Johnson: That just means that I think that is a pretty standard request that we have access to adjacent properties and we take that into consideration when we Zook at a plat and look at a presentation such as yours so we don't shut off adjoining parcels and we don't limit the use of the adjacent land. Anderson: By Ada County policy and standards, a piece of property with 150 to 600 foot of frontage is allowed 2 access. So is the circulation to better the property to the west or is the intent to limit them to less access points on the property. We are not really sure how we can encumber the property properly with an access easement not knowing what that use is and not knowing how they are going to access that property in the future. Johnson: Is this at all related to your comment Gary or is this strictly with respect to sewer? Smith: Strictly to sewer. Anderson: ACHD has a similar comment on there (End of Tape) on ACHD's facts and findings page 4 this is their report dated March 6th, item 9. In the tech review meeting they didn't have a real good explanation why they wanted that access without knowing what the intended use of that property is. Still by policy they are allowed 2 accesses with the frontage that they have. Hepper: I guess I don't understand, you guys are making the proposal for the lot but you are not going to allow them to have an access? That is what I am getting. Anderson: Let me clarify, Johnson: I think we are getting off track here, I don't like the tone of the way things are going, it seems to be dictating. Anderson: What we have here is the existing parcel, it is almost 7 acres, then we have proposed Lot 1 and proposed Lot 2. This is the westerly parcel that we are talking about. The subdivision will incorporate a cross access easement to be recorded simultaneously to the subdivision map itself. What it looks to me and what this comment 9 from ACRD they want some kind of an access to this parcel here. Is that how you read it? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 14, 1995 Page 30 Hepper: I was under the impression we were referring to Lot 1 under the engineer's comments, item 11. I am confused, we are talking about something else. Anderson: They must be trying to incorporate 2 comments here, they want, the staff, maybe we can get some clarification. They're asking for an access easement to the westerly parcel which is not a part of the subdivision then also in the statement they say they want a cross access easement to Lot 1. Which would be across Lot 2 to Lot 1 and we are going to accommodate that. What we are questioning is what is the need for an access easement to this parcel here. Johnson: And ACRD apparently is only addressing the single issue. Anderson: Comment 9 Johnson: Which is to the west for access to Cherry Lane Anderson: And by policy with a 150 foot to 600 foot frontage they are allowed 2 access points on that property. Johnson: ACRD is talking about a cross access, right? Anderson: Yes, they are talking about either an access corridor maybe they are talking about a cross access. Johnson: I think they used the term cross did they not? Anderson: ACRD in their March 6th preliminary facts and findings don't talk about a cross, oh I guess they do I am sorry. Johnson: Number 9 says provide a cross access easement to the abutting parcel to the west for access to Cherry Lane. Anderson: What I was thinking interpretation of a cross access is access that allows them to go in and out of every driveway anywhere across Lot 2 to Lot 1. They are stating they want a cross access easement could be a corridor easement to this parcel. Without knowing what the use is here it is kind of hard to describe where that would be and definitely don't want to allow this person now to go across all of lot 2. Johnson: Well, that use is probably not known yet. Are there any other items? Any questions for the applicant? Mr. Shearer? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 14, 1995 Page 31 Shearer: 1 think we have covered it. Johnson: Thank you very much, this is a public hearing, is there someone else that would like to come forward? Wally Lovan, 3415 Cherry Lane, was sworn by the City Attorney. Lovan: As you members here of the board know that I do have access to the property we were just talking about just west of Albertson's. I am concerned about Albertson's store, I became concerned in talking with the Mayor and he was talking about shielding of some of the homes across the ditch. About November of 1994 1 was contacted by a representative from Albertson's to perhaps purchase my property. And we have never been able to get together since then and I assumed that because of lack of interest on their part I will have to wait until there is a bona fide offer for that property. In the meantime I will have to live there and I do need some type of shielding from these people. Their front door will be in my back door. Johnson: About where is your home located on there, can you just kind of point it out to us? Lovan: (Inaudible) that is what I am requesting this evening that some type of shielding of noise and sight be required by Albertson's to shield my property. Alidjani: (Inaudible)right of way from your side, especially on the back side of (inaudible} equipment that you have (inaudible). Lovan: The old bridge was torn out. There is no access. Alidjani: (Inaudible) Lovan: Cherry Lane itself. Johnson: It would appear to me that the location of the access to the west could hurt you as much as it could help you, depending on where it is located in terms of what you are trying to do to screen yourself from the project. Lovan: I certainly don't want to live there the rest of my life so 1 would not turn down a good reasonable offer. Alidjani: I think you are going to be there a while because we are going to finish the 18 holes and then you are going to play a while. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 14, 1995 Page 32 Lovan: How am I going to get money to finish the 18 holes? That is all I have. Johnson: Any questions for Mr. Lovan? Hepper: Wally you mentioned a screen, it shows on the site plat here that there is a wood fence proposed along there. Lovan: I have one in there now, if that is the fence 1 am sure they are considering there. It is a split rail fence. Hepper: What did you have in mind? Lovan: Well, something that will keep people from looking into me out on my barbecue. Hepper: Are you proposing a 6 foot cedar fence or (inaudible). Shearer: (Inaudible) between residential and commercial. Hepper: It also states a 10 foot side yard building setback which certainly would not meet a 20 foot landscaping easement. You want something where people cannot look through you and you can't necessarily see them. Well a split rail fence does not do it. That is the only question I had. Johnson: Anyone else from the public that would like to address the Commission at this time? Bob Higgins, 1400 Oak Creek Way, was sworn by the City Attorney. Higgins: I just have a question of the developer, we own the houses on this side of the culvert and I am curious to know about the height of the building that is going to be built and what type of fencing is going to be on the back side of that property because they are looking dead into our backyards, that is the curiosity that I have. Johnson: We will permit the developer to come bads after all of the testimony and address those concerns. Are there any others? Higgins: I do have one other question, is that the original location of the plan for Albertson's, originally we had heard that it was on the other side of Ten Mile south of Cherry Lane. Johnson: I don't know the answer to that. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 14, 1995 Page 33 Crookston: It is my understanding that there was a mix up that they somehow, that there was some indication that it was going to be on the east side of Ten Mile I believe. I do have a question, you have lots in Parkside Creek? Higgins: Yes Johnson: Thank you, anyone else that would like to come forward? Michelle Robey, 1418 Oak Creek Way, was swom by the City Attorney. Robey: My question is in regard to his last statement was, Johnson: Excuse me who's last statement? Mr. Higgins? Robey: Yes, about the prior agreement to Albertson's being built somewhere else. My question I guess would go to the developer, what was the reason for the change, we just built there we are in Parkside too and we asked in regards to this land before we built and we were told that Albertson's was being built somewhere else. Johnson: Was that a realtor or someone that told you that? Robey: Yes Johnson: Well, we can perhaps get to Albertson's representative to answer that question if he knows the answer. Robey: I am issuing concern here obviously for the same reason that the person just left is, the noise, the traffic and so on. Johnson: Any questions of Michelle? Thank you very much anyone else from the public? Would you like to please address those if you can, either one of you. Craig Slocum, 2581 West Leonard, was swom by the City Attorney. Slocum: I am representing CSHQA Architects, the architect for the applicant Albertson's. In regards to the question the Albertson's being proposed for the other comer of this intersection, that was an error in the Statesman. At no time that I am aware of has it ever been thought of for a different corner of the intersection. In regards to the concerns both Mr. Lovan and the property owners to the west and Rod's Parkside Creek, as a part of some variance that have been previously requested of the City Council. We are in the process of developing a detailed landscape plan that will indicate berming, the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 14, 1995 Page 34 construction of sound walls along the easement which abuts the Eight Mile Lateral. We had requested of the City Council only along the westerly edge of the property a variance to the landscaping and they approved it based upon us providing adequate screening. We are providing berms. To Mr. Lovan's property we are providing in excess of the required 20 feet I think it is a minimum 25. We would also berm that as well so that head light glare would not encumber his property. If I could address a couple of the issues that Gordon in his opening, the issues that Albertson's has a concern about. One the ten foot utility easement it is certainly not Albertson's wish to not give the utility agencies the easement that they require or that they need. They are certainly willing to work with them and give whatever they do need. They just felt that a blanket 10 foot easement may encumber the property more than is required by those utilities and