Loading...
1995 02-14 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AGENDA TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 14, 1995 - 7:30 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING HELD JANUARY 10, 1995: (APPROVED) TABLED JANUARY 10, 1995:PUBLIC HEARING:REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR AVEST PLAZA BY AVEST LIMITED PARTNERSHIP: (PASS ON FAVORABLE RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNGIL) 2. TABLED JANUARY 10, 1995: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A 3,000 SQUARE FOOT DRIVE-THRU BANKING FACILITY BY AVEST LIMITED PARTNERSHIP: (APPROVE AMENDED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW; APPROVE RECOMMENDATION) 3. TABLED JANUARY 10, 1995: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW AN APPROXIMATELY 172,000 SQUARE FOOT RETAIUGROCERY STORE BY AVEST LIMITED PARTNERSHIP: (APPROVE AMENDED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW; APPROVE RECOMMENDATION) 4. TABLED JANUARY 10, 1995: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING FOR THE LAKE AT CHERRY LANE SUBDMSION NO.S d~ 6 BY STEINER DEVELOPMENT: (TABLED UNTIL MARCH 14, 1995) 5. TABLED JANUARY 10, 1995: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR THE LAKE AT CHERRY LANE SUBDMSION NO. S 8~ 6 BY STEINER DEVELOPMENT: (TABLED UNTIL MARCH 14, 1885) 6. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR REZONE REQUEST FROM R-4 TO L-0 BY JAMES AND JEAN FULLER: (APPROVE AMENDED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW; APPROVE RECOMMENDATION OF DENIAL) 7. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT A CONVENIENCE STORE/GAS STATION BY JAMES AND JEAN FULLER (APPROVE AMENDED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW; APPROVE RECOMMENDATION OF DENIAL) 8. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR AN ACCESSORY USE PERMIT REQUEST FOR A FAMILY DAY CARE BY KELLY NESTEN: (APPROVE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW; APPROVE RECOMMENDATION) 9. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST TO ALLOW AN OFFICE BY BORUP CONSTRUCTION: (APPROVE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW; APPROVE RECOMMENDATION) 10. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST FOR A PLANNED COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT BY FRED LOTRIDGE: (APPROVE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW; APPROVE RECOMMENDATION) 11. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST FORA 12 CHILD DAY CARE FACILITY BY LYNN JONES: (APPROVE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSONS OF LAW; APPROVE RECOMMENDATION) 12. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR A REZONE REQUEST FROM RBI TO R-8 AND L-O BY MICHAEL GAMBLIN: (APPROVE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW; APPROVE RECOMMENDATION) 13. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST FOR AN AUTOMOTIVE REPAIR AND SERVICE USE BY LESLIE MIGNEAULT: (APPROVE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW; APPROVE RECOMMENDATION) 14. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF R-8, R-15 AND L-O FOR 180.9 ACRES BY GEM PARK II PARTNERSHIP: (CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW) 15. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARYlFINAL PLAT FOR CAPITAL PARK DEVELOPMENT, 2 LOTS BY FRED LOTRIDGE: (PASS ON FAVORABLE RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL) 16. .PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A FLOWER SHOP RETAIL BUSINESS BY BILL AND JOYCE BREWER: (CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW) 17. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR CAR STEREO SALES AND INSTALLATION BY RICHARD CESLER: (CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW) 18. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR TREASURE VALLEY BUSINESS CENTER PHASE 2, 66 LOTS BY GEMTONE, INC: (PASS ON A FAVORABLE RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL) 19. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY/FINAL PLAT FOR MR. SANDMAN SUBDIVISION NO. 2, 3 LOTS BY BRYCE JOHNSON AND RUSS HUNEMILLER: (PASS ON FAVORABLE RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCtL) 20. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A CONVENIENCE STORE BY BRYCE JOHNSON AND RUSS HUNEMILLER: (CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW) MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AGENDA TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 14, 1995 - 7:30 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING HELD JANUARY 10, 1995: L~/JPr~ve ~!i 1. TABLED JANUARY 10, 1995:PUBLIC HEARING:REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR AVEST PLAZA BY AVEST LIMITED PARTNERSHIP: ~'/hj ~Crlf d'+~ ~Z(~/oia lsCe reco-m~QG.fi1r,-- /9 ~!-e C'i~ evuraccY~ 2. TABLED JANUARY 10, 1995: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A 3,000 SQUARE FOOT DRIxE-THRU BANKING FACILITY BY AVEST LIMITED PARTNERSHIP: <'~y ~r~~r-we ~~nt'~~dert off ~~/c tr~rrprove ~PCOmmena'n~tr,,. ~z> erk~ eo~~ 3. TABLED JANUARY 10, 1995: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW AN APPROXIMATELY 172,000 SQUARE FOO RETAIUGROCERY STORE BY AVEST LIMITED PARTNERSHIP: ~'/~ _ a~n~~ravt a~,e., decc' ~/FE' (r// ~~~r~r racan.r..G,~dR ham.. ~ ~r~y C~unec.2. 4. TABLED JANUARY 10, 1995: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING FOR THE LAKE AT CHERRY LANE SUBDIVISION NO.S 8 6 BY STEINER DEVELOPMENT: ~.~ ~N~ ~~~` ~~n 5. TABLED JANUARY 10, 1995: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR THE LAKE AT CHERRY LANE SUBDIVISION NO. 5 8 6 BY STEINER DEVELOPMENT: ~~ u-~-~-e ~~`y` i¢~ 6. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR REZONE REQUEST F/R~ O/M R-4 TO L-0 BY JAMES AND JEAN FULLER: ~-jo,~~~~x C?oH ran cC~cG T II '." [~~~ d~~/O/1 /'PCOM M6~,.Lrrz ~brl r~C'i~[~YLrn cc/ ~'°~'^J 7. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT A CONVENIENCE STORE/GAS STATION BY JAMES AND JEAN FULLER: a Pr~~~e ~//r rat ct~f'~au2 /eGUrvehe...(ahtrx. fp Pi7*~- C'suHCit' ~ C(P~y /PlC'zu?fh 8. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR AN ACCESSORY USE PERMIT REQUE1ST FOR A FAMILY DAY CARE BY KELLY NESTEN: C(FJ%/GV'£~ {~~ y C~[ G(~~'YvvQ YNCOntrnE+nd~ch3.r.~ 9. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST TO ALLOW AN OFFICE BY BORUP CONSTRUCTION: a~f'/av~P ~~{ ~P~L 4~jOlav'P YP~o/„h.PnC(a~ib~-} 10. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST FOR A PLANNED C9MMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT BY FRED LOTRIDGE: U~opC'rbv~e ~'/{~ c'~C ~t~,rra~t Yec©Mi..zv~arcf~~.- 11. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST FORA 12 CHILD DAY CARE FACILITY BY LYNN JONES: appra~p ~/1~~/C a~pi avx rP c m,~e~.dli./r~--~ 12. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR A REZONE REQUEST FROM R-4 TO R-8 AND L-O BY MICHAEL GAMBLIN: u~,p~,rvr ~/f ~ c° /l a~epiav=e d~ecus~r.-e-~~~v~ 13. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST FOR AN AUTOMOTIVF~ REPAIR AND SERVICE USE BY LESLIE MIGNEAULT: ccpprovP ~/~~` c'/~ uppr-p~~e- reccrnr--Benda-fiv..- 14. .PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF R-8, R-15 AND L-0 FOR 180.9 ACRES BY GEM PARK II PARTNERSHIP: !~/I~ <<Ih/ aflmv~~ ~ ~rc~atie. ~/F ~e% 15. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARYlFINAL PLAT FQ CAPITAL PARK DEVELOPMENT, 2 LOTS BY FRED LOTRIDGE: p~~ pair en ~ariv~a fi22 (~-ecorwm~~laf~t,y. fv yti,t ci1?~ Caur~wf: 16. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A FLOWER SHOP RETAIL BUSINESS BY BILL AND JOYCE BREWER: P/~1 l~ik~ «pirvze. ~~rep~e_ ~1~9 e/G 17. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR CAR STEREO SALES AND INSTALLATION BY RICHARD CESLER: ~/~ G/ Gif/aZrk fadt7repa~.e {%~~GJIG 18. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR TREASURE VALLEY BUSINESS CENTER PHASE 2, 66 LOTS BY GEMTONE, INC: /2~codrern~~-cC cz~p>aa-~ ~= C'r~ Cc°~inu:C'~ 19. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY/FINAL PLAT FOR MR. SANDMAN SUBDNISION O. 2, 3 LOTS BY BRYCE JOHNSON AND ROSS HUNEMILLER: p/~ pals On favo2aF~- /r'comrnP.tcfaLhbn.~n L'i~ C~xr.-+cGE /,u/~~dl~z'~f 20. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A CONVENIENCE STORE BY BRYCE JOHNSON AND ROSS HUNEMILLER: CITY OF MERIDIAI`, PUBLIC MEETING SIGN-UP SHEET 3~.3- saa 7~c..~'t L1 ~C,'W.Lj G..( C ~.. 7Jt~ 2 - ~rC; ~- ~ > ~ 1~-~,,~,~~, c~~~ ~-53`7 ~K~N~~I~~G%J~l/ V ~url ~l~f/~. ~~ NAME PHONE NUMBER CITY OF MERIDIAP~ PUBLIC MEETING SIGN-UP SHEET MERIDIAN PLANNING 8 ZONING COMMISSION F BR ARY 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, Charlie Rountree, Moe Alidjani: MEMBERS ABSENT: Jim Shearer: OTHERS PRESENT: Will Berg, Wayne Crookston, Gary Smith, Mr. & Mrs. John Longden, Mr. i3< Mrs. John Shipley, Karen Blayney, Diane Bealieu, Larry Durkin, David Lombardi, Bonnie Glick, Mary Creech, Marvin and Nancy Hansen, Ken Shelton, Kathleen Coulter, Mary Cahoon, Malcolm MacCoy, Lonny Detrima, Cecil Linda Powell, Jim Allen, Herbert Papenfuss, Wes Grave, Kathleen and Scott Weber, Tori McAlvain, Michael Donahue, Bev Donahue, Clark Burkett, Eileen Allison, Richard Cesler, Barry Gwin, Liz Gwin, Don Brian, Cheri Mansayon, Wayne Forrey, Matt Caris, Litia G., Clifford Babitt, Jim Merkle, Bill Brevwer, Brandy Barnhardt, Keith Boots, Van Elg, Becky Bowcutt: MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING HELD JANUARY 10, 1995: The motion was made and seconded to approve the minutes for January 10, 1995. ITEM #1: TABLED JANUARY 10, 1995: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR AVEST PLAZA BY AVEST LIMITED PARTNERSHIP: Chairman Johnson opened the public hearing and invited the applicant to speak first. Durkin: There is a 5 foot sidewalk along the entire frontage of Locust Grove. Our off site improvements for Locust Grove we are providing soil for a landscape berm for the properties on the west side and we are providing certairi compensation for some of the homeowners on the west side for landscape improvements. Alidjani: I have one question, when you mentioned there would be a variance height from 2 to 6 feet from the parking lot Level, what is the difference if