that is all they are requesting is the ability to work with the utilities individually and it appears that they are a part of the plat process and would be involved in that. In regards to the other issue of cross access, or access it is (inaudible) and so does ACRD. The plat that Albertson's is requesting is strictly for the 7 acre site, they have an option to purchase this property an option to purchase only this property. They have no option to purchase Mr. Lovan's property that I am aware of currently. The plat should stand on its own individual merit and requiring the owner of this property to be encumbered by an access to Mr. Lovan's property I guess I don't follow the reasoning behind that. When Mr. Lovan currently has access and by all State rights and ACHD rights would be continued whomever that owner would be to have access. That is what they are really requesting the elimination of a very unnecessary easement. In both of those issues the utility and that easement Albertson's wishes to just not encumber the property that they own anymore than they need be. Alidjani: (Inaudible) some kind of berm (inaudible). Slocum: The plan still being developed and we will be getting that to Shari and the City Council I believe what we are proposing at this time is a 4 foot high berm. The distance between the west property line and our parking is I think a minimum of 25 feet. Hepper: Would there be any fencing? Slocum: Other than what exists there now? Hepper: Yes Slocum: None is proposed. Shearer: (Inaudible) Slocum: Yes, landscape plan indicates many trees and the exact species of which is what Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 14, 1995 Page 35 we would be submitting to both Shari Stiles and the City Council. Hepper: What about on the south property line, what was your proposed landscaping on that? Slocum: It is a combination of, I don't know if you have a plan in front of you. What we end up with is 2 triangle shaped pieces of landscaped area adjacent to the shops building. Those would be fully landscaped with trees, we are then required to provide a fence along the easement to Eight Mile Lateral and at that point we are proposing a chain link fence from the corner of Albertson's southeast to Ten Mile. The concern was what happened behind the Albertson's from the standpoint of trucks and noise so from the corner of Albertson's where it is near the easement southeast to Ten Mile we are proposing a masonry wall and a berm with 10 feet of landscaping. Hepper: What would be the height of that masonry wall? Slocum: I believe it is 6 feet. Hepper: Then from that nearest corner of the Albertson's to the property line going northwest that would be a chain link fence along there? Slocum: That is what we will submit, that is what we are proposing. Hepper: Is that a tiled ditch? Slocum: No the other variance that we requested of City Council was not to the it. That was granted for Rod's Parkside Creek and was granted to us last Tuesday. Hepper: So part of the reason for the chain link fence I would assume would be so that they burn the ditches they don't bum the fence down. Slocum: True Hepper: Has Albertson's, at some point in time, 1 would assume that Albertson's sent a letter to the property owners within 300 feet. Were the property owners along there aware that Albertson's was going in before the misprint in the Statesman? Do you have any idea at what point in time they became aware or they were noted or the developer was notified. Slocum: Of Rod's Parkside Creek, that I can't speak to. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 14, 1995 Page 36 Hepper: Was the developer aware that Albertson's was going in there prior to selling some of those lots? Slocum: I can't answer that, I would not know. Obviously Albertson's real estate people do a lot of dealings months maybe years before it is anything that we as the architects see. So I couldn't speak knowledgeably about. Johnson: Anyone else? Crookston: Does your architectural firm, do you do quite a few Albertson's stores? Slocum: Yes we do. Johnson: Is there anyone else from the public? Anyone else from the public that hasn't already testified? Robey: When we bought our land, do you want me to show you where our property is. (Inaudible) when we purchased our land we spoke with our builder and our realtor about this land back here. We knew that was commercial, it was our understanding. We also were told by both that Albertson's was not going in there. So to our knowledge and I know to Mr. Higgins and my brother-in-law Albertson's was not going in there. For my family we would not have built there if we had known. I have a question, we did not receive a letter, the only reason we are here is because my brother-in-law did. I know that Mr. Higgins has never received any information about this either. So just because my brother-in-law received it and he is the only one of us 3 that did receive any information about this Albertson's. My question is because we haven't received any information I have very little idea of the layout of this whole entire land. My question is the top part, the parking lot and the middle part is the Albertson's then what is the back triangle area. What is that small triangle area that is in my back part. What are those parts of that land? Johnson: In the notice you would have received if you would have received it, it would not give you that detail. That is what this hearing is all about. But I am concemed that you did not get notified if you are the owner of the property listed with the Assessor's office, I am concemed if that is true of Mr. Higgins too because that constitutes an improper notice and we have no way of policing that unless people tell us because the list of property owners is supplied by the developer. It is not supplied by the City and they are obligated to notify anyone within 300 feet so that this point in time 1 appreciate your comments I am interested in seeing a list of those people that were notified. Mr. Higgins did you have something you wanted to add? Higgins: I was concerned on the height of the building. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 14, 1995 Page 37 Johnson: The height of the building we never did address that. Higgins: We all bought those lots right there because they had a great view of Bogus, we don't have that view no more. I feel that was mis-represented to us. Johnson: I think that was an oversight so we will ask what the height of the building is and they probably have that for us. Anyone, either one of you that can answer that question. Slocum: I can't tell you the exact height because at this point Albertson's doesn't own the property and we certainly haven't done design documents. Johnson: Is there a typical height? Slocum: I think the zoning of this particular project allows a 35 however at the rear of the store we are typically 25 to 30 feet. I can just speak from a typical Atbertson's standpoint. Johnson: Okay, and addressing while you are there Michelle Robey's concern about what she might be seeing out her front door right at the back door t guess it would be. Slocum: (Inaudible) the Albertson's building is proposed to be here, (inaudible) these areas back here are landscaped and what is shown here is 60 foot easement that the (inaudible) and 30 feet on this property. Johnson: Where would the delivery entrance be? Slocum: (Inaudible) Johnson: And the actual dock or receiving area? Slocum: (Inaudible} Johnson: The access has to be off of Ten Mile right? Slocum: (Inaudible) Johnson: Thanks a lot, do you happen to have a list of those people you notified? t think we have got one here. We have a Robey listed at 1378 that might be brother-in-law or brother. Slocum: The list that we submitted with our applications was obtained from the Assessor's office and was current as of the day we got it. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 14, 1995 Page 38 Johnson: Do you know when that would have been? This list is dated as being received in Meridian on February 23rd of this year. Berg: (Inaudible) Johnson: Just for the record were he Higgins and other Robey's there prior to that? When was your date? (Inaudible) Johnson: Of 1995, those are fairly recent moves and this has been in progress for awhile. So the owner of the property on record at that time though would have gotten a notice which was L and R Sales was notified then. (Inaudible) Johnson: It is not recorded until it is closed. Well, I think that is something our City Attorney needs to look at rather than try to decipher that here. Is there anyone else from the public that has any further comment or questions? Questions from the Commission? Seeing no one then 1 will close the public hearing. This is a request for preliminary~nal plat. What is your pleasure or do you need guidance on what we do at this point? Guidance Counselor? Crookston: What do you need guidance on? Johnson: On our next move. Crookston: There are no findings required on plats. You basically have, you can approve, you can deny, you can table for additional information, those really are you options. Do you have a comment Gary, it looked like you wanted to say something. Smith: I was thinking about a couple of things, one was the access issue the cross access easement that the Highway District was requesting. Just as a note, the Highway District signs the final plat, if the applicant has an issue with the Highway District recommendation then I would suggest that the applicant take that up with the Highway District and resolve that with them. Our comment was just a reiteration of the Highway District's request. The second thing I wanted to ask was, I didn't hear the applicant respond to my comment concerning an easement for sewer service to the Lovan property. Also, I have talked with the project architect about an easement for water service because there is no water line in Cherry Lane in front of the Lovan property nor is there a sewer line. Those 2 issues need to be resolved whether they are resolved here tonight or not 1 don't think is critical Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 14, 1995 Page 39 but they do need to be resolved. Sometimes my signature on a final plat can get kind of stingy ff things don't get resolved. They do need to be resolved so I just wanted to make those comments. Johnson: I closed the public hearing, what is your pleasure gentlemen, what would you like to do considering we have at least 3 options. Shearer. I move we approve the preliminary and final plat with the conditions set forth by the City staff. Alidjani: How about the concern for the berm, fences, and all the other concerns that the people have. Shearer: I think the architect indicated those are in there. Hepper: (Inaudible) Alidjani: The berm is only 4 foot high and Shearer: (Inaudible) Alidjani: (Inaudible) they can see across he just wants some kind of shield (inaudible). Shearer: Landscaping, shrubbery. Johnson: We have a motion is there a second or more discussion? Hepper: I would like to see a stipulation added that a cedar fence be installed along the west property line as an addition to the motion. Alidjani: Do you have a problem with that suggestion? Shearer: (Inaudible) Hepper: What is the point of order if we wanted to make an addition to the motion? Johnson: Well, he would have to withdraw his motion or it dies for a lack of a second and then you have to have another motion. You are getting to the point of letting things die. (Inaudible) Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 14, 1995 Page 40 Hepper: I would like to amend the motion to stipulate the 6 foot Johnson: We have to vote on this one. Crookston: You can't vote on it because it hasn't been seconded. Shearer: You have to second and then he can make (inaudible) Alidjani: I will second his motion. Johnson: We have a motion and a second. Hepper: I would like to make an amendment that we require a 6 foot cedar fence along the west property line. Alidjani: I second that. Johnson: All those in favor of the amendment to the motion? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Johnson: Vote on the motion, all those in favor of the motion? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Johnson: Is there anything else you guys want to bring up tonight because that is the end of the agenda. Stiles: I would just like to clarify one thing on the site plan. Atbertson's has come in with a variance request on the 20 foot landscape and the tiling. As part of the findings for that the City Council is requiring that this site plan be presented to Council so that they can see the harming, the fencing, whether it is block or chain link, whatever else. If these people would like to give their name to the City Clerk we would be more than happy to let them know when that is going to be on the agenda. It is not going to be a public hearing but it will be brought before Council again. Johnson: I appreciate that. Anybody else? Shearer: I move we adjourn. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 14, 1995 Page 41 Hepper: Second Johnson: Moved and seconded we adjourn, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:43 P.M. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) APPROVED: CHAIRMAN ATTEST: ~~ ~L< i WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CI CL RK ORIGIN;-~~ BEFORE TBE MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION E. L. BEWS APPLICATION FOR ANNE7CATION AND ZONING SOUTH OF FRANKLIN ROAD, NORTH OF I-84 MERIDIAN, IDAHO FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The above entitled annexation and zoning application having come on for consideration on June 14, 1994, at the hour of 7:30 o'clock p.m. on said date, at the Meridian City Hall, 33 East Idaho Street, Meridian, Idaho, and was tabled to November 9, 1994, then tabled again to March 14, 1995, the Planning and Zoning Commission having heard and taken oral and written testimony and the Applicant appearing through his representative, Wayne Forrey, 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 March 14, 1995, the first publication of which was fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing; that the matter was duly considered at the March 14, 1995 hearing; that the public was given full opportunity to express comments and FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS - E. L. BEWS Page 1 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 reference is incorporated herein. 3. That the property is presently zoned by Ada County as R- T, Rural Transition; it has been farmed in the past, is presently utilized as pasture and farmland, plus fallow vacant land; that the Applicant requests that the property be zoned C-G, General Retail and Service Commercial and the representative stated that the land use would contain a variety of coordinated planned land uses that are compatible with the St. Luke's Hospital development. 4. That the property is adjacent to the St. Luke's West Medical Center Site; that the South boundary is Interstate 84 and the North boundary is Franklin Road. 5. That E. L. Bews is the Applicant and he owns the land; that the land consists of approximately 74 acres and he has consented to the application and has requested this annexation and zoning and the application is not at the request of the City of Meridian. 6. That the Meridian Planning and Zoning Administrator and the City Engineer's office submitted comments for the conditional use Application and they are equally applicable to this annexation FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS - E. L. BEWS Page 2 and zoning request; they stated that irrigation and drainage ditches must be tiled, existing domestic wells and/or septic systems must removed, and sidewalks shall all be provided in accordance with City Ordinances, and that the Applicant, per Ada County Highway District recommendation, will be required to prepare and submit a traffic study in conjunction with the St. Luke's Hospital Master plan; that the sewer service for this site to the Five Mile Sewer Trunk Line has been proposed by the Applicant; the feasibility of that proposal is being investigated by the Public Works Department; water service is subject to positive results from the City computer water model; that the legal descriptions submitted do not meet the requirements of Resolution 158; that this area is designated as Mixed/Planned Use Development in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan, which requires that all uses be approved under the conditional use permit process; that the plan submitted, is only conceptual and does not conform to requirements of 11-9-607; that pathways for pedestrian/bicycle access must be incorporated throughout this development; that the Applicant is to enter into a development agreement as authorized by 11-2-416 L and 11-2-417 D; the development agreement shall address, but not be limited to, the inclusion of the requirements of 11-9-605 C., G., H.2., K, and L, and the goals expressed in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan; that a minimum of ten percent of the site must be landscaped in accordance FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS - E. L. BEWS Page 3 with Planned Development - General Requirements; that minimum landscape setbacks of 35 feet beyond required right-of-way along Franklin Road and I-84 shall be provided; that co-ordination with St. Luke's Hospital Master Plan requirements is needed to ensure compatibility of development; and that at a minimum the City Council, should require detailed site plan review at City Council for each use proposed; that a drainage plan designed by an architect or an engineer shall be submitted for all off-street parking areas; that outside lighting shall be designed and placed so as to not direct illumination on any nearby residentials; and that all signage shall be in accordance with Meridian City Ordinances; that pathways for pedestrian/bicycle access must be incorporated throughout this development; that a minimum of ten percent (10~) of the site must be landscaped in accordance with Planned Development - General requirements; and that a minimum landscape setbacks of 35 feet beyond required rights-or-way along Franklin Road and I-84 shall be provided. 7. That the Meridian City Fire Department commented that a sub-station with fire fighters will be needed if the City allows this annexation. 8. That the Ada County Highway District submitted comments for the conditional use Application, they are equally applicable to the annexation and zoning, and they are incorporated herein as if FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS - E. L. BEWS Page 4 set forth in full which includes the special recommendation to require the preparation and submittal of a traffic study to the District that also considers the effects of the master plan for St. Luke's Hospital. 9. That the Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District and The Central Health Department submitted comments and they are incorporated herein as if set forth in full. 10. That the property included in the annexation and zoning application is within the Area of Impact of the City of Meridian. 11. 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. 12. That the property can be physically serviced with City water and sewer, if the lines are extended to the property by the Applicant. 13. That the Application states in No. 7., the Proposed land use section, as follows: "It is proposed that it be Commercial General (C-G), consistent with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan and Zoning and Development Ordinance. The land would contain variety of coordinated planned land uses that are compatible with the St. Lukes Hospital Development." 14. That the following pertinent statements are made in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan: FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS - E. L. BEWS Page 5 A. Under Land Use, Commercial Policies, 4.8U, it states as follows: "Encourage commercial uses, offices and medical-care uses to locate in the Old Town district, business parks, shopping centers and near high-intensity activity area, such as freeway interchanges." B. Under Land Use, Mixed-Use Area Adjacent to I-84 and Overland Road, it states as follows: "These areas are unique in that they are surrounded by arterials, immediately adjacent to freeway (I-84), are relatively level in topography, have a distinct linear shape, and are greatly affected by contiguous industrial, residential and commercial land uses. In order that compatible land uses and efficient use of the land might occur, this corridor is anticipated for a variety of planned, compatible mixed uses. Probable mixed uses for the areas could be commercial, combined medium-to-high density residential, open space uses (as a means to buffer highway noise), tourist lodging, industrial, office, medical, and related land uses." C. a. Under ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, Economic Development Goal Statement, Policies, Page 19, it is stated as follows: 1.1 The City of Meridian shall make every effort to create a positive atmosphere which encourages industrial and commercial enterprises to locate in Meridian. 1.2 It is the policy of the City of Meridian to set aside areas where commercial and industrial interests and activities are to dominate. 1.3 The character, site improvements and type of new commercial or industrial developments should be harmonized with the natural environment and respect the unique needs and features of each area. 1.5 Strip industrial and commercial uses are not in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS - E. L. BEWS Page 6 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. D. Under LAND USE, Mixed-Use Areas Adjacent to I-84, Overland Road and Franklin Road, Page 28, it is stated: 5.6 The development of a variety of compatible land uses should be provided in specific plans and 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 5.10 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 FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS - E. L. BEWS Page 7 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. 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 subiect to development review guidelines and conditional use permittinci procedures. (Emphasis added.) 5.15U The mixed-use area in the vicinity of the Overland Road/Franklin Road/ Eagle Road/I-84 interchange is a priority development area. E. Under COMMUNITY DESIGN, Policies, at Page 73, it is stated: 1. Entrance Corridors Goal Statement - Promote, encourage, develop and maintain aesthetically pleasing approaches to the City of Meridian. 2. Policies, a. 4.4U Encourage 35-foot landscaped setbacks for new development on entrance corridors. The City shall require, as a condition of development approval, landscaping along all entrance corridors. 15. That in the Rural Area section of the Comprehensive Plan, FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS - E. L. BEWS Page 8 Land Use, Rural Areas, page 29, it states as follows: "Land covered by this policy section has characteristics which generally allow for agricultural and rural residential activity due to the existence of irrigation systems, soil characteristics and relative freedom from conflicting urban land uses. Where community growth creates pressure for new development, it must be recognized that agricultural land can no longer economically continue to be identified or used as agricultural land to the exclusion of orderly city growth and development." 16. 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. 17. That Section 6.3, of the LAND USE section of the Comprehensive Plan, states as follows: "Existing rural residential land uses and farms/ranches shall be buffered from urban development expanding into rural areas by innovative land use planning techniques." 18. 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. 19. That the requested zoning of General Retail and Service Commercial, (C-G) is defined in the Zoning Ordinance at 11-2-408 B. 11. as follows: FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS - E. L. BEWS Page 9 (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. 20. That Planned Development is defined in 11-2-403 B, at page 20 of the Zoning Ordinance booklet, as follows: "An area of land which is developed as a single entity for a number of uses in combination with or exclusive of other supportive uses. A PD may be entirely residential, industrial, or commercial or a mixture of compatible uses. A PD does not necessarily correspond to lot size, bulk, density, lot coverage required, open space or type of residential, commercial or industrial uses as established in any one or more created districts or this Ordinance." and a Planned General Development is defined as follows: "A development not otherwise distinguished under Planned Commercial, Industrial, Residential Developments, or in which the proposed use of interior and exterior spaces requires unusual design flexibility to achieve a completely logical and complimentary conjunction of uses and functions. This PD classification applies to essential public services, public or private recreation facilities, institutional uses, community facilities or a PD which includes a mix of residential, commercial or industrial uses." 21. That under 11-2-409, ZONING SCHEDULE OF USE CONTROL, B, FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS - E. L. BEWS Page 10 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. 22. That 11-9-607 A, of the Subdivision Ordinance, states in part as follows: "The City's policy is to encourage developers of land development and construction projects to utilize the provisions of this Section to achieve the following: 1. A development pattern in accord with the goals, objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan; 5. A more convenient pattern of commercial, residential and industrial uses as well as public services which support such uses." 23. That 11-9-607 E, of the Subdivision Ordinance, states in part as follows: "A PD shall be allowed only as a Conditional Use in each district subject to the standards and procedures set forth in the Section. A PD shall be governed by Y.he regulations of the district or districts in which said PD is located. The approval of the Final Development Plan for a PD may provide for such exceptions from the district regulations governing use, density, area, bulk, parking, signs, and other regulations as may be desirable to achieve the objectives of the proposed PD, provided such exceptions are consistent with the standards and criteria contained in this Section." 24. That 11-9-607 F, of the Subdivision Ordinance, states in part as follows: FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS - E. L. BEWS Page 11 • 1. Planned Developments - Planned developments shall be subject to requirements set forth in the Zoning Ordinance and also subject to all provisions within this Ordinance. 8. Financial Guarantees - The developer shall post financial guarantees for all approved on-site improvements if required pursuant to 9-606 C." 25. That proper notice was given as required by law and all procedures before the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council were given and followed. CONCLUSIONS 1. That all the procedural requirements of the Local Planning Act and of the Ordinances of the City of Meridian have been met; including the mailing of notice to owners of property within 300 feet of the external boundaries of the Applicant's property. 2. That the City of Meridian has authority to annex land pursuant to 50-222, Idaho Code, and Section 11-2-417 of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian; that exercise of the City's annexation authority is a legislative function. 3. That the Planning and Zoning Commission has judged these annexation, zoning and conditional use applications under Idaho FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS - E. L. BEWS Page 12 ~~ Code, Section 50-222, Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code, Meridian City Ordinances, Meridian Comprehensive Plan, as amended, and the record submitted to it and things of which it can take judicial notice. 4. That all notice and hearing requirements set forth in Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code, and the Ordinances of the City of Meridian have been complied with. 5. That the Council may take judicial notice of government ordinances, and policies, and of actual conditions existing within the City and State. 6. That the land within the proposed annexation is contiguous to the present City limits of the City of Meridian, and the annexation would not be a shoestring annexation. 7. That the annexation application has been initiated by the Applicant, and is not upon the initiation of the City of Meridian. 8. That since the annexation and zoning of land is a legislative function, the City has authority to place conditions upon the annexation of land. Burt vs. The City of Idaho Falls, 105 Idaho 65, 665 P.D 1075 (1983). 9. That the development of annexed land must meet and comply FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS - E. L. BEWS Page 13 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. 10. That the Applicant stated no specific proposed use of the property and therefore it cannot be determined if the use would be in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, however any uses would have to comply with the Zoning Ordinance. 11. That the City adopted the Comprehensive Plan at its meeting on January 4, 1994, and has not amended the Zoning Ordinance to reflect the changes made in the Comprehensive Plan; thus, uses may be called for or allowed in the Comprehensive Plan but the Zoning Ordinance may not address provisions for the use; it is concluded that upon annexation, as conditions of annexation, the City may impose restrictions that are not otherwise contained in the current Zoning and Subdivision and Development Ordinances. 12. The Applicant has not stated or represented its specific intentions as to development, which is of concern to the Commission, even though the Applicant has filed a conditional use FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS - E. L. BEWS Page 14 permit application for several uses and has listed some possible uses; it is therefore concluded, as a condition of annexation and zoning, that any use or development of the property shall only be allowed as a conditional use. 13. That it is concluded that the City could annex the property and zone it C-G but once the property was coned C-G, the Applicant could place many :different uses on the property without additional approval from the City other than building permits, which limits the control that the City should have over the development and the uses of the property due to the mandates of the Comprehensive Plan. 14. That it is concluded that since the Comprehensive Plan, under LAND USE, Page 27, Mixed-Use Areas Adjacent to I-84, Overland Road and Franklin Road, in Section 5.10, on page 28, 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 is conditioned on being developed as a Commercial Planned Development, which is allowed in the General Retail and Service Commercial (C-G) FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS - E. L. BEWS Page 15 n u district, and under the conditional use permit process for each proposed use. 15. Therefore, it is concluded that the property should be annexed and zoned General Retail and Service Commercial (C-G), but only capable of being developed as a planned commercial development and only under the conditional use permit process for each proposed use. 16. That, as a condition of annexation and the zoning of C-G, the Applicant shall be required to enter into a development agreement as authorized by 11-2-416 L and 11-2-417 D; that the development agreement shall address, among other things, the following: 1. Inclusion into the development of the requirements of 11- 9-605 a. C, Pedestrian Walkways. b. G 1, Planting Strips. c. H, Public Sites and Open Spaces. d. K, Lineal Open Space Corridors. e. L, Pedestrian and Bike Path Ways. f. M, Pressurized Irrigation 2. Payment by the Applicant, or if required, by 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, FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS - E. L. BEWS Page 16 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 df 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 the 35 foot landscaped setback required under the Comprehensive Plan and landscaping the same. 11. Addressing the comments of the Planning Director, Shari Stiles. 12. The sewer and water requirements. 13. 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. 17. That Section 11-2-417 D of the Meridian Zoning Ordinance states in part as follows: FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS - E. L. BEWS Page 17 n L~ "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. 18. That it is concluded that the annexing and zoning of the property is in the best interests of the City of Meridian, and it is concluded that the annexation shall be conditioned on meeting the requirements of these Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and if they are not met the land may be de-annexed. 19. That the requirements of the Meridian City Engineer, Ada County Bighway District, Meridian Planning Director, Central District Bealth Department, and the Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District, shall be met and addressed in a development agreement. 20. That all ditches, canals, and waterways shall be tiled as FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS - E. L. BEWS Page 18 a condition of annexation and if not so tiled, the property shall be subject to de-annexation. That pressurized irrigation shall be installed and constructed, and if not so done the property shall be subject to de-annexation. 21. That the Applicant will be required to connect to Meridian water and sewer and resolve how the water and sewer mains will serve the land; that the development of the property shall be subject to and controlled by the Subdivision and Development Ordinance and the development agreement, and it shall only be developed as a commercial planned development and under the conditional use process. 22. That these conditions shall run with the land and bind the applicant and its assigns. 23. With compliance of the conditions contained herein, the annexation and zoning of General Retail and Service Commercial (C- G), would be in the best interest of the City of Meridian. 24. That if these conditions of approval are not met, the property shall not be annexed, or if already annexed, it shall be de-annexed. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS - E. L. BEWS Page 19 APPROVAL OF FINDINCi3 OF FACT AND The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of the City -~*_-~-of Meridian hereby adopts and approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONER HEPPER VOTED COMMISSIONER ROUNTREE VOTED ~ ~~~`-""`~ `" ~~ COMMISSIONER SHEARER VOTED L~I~.. ' / COMMISSIONER ALIDJANI VOTED -~'--t-~~~ ~'" ~ , CHAIRMAN JOHNSON (TIE BREAKER) VOTED RECOMMENDATION The Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends that the property set forth in the application be approved by the City Council for annexation and zoning under the conditions set forth in these Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, including that the Applicant, or assigns, enters into a development agreement prior to issuance of a building permit, a final plat being approved, or issuance of a conditional use for any proposed use, which ever comes first and that the property only be developed as a commercial planned development and under the conditional use process; that if the Applicant is not agreeable with these Findings of Fact and Conclusions and is not agreeable with entering into a development agreement, the property should not be annexed. MOTION: d ~. APPROVED~JA,G! _ DISAPPROVED: ~`/ " FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS - E. L. BEWS Page 20 0 CU ~T~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~ I I~ ~^/ i ~1~~T' i F F ~ ~ w ~ ~ a a 0 w w o ~ z o \ad ~~d U tw/~60 ~F.aO OO;F UR'.F waQ zaz o z ~0 0 U FZa ~za .~-i ^~ D .~i ~ q N 0.i-~i .7 0.i~0.7 ^^ F z w ~ o a a w x ~w d U ~ wa ~ a ~ z °' ~ ~~ ~a m ~] a~ z -- ~----- ~ ~ ORiGi~IAL BEFORE THE MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION E. L. BEWS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT VARIETY OF NIXED PLANNED BUSINESS AND RESIDENTIAL LAND USES SOUTH OF FRANKLIN ROAD NORTH OF I-84 & ON THE BAST SIDB OF ST. LURE'S WEST NEDICAL CENTBR NERIDIAN. IDAHO FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The above entitled conditional use permit application having come on for consideration on March 14, 1995, at the hour of 7:30 o'clock p.m. on said date, at the Meridian City Hall, 33 East Idaho Street, Meridian, Idaho, and the Planning and Zoning Commission having heard and taken oral and written testimony and the Applicant appearing through his representative, Wayne Forrey, and having duly considered the matter, the Planning and Zoning Commission makes the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. That a notice of a public hearing on the Conditional Use Permit was published for two (2) consecutive weeks prior to the said public hearing scheduled for March 14, 1995, the first publication of which was fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing; that the matter was duly considered at the March 14, 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 Page 1 CONDITIONAL USE - B. L. BEW3 2. That the property is located within the City of Meridian; that the general location of the property is south of Franklin Road, north of I-84 and on the east side of the St. Luke's West Medical Center in an area classified as a Mixed/Planned Use Development Area on the Generalized Land Use Map in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan and which is described in the application which description is incorporated herein. 3. That the property is currently zoned R-T, Rural Transition; that the Applicant has an application before the Commission for annexation and zoning to C-G, General Retail and Service Commercial. 4. That the zoning of General Retail and Service Commercial, (C-G) is defined in the Zoning Ordinance at 11-2-408 B. 11. as follows: (C-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; 5. That the Applicant, E. L. Bews, is the owner of record of the property; that the owner has submitted a consent to this application. 6. That the property is currently undeveloped, vacant and consists of 70.4 acres. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 2 CONDITIONAL USE - E. L. BEWS 7. That the proposed anticipated land uses by the Applicant are mixed, and consist of the following variety of uses: a. General retail b. Commercial and Professional Offices c. Auto Travel Plaza/Auto Services d. Extended stay Hotel Suites e. Motel Complex f. Retirement Center g. Nursing Home/Elderly Care Center h. Town houses i. Multi-family Apartment Center j. Patio homes k. Medical Services 1. Restaurants that Mr. Forrey stated that items a. through e. and 1. are allowed uses in the C-G district and items f. through k. are conditional uses. 8. Mr. Forrey then testified that there was a well on the property and that the City may be interested in acquiring the well; that he felt that the Americans with Disabilities Act was not applicable in the City; that in response to site specific requirement that the area is designated as a Mixed/Planned Use Development in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan, he stated that they were no requesting a planned development zone and he did not feel that the comment was applicable; and that detailed site review at the City council level should only be required for uses that are not allowed in the C-G zone. 9. The Applicant's representative did not state any specific uses that they had in mind or that were planned. 10. That the Meridian Planning and Zoning Administrator and the City Engineer's office submitted comments; they stated that FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 3 CONDITIONAL USE - 8. L. SEfi3 irrigation and drainage ditches must be tiled, existing domestic wells and/or septic systems must removed, and sidewalks shall all be provided in accordance with City Ordinances, and that the Applicant, per Ada County Highway District recommendation, will be required to prepare and submit a traffic study in conjunction with the St. Luke's Hospital Master plan; that the sewer service for this site to the Five Mile Sewer Trunk Line has been proposed by the Applicant; the feasibility of that proposal is being investigated by the Public Works Department; water service is subject to positive results from the City computer water model; that the legal descriptions submitted do not meet the requirements of Resolution 158; that this area is designated as Mixed/Planned Use Development in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan, which requires that all uses be approved under the conditional use permit process; that the plan submitted, is only conceptual and does not conform to requirements of 11-9-607; that pathways for pedestrian/bicycle access must be incorporated throughout this development; that a minimum of ten percent of the site must be landscaped in accordance with Planned Development - General Requirements; that minimum landscape setbacks of 35 feet beyond required right-of-way along Franklin Road and I-84 shall be provided; that co-ordination with St. Luke's Hospital Master Plan requirements is needed to ensure compatibility of development; and that at a minimum the City Council, should require detailed site plan review at City Council for each use proposed; that a drainage plan designed by an FINDING3 OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAN Page 4 CONDITIONAL USE - E. L. BL~'Pi3 architect or an engineer shall be submitted for all off-street parking areas; that outside lighting shall be designed and placed so as to not direct illumination on any nearby residentials; and that all signage shall be in accordance with Meridian City Ordinances; that pathways for pedestrian/bicycle access must in incorporated throughout this development. 11. That the Meridian City Fire Department commented that if the City is going to allow more building in this area the Fire Department is going to need a sub-station with fire fighters. 12. That the Ada County Highway District submitted comments and they are incorporated herein as if set forth in full which includes the special recommendation to require the preparation and submittal of a traffic study to the District that also considers the effects of the master plan for St. Luke's Hospital. 13. That the Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District and The Central Health Department submitted comments and they are incorporated herein as if set forth in full. 14. That in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan it is stated under LAND USE, Mixed-Use Areas Adjacent to I-84, Overland Road and Franklin Road, Page 28., as follows: "5.6 The development of a variety of compatible land uses should be provided in specific plans and 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. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 5 CONDITIONAL USE - E. L. BEWS s.lo 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 subiect to development review cuidelines and conditional use permittinc procedures. (Emphasis added.) 5.15U The mixed-use area in the vicinity of the Overland Road/Franklin Road/ Eagle Road/I-84 interchange is a priority development area. 15. That in the annexation and zoning Application in No. 7., the Proposed land use section, it is stated as follows: "It is proposed that it be Commercial General (C-G), consistent with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan and Zoning and Development Ordinance. The land would contain variety of coordinated planned land uses that are compatible with the St. Lukes Hospital Development." 16. That proper notice has been given as required by law and FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 6 CONDITIONAL USE - E. L. BENS all procedures before the Planning and Zoning Commission have been given and followed. 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 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 FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 7 CONDITIONAL USE - E. L. BEW3 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 and Zoning Ordinance. 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 since the Meridian Comprehensive Plan states under LAND USE, Mixed-Use Areas Adjacent to I-84, Overland Road and Franklin Road, at Page 28, in Sub-Sections 5.10 and 5.14U, that a) development should be conducted under Planned Unit Development procedures and as conditional uses, especially when two or more FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LATR Page 8 CONDITIONAL USfi - B. L. SSW3 differing uses are proposed, and b), all development proposals in this area will be subject to development review guidelines and conditional use permitting procedures, it is concluded that this application for a conditional use should be granted, but that as required and stated above in this paragraph, all uses shall only be approved if submitted as conditional uses and all of the procedures and requirements of the conditional use ordinance are met and complied with. 6. That all ordinances of the City of Meridian must be met, including but not limited to, the Uniform Building Code, Uniform Fire Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, Uniform Electrical Code, the Fire and Life Safety Code, and all parking and landscaping requirements. APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS The Meridian Planning and Zoninq Commission hereby adopts and approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONER HEPPER VOTED 1~---° ~ ~L COMMISSIONER ROUNTREE VOTED 'L~ l''," '' COMMISSIONER SHEARER VOTED ~"h_~ COMMISSIONER ALIDJANI CHAIRMAN JOHNSON (TIE BREAKER) VOTED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 9 CONDITIONAL USS - E. L. BENS ~~ DBCISION AND RECODMENDATION 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. MOTIO DENIED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAN Page 10 CONDITIONAL USE - 8. L. BEKS ,'II", ~ Pry ~ oF2- E. L. SEWS PROPERTY -FRANKLIN ROAD/I-84/EAGLE ROAD AREA LIST OF ANTICIPATED LAND USES P 1. General Retail 2. Commercial and Professional Offices P 3. Auto Travel Plaza /Auto Services P 4. Extended Stay Hotel Suites P 5. Motel Complex C,____~~ 6. Retirement Center ! ~' ~ 7. Nursing Home /Elderly Care Center ~ G:" 8. Townhouses L;IJ }~ 9. Multi-Family Apartment Center ~~,~'~ 10. Patio Homes C. i.'' l 1. Medical Services P ] 2. Restaurants .~ ~,~-~~ Q aria ~ N ~ ~'°-~ ~~~~' ~ a ,G NUt~~~S O~ m y~ A ~~~d~~~N p ~ a~ Z J ~ '0 Q J N~ N N .rl~ ~O N1 N ~ ~ M~ ~ ll.l ~~' U a A ~ ~ ORlGl~AL BEFORE TBE MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION J-U-B ENGINEERS, INC. ANNEXATION AND ZONING S 1/2 OF TBE NE 1/4 OF TA8 SW 1/4 OF SECTION 5, T.3N.,R.lE., B.M., ADA COUNTY MERIDIAN, IDAHO FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The above entitled annexation and zoning application having come on for consideration on March 14, 1995, at the hour of 7:30 o'clock p.m. on said date, at the Meridian City Hall, 33 East Idaho Street, Meridian, Idaho, and the Council having heard and taken oral and written testimony and the Applicant appearing through his representative, Gary Lee, 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 March 14, 1995, the first publication of which was fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing; that the matter was duly considered at the March 14, 1995, hearing; that the public was given full opportunity to express comments and submit evidence; and that copies of all notices were made available to newspaper, radio and television stations; 2. That the property included in the application for FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - D. W., INC. Page 1 annexation and zoning is described in the application, and by this reference is incorporated herein; that the property is 0.40 acres in size; it is located east of Mirage Meadows Subdivision, south of Kearney Place Subdivision and North of the proposed Dove Meadows Subdivision. 3. That the property is presently zoned by Ada County RT (Rural Transition); that the Applicant requests that the property be zoned R-8. 4. This 0.40 acres will be combined with the presently approved Wingate Park Subdivision. 5. That the adjacent lots in this subdivision will be altered slightly to include the additional 20 to 30 feet of what is now Dixie Lane. 6. That this annexation will allow the extension of public water from East Oakcrest Drive into Wingate Park Subdivision. 7. That this zoning is desirable at this location as this property is situated next to R-8 zoning to the north, west and east and is planned for the proposed Dove Meadows Subdivision. 8. That this zoning request and annexation will comply with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. 9. That the owners of record are Albert E. and Maxine Monroe, Norman and Donna Barker, Gordon and Margaret Wood and Dan Wood and they have requested the annexation and consented to the Application. 10. That the property included in the annexation and zoning application is within the Area of Impact of the City of Meridian. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - D. W., INC. Page 2 11. There were no property owners in the immediate area that testified objecting to the Application. 12. That Engineer, Gary Lee addressed the Coauniasion on behalf of Dan Wood, the Applicant. 13. Mr. Lee stated that the property in question consists of a 20 foot wide strip along parcels owned by Monroe, Barker and Kinkerstrom; that the piece of ground is known as Dixie Lane, and that the ownership of the property was in question and without clear title; that at the suggestion of the City Attorney, Wayne Crookston, Dan Wood proceeded with a quiet title action and was successful in obtaining ownership along with the Wood's, Monroe's and Barker's. 14. That the City Planning Director, Shari Stiles, and the Assistant City Engineer, Bruce Freckleton, submitted comments regarding this application. 15. That any existing irrigation/drainage ditches crossing the property shall be tiled per City Ordinance 11-9-605.M.; that continuation of the 20 foot pedestrian access included in the Avest preliminary plat must be maintained through to E. Oakcrest Drive; that the connection of Dixie Lane to Chateau Drive would be desirable for a pedestrian access; that applicant will need to coordinate with the Ada County Bighway District for continued access and or removal of the barricades from E. Oakcrest Drive to allow access to all properties currently using Dixie Lane as a vehicle access from Fairview Avenue. 16. That the Ada County Bighway District (ACED) submitted FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - D. W., INC. Page 3 site specific requirements and they are incorporated herein as if set forth in full which included the dedication of 50 feet of right-of-way for E. Oakcrest Drive crossing the parcel; that this dedication may be made by Warrantee Deed or by including it in a future phase of Wingate Place Subdivision. 17. That Nampa Meridian Irrigation District, Central District Health Department, Meridian Police Department and Meridian City Fire Department submitted comments and they are hereby incorporated herein as if set forth in full. 18. 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 Planning Act and of been met; including within 300 feet of property. 2. That the the the the the ~ity procedural requirements of the Local Ordinances of the City of Meridian have mailing of notice to owners of property external boundaries of the Applicant's 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 FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - D. W., INC. Page 4 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 annexation application has been initiated by the owners and the annexation is not upon the initiation of the City of Meridian. 7. That since the annexation and zoning of land is a legislative function, the City has authority to place conditions upon the annexation of land. 8. That the annexation application has been initiated by the Applicant, which is not the titled owner but the titled owners have consented to the annexation application; that the annexation is not upon the initiation of the City of Meridian. 9. That the development of annexed land must meet and comply with the Ordinances of the City of Meridian and in particular Section 11-9-616 which pertains to development time schedules and requirements and 11-9-605 M, Piping of Ditches; that the development of the property shall be subject to and controlled by the Subdivision and Development Ordinance; that as a condition of annexation, the Applicant, or if required, any assigns, heirs, FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - D. W., INC. Page 5 executors or personal representatives, shall pay, when required, any development fee or transfer fee adopted by the City. 10. Therefore, based on the Application, the testimony and evidence, these Findings of Fact and Conclusions, and the Ordinances of the City of Meridian it is ultimately concluded that Applicant's property should be annexed and zoned R-8; that the conditions should be those stated above and upon issuance of final platting and other conditions to be explored at the City Council level; that such annexation would be orderly development and reasonable if the conditions are met; that the property shall be subject to de-annexation if the requirements of these Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are not met. 10. That all ditches, canals, and waterways required to be tiled by City Ordinance shall be tiled ae a condition of annexation and if not so tiled the property shall be subject to de-annexation. 11. With compliance of the conditions contained herein, the annexation and zoning or R-8, Residential would be in the best interest of the City of Meridian. 15. That if the conditions of approval are not met the property shall be subject to de-annexation. APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts and approves these Findings of Fnct and Conclusions. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - D. W., INC. Page 6 ROLL CALL HEPPER COMMISSIONER ROUNTREE COMMISSIONER SNEAKER ALIDJANI VOTED CHAIRMAN JOBNSON (TIE BREAKER) DECISION AND ~~ ! ~~T1 6L.` L 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 waterways as a condition of annexation, and that the Applicant meet all of the Ordinances of the City of Meridian, and that if the conditions are not met that the property be de-annexed. MOTION: APPROVED: 1 DISAPPROVED: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - D. W., INC. Page 7 (IAN'` I \ ~ ~~ 0) OJ ~ o ~ m J ~ ~ w a~ ` n ~'~ti` r ~'1 ~ V o = o. 3 ~, N ~~ -\~ • ~ -~ j ~~ --- -----~ --'-'--- I m G N 4 ^ n n o * w x ^ I ~ 2S _ ~ m ___ n ____ ___ w{ a I ~~ '~ N I Y ~ N ^ Y ^ 1 r I I ^ ~ ~ 9 m - - -~ N Y ~ n ____ i ~ n $ w Z I I ^ N m I -- __~ W i ~i ~ , Q m ` m ~S i N i i ~~ ` m ` `~ J ``~ 1 ~ ' i ` V' W `~ I Z 1 ~ n ) ~ ~~ 1 ~ ' w I ---~ L____.J ~_ -- I r `~ I o m i m .>.,` b f i I .. . i i ^ } ~ i ~ , i ^ ~ .. i t ~ ~ 1~ o ~ i i i ^ w • ^ .SCI I; 1 1 i ~ 1 ~ -- ...r w~ ~ ' N I .SO AL ~ g i i$ ^ n I ~ i I I y___ ~---- ; --- -- ~ ,. < , ' -. , o 8 m jj w m n ~+ 1 z R ~ ~ I pY AY Ai .M .1L x n ~ I I ^ I ^ g ~ ^ ' 1 I ~ ~ S \ ~ 6rc~ ~- ------- ;~ ~ z. ~ ~ I I ~._~ n ' I .LO .O[ ^ tD I - - - ~ \~ I I ~.-.---~ --- I I ~,..~ O h- C Y ~ j Q ~ ,~ ~ Q ~ ~ NJ C C ~ Q ~ V ~ 7 ? ~ 3 o. 'a ~,~ 6~ ~ 3 z-~~ ~~# I! i~ ~1 ~; ,• ~` ~~il~ ,~ ;!~ ~i ; i ~,j i .~ 1}sl r~i ,li :,:~it :~, ~lil ~ !11 !'a ;1 . _ . _ ~; ~68~~ ~= r~~ra ~a ~:=91 ~~ ~~ ~$ pE ! ~! ~# ~0 • ORi~i~~~,ci~. BSFORS TRS I+~SRID3AN PLANNING ARD ZONINfd COMMI88ION (~If$N ALDER CONDITIONAL US8 PSRI[IT FOR OFFIC88 ARD RSTAIL (3i FT BSOP 134 S. STATE AVS. MBRIDIAN. IDAHO FINDINOB OF FACT ARD CONCLUSIONS The above entitled matter having come on for public hearing March 14, 1995, at the hour of 7:30 o'clock p.m., the Petitioner appearing in person, the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Meridian having duly considered the evidence and the matter makes the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions: FINDIN~iS 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 March 14, 1995, the first publication of which was fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing; that the matter was duly considered at the March 14, 1995, hearing; that the public was given .full opportunity to express comments and submit evidence; and that copies of all notices were available to newspaper, radio and television stations; 2. That this property is located within the City of Meridian and the Applicant is the owner of the property; the property is described in the application which description is incorporated herein. 3. That the property is zoned Old Town, which requires a FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - ALGER PAGE 1 l~ conditional use permit for the operation of a retail gift shop and three (3), private, one (1) person small offices which the application requests. 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 is in an area that is being converted from residences to business uses. 7. That sewer and water is available to the property. 8. That the Applicant is currently operating her retail shop in another building, located at 114, E. State and requests the conditional use permit for the same retail use and. office studios in the upstairs area, which offices are not open to the public. That the Applicant indicates that this is a historic home built in FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - ALGER PAGE 2 1908; that it is going to be restored and eventually registered with the Historical Society. 9. That the Meridian Planning and Zoning Administrator and the City Engineer's office submitted comments, stating that irrigation and drainage ditches must be tiled, off-street parking paving and stripping, a drainage plan, sidewalks, outside lighting and a screened trash area, and signage shall all be provided in accordance with City Ordinances. 10. That a detailed remodeling/site plan shall be submitted for review prior to permits being issued and sewer and water assessments may need to be adjusted. 11. That the Ada County Highway District (ACRD) submitted site specific requirements and they are incorporated herein as if set forth in full which included the constructing of pedestrian ramps on the corner of State Avenue and 2nd Street in compliance with Idaho Code, Section 40-1335, to replace damaged curb and sidewalk on State Avenue and 2nd Street with new curb and sidewalk, and that the driveway from the alley shall be located a minimum of 20 feet west of 2nd Street as measured from back-of-curb to near edge of driveway. 12. That Nampa Meridian Irrigation District, Central District Health Department, and Meridian Police Departments submitted comments and they are hereby incorporated herein as if set forth in full. 13. That the Meridian Fire Department submitted a comment regarding the upstairs offices; that the upstairs will need to be FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - ALGER PAGE 3 changed to meet Codes if opened up to the public. 14. That proper notice has been given as required by law and all procedures before the Planning and Zoning Commission have been given and followed. CONCLUSIONS 1. That all the procedural requirements of the Local Planning Act and of the Ordinances of the City of Meridian have been met including the mailing of notice to owners of property within 300 feet of the external boundaries of the Applicant's property. 2. That the City of Meridian has authority to grant conditional uses pursuant to 67-6512, Ida o 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, I aho Co e, 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 requiremeente 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 FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - ALDER PAGE 4 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. 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 landscaping requirements. 8. That the parking must be paved, the landscaping placed, FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - ALGER PAGE 5 and any outdoor storage and/or trash receptacles properly screened, prior to issuance of an occupancy permit. 9. That the structure on the property must be brought up to all codes prior to issuance of an occupancy permit. APPROVAL OF FINDIN(i8 OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts and` approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONER HEPPER COMMISSIONER ROUNTREE COMMISSIONER SHEARER COMMISSIONER ALIDJANI CHAIRMAN JOHNSON (TIE BREAKER) DSCISION AND VOTED ~~ VOTED ~'~-+- ~ J' ` VOTED ~~~ /'J \ . ~ (' J~/ VOTED The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council of the City of Meridian that they approve the Conditional Use Permit requested by the Applicant for the property described in the application with the conditions set forth in the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. MOTION: APPROVED• DISAPPROVED: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - ALGER PAGE 6 • • o~fei~va~. BSFORS TBS 1(SRIDIAN PLANNIRG ARD ZORING CO?D[ISSiON RICK A. AND GSORGIANA L. ELLIOTT CONDITIONAL USE PSRMIT BRIGBT BEGINNINGS CHILDREN'S LEARNING CSNTSR AND DAY CARE LOT 7, BLOCR 2 BONOR PARR SUBDIVISION MERIDIAN, IDABO FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAi9 The above entitled conditional use permit application having come on for consideration on March 14, 1995, at the hour of 7:30 o'clock p.m. on said date, at the Meridian City Rall, 33 East Idaho Street, Meridian, Idaho, and the Planning and Zoning Commission having heard and taken oral and written testimony and the Applicant appearing through Georgians Elliott, and having duly considered the matter, the Planning and Zoning Commission makes the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. That a notice of a public hearing on the Conditional Use Permit was published for two (2) consecutive weeks prior to the said public hearing scheduled for March 14, 1995, the first publication of which was fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing; that the matter was duly considered at the March 14, 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 Page 1 BRIGBT BEGINNINGS LEARNING CENTER 2. That the property is located within the City of Meridian; that the general location of the property is on the north side of E. Water Tower Lane, in an area classified as a Mixed/Planned Use Development Area on the Generalized Land Use Map in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan and is described in the application which description is incorporated herein. 3. That the property is currently zoned C-G, General Retail and Service Commercial. 4. That the zoning of General Retail and Service Commercial, (C-G) is defined in the Zoning Ordinance at 11-2-408 B. 11. as follows: (C_G_1 General Retail and Service Commercial: The purpose of the (C-G) District is to provide for commercial uses which are customarily operated entirely or almost entirely within a building; to provide for a review of the impact of proposed commercial uses which are auto and service oriented and are located in close proximity to major highway or arterial streets; to fulfill the need of travel-related services as well as retail sales for the transient and permanent motoring public. All such districts shall be connected to the Municipal Water and Sewer systems of the City of Meridian, and shall not constitute strip commercial development and encourage clustering of commercial development; 5. That the Applicant is not the owner of record of the property; that the owner of record is Mr. William A. Hon; that the owner has submitted a consent to this application. 6. That the property is currently undeveloped, vacant and is stated to be one (1) acre. 7. That the proposed use by the Applicant is stated to be to construct a 3,025 square foot learning center and day care to include five classrooms, each with a sink and drinking fountain, FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 2 BRIGHT BEGINNINGS LEARNING CENTER approximately 300 square feet each, a great room approximately 676 square feet to be used for a large group center or play area and dinning area at specific times; kitchen, storage, laundry and staff bathroom will be approximately 270 square feet; that the kitchen will consists of commercial appliances; that bathrooms facilities will accommodate in size, the children, including five (5) toilets for girls and five (5) toilets for boys. 8. Mrs. Elliott stated in the application that this location is centrally located, close to the freeway, within walking distance from the Meridian Park and swimming pool and that the water tower is a well-known landmark desirable for directions and advertising, and that this application will be harmonious with and in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan. 9. That at the public hearing or in the Application, the Applicant set forth as follows: a. That because of significant growth, the current location meets the demands of the local community as well as Nampa and Boise; that any new businesses in the community coming to the area will not only have the park to enjoy but the convenience of a day care center close by. b. That currently the proposed property has a 45 foot driveway located at the front; that per the Ada County Highway District recommendations, the Applicant plans to alter the driveway to 30 feet across and install a second driveway also 30 feet across at the opposite end of the property for easy access traffic flow pattern; that across the front there will be a standard 5 foot sidewalk; that the parkway between the sidewalk and the parking lot will be approximately 10 foot wide with 1 to 2 foot high planted rolling knolls of grass. c. That the sign will be placed in the center of the grass with a flower garden surrounding the sign; that the sign will be in accordance with the standards of the City of FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 3 BRIGRT BEGINNINGS LEARNING CENTER Meridian. d. That the parking lot will be paved and stripped and include two (2) handicapped spaces with cut out curbs and a graduated incline walkway to the front door that will meet the requirements of the City of Meridian and the Americana with Disabilities Act. e. That the building will be built out of tbxtured gray cinder block approximately 10 feet high with a pitched roof of cobalt steel blue to include two (2) skylights in the center; that the front will have two (2) bay windows one on each side of the front door and there will be approximately three (3) windows down each aide of the rear of the property; that over the windows will be cobalt blue awnings to add to the exterior decor and to help shade and control the heat inside. f. That the hours of operation will be from 7s00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. g. That one-half (1/2) acre will be used for the playground, consisting of a large multi-colored play structure that will be permanently cemented into the ground; that the rear of the property will be a replicated Old Town of Meridian which will include a cafe, bank, police station and post office for the children to play in; that the structures will not exceed four (4) feet in height and can be easily moved around the property as the need arises; that winding throughout the town along the grass will be cement road for the children to ride big wheels and tricycles with the remainder in grass; that in the middle of the road course will be a large sand box. h. That the Applicant would like to license the facility for 100 children; that according to the Fire Department the building can hold approximately 80 children; that because of flexible hours and school schedules the Applicant is requesting licensing for 100 but at no time will there actually be 100 children at the site at one time. i. That she, Mrs. Elliott, currently holds an Idaho Teaching Credential and cannot apply for .her day care license until the building is actually built; that she will employ seven employees. 10. That there was no testimony in opposition to this application. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 4 BRIGHT BEGINNINGS LEARNING CENTER 11. That the Applicant has submitted the owners consent to the Application. 12. That the Meridian Planning and Zoning Administrator and the City Engineer's office submitted comments, stating that irrigation and drainage ditches must be tiled, off-street parking paving and stripping, a drainage plan, sidewalks, and signage shall all be provided in accordance with City Ordinances; that all construction shall conform to the requirement of the Americans with Disabilities Act; that sewer and water assessments will be determined during the building plan review process and that no permanent structures, trees, etc., that would interfere with the operation of the City's water and sewer lines will be permitted within the existing easements on this lot; that detailed site and building plans be provided for approval as part of the building permit process; that all landscaping and fencing shall be in place prior to operating day care; that this Conditional Use Permit should contain a provision for yearly review at the option of the City Council; that the hours of operation shall not extend beyond those represented by the Applicant and approved by the Council; that the Applicant should ensure that the day care facilities are adequate for recreation without relying heavily on the City Park, do to the impact of 100 children utilizing Storey Park on a regular basis; that the Applicant shall ensure design and operation of the facility will not discourage other commercial business from building in this subdivision; that the proposed size of the FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 5 BRIGBT BEGINNINGS LEARNING CENTER building would not appear to support an occupancy of 100 children; that all parking areas must be a minimum of four (4) feet from Ada County Highway District's right-of-way in accordance with 2-414.C.; that the Applicant should provide trees along the frontage of this property as well as the grassed area behind the building, and that the Applicant shall submit a copy of day care license for the facility prior to opening and to provide evidence of operators' licenses upon request. 13. That the Ada County Highway District (ACRD) submitted site specific requirements and they are incorporated herein as if set forth in full which included the construction of a 5-foot sidewalk abutting the parcel; that the driveways shall be permitted and shall be 24 to 30-feet wide, separated by a minimum of 50 feet, and located, if possible, 25 feet from the side property lines and a minimum of 50 feet from any driveway on the adjacent parcels and that Applicant shall replace unused portion of curb cut on Watertower Lane with standard curb, gutter and sidewalk. 14. That Nampa Meridian Irrigation District, Central District Health Department, Meridian Police Department and Meridian City Fire Department submitted comments and they are hereby incorporated herein as if set forth in full. 15. That proper notice has been given as required by law and all procedures before the Planning and Zoning Commission have been given and followed. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 6 BRIGHT BEGINNINGS LEARNING CENTER 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 hae authority to grant conditional uses pursuant to 67-6512, Ida o 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 and Zoning Ordinance. c. The use apparently would be designed and constructed, to be harmonious in appearance with the intended character of the FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 7 BRIGRT BEGINNINGS LEARNING CENTER 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 coat 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 Fire and Life Safety Code, all parking and landscaping requirements and the comments of the Planning and Zoning Administrator and the City Engineers office must be met and complied with. 6. That the parking must be paved, the landscaping placed, and any outdoor storage and/or trash receptacles properly screened, prior to issuance of an occupancy permit. 7. That the Applicant shall provide proof of Bealth and Welfare licensing prior to issuance of an occupancy permit; that under City Ordinance, 11-2-403 B, Child Care Facility, it is the total number of children cared for during the day and not the FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 8 BRIGBT BEGINNINGS LEARNING CENTER number of children at any one time that is determinative. 8. The following conditions shall also apply: (1) Secure and maintain a child care license from the Idaho State Department of Health and Welfare-Child Care Licensing Division. (2) Acquire an occupancy certificate. (3) Provide one (1) off-street parking space per employee. (4) Provide for a child pick-up area located off the main- frontinq street. (5) Provide for screening of adjacent properties to protect children from adverse impacts and to provide a buffer between properties. (6) Provide for a fence of appropriate height/construction, to enclose play areas, protecting children from traffic. (7) Meet the Idaho State Department of Health and Welfare- Child Care Licensing Division child to instructor ratio and meet the required square feet per child. APPROVAL OF FINDINtiB 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 ROUNTRES COMMISSIONER SHEARER COMMISSIONER ALIDJANI CHAIRMAN JOHNSON (TIE BREAKER) FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW BRIGHT BEGINNINGS LEARNING CENTER r VOTE ~- VOTE ~ RR VOTS~ C~J,~' i.' VOTED ~ -~/ VOTED Page 9 DECISION AND RSCOIOO;NDATIOH The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council of the City of Meridian that they approve the Conditional Use Permit requested by the Applicant for the property described in the application with the conditions set forth in the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. MOTION: APPROVED DENIED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 10 BRIGBT BEGINNINGS LEARNING CENTER