there is a between the parking lot level and the crown of the road on Locust Grove, is there any? Durkin: I don't know the answer to that, but I have a group of people with me tonight and I will be able to give you that answer shortly. f think that is sucth a sensitive subject that I would like to put up a drawing, we have a drawing of the berm. I personally find these difficult to really comprehend, this is the street, this would be Locust Grove looking north, this would be the sidewalk along Locust Grove. This is the berm and this is Fred Meyers, I hope to give an answer to that (inaudible). The off site improvements that we will construct include medians along Fairview Avenue, sidewalks around the project and obviously extending the necessary utilities to the project. From a platting standpoint that is the only comments I have right now. I will have additional comments for some of the Meridian Planning 8~ Zoning Commission February 14, 1995 Page 2 others, I would be happy to answer any questions. Johnson: Thankyou. Rountree: The site improvements for the subdivision itself will come as a package not as each individual commercial pad is developed and then any responsibility of those individuals to provide landscaping, terming, etc. Durkin: The development agreement has, we have a, it is an agreement that the City Attorney drafted and provided to us, but it requires certain amounts of our on site work be done and bonded at one time but not all of it. But all of the perimeter landscaping is included in that, all of the perimeter sidewalks and all of the perimeter site work is included in that development agreement and we are required to do that all at one time. And then the entry drive ways that go into the project would be installed and landscaped at that time as well, it is ident~ed in that agreement. I will be showing a large scale site plan of the Fred Meyer, Key Bank and the rest of the project when we get, if you like to see i# now I would be happy to put it up now but 1 was going to put it up when we talk about Fred Meyer. Johnson: This is a public hearing, which 1 am told it is even though it was tabled, it might be a good idea to do that. I am afraid that anybody wanting to testify is going to address things other than the preliminary plat at this time. Does that make sense to you Wayne? Crookston: Yes Durkin: I think I would just like to express a concern we have and I am not certain of the City's procedure here, but we expect to have a lot of further discussion on the conditional use that we are requesting for the Fred Meyer. But 1 think we need to have an action on the plat before hand. It is kind of, it is all related so i am happy to combine everything all into one but. Johnson: tam trying to make it as less confusing as possible to the public who is not experienced at our meetings and how they are conducted. That is my primary concern right now, we will have to address preliminary plat only on this issue. Durkin: The plan that you see up on the board is the final plan approved by ACRD in the last meeting. It was unanimously approved. Some of the changes from the previous public hearing we had here include the alignment of the driveway on Fairview Avenue, there was a lot of discussion about that. The alignment of the driveway (inaudible). The last plan we showed that was off set, now it is aligned, that is the sign cant changes in that site plan. Othervvise that plan has been consistent all along. We have shown the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 14, 1995 Page 3 landscaping along the perimeter if you could just point that out Tom, that is the landscaping required in the development agreement. Johnson: What is that alignment at Carol, ACHD was adamant about that wanting a yellow line were they not? Durkin: The access points onto Fairview Avenue we now have the first one right there, that is a right in, right out access point. There is a median out on Fairview Avenue, a raised median that we construct, the next access point is an all movement access poinf with tum lanes out on Fairview Avenue. The next access point down is a right in, right out and then the loop road which is on the east end of this plan, that is an all movement intersection. The access points on Locust Grove that is atl movement, there is a center turn lane, there are 3 access points along Locust Grove and all three of them are all movement access points. The plan that you see shows a 171,.126 square foot Fred Meyers store that is their standard prototype. It is a masonry construction, block and split faced block and their standard colors and design. The building is 28 feet high at the highest point, it varies in height in other areas. The landscaping that vve show here exceeds the City's standards, but I want to remind you that our development agreement for annexation and afl the other documents require us to either meet or exceed the City standards in that area. The parking meets or exceeds the City standards, the lighting, these are some comments from staff on the Fred Meyer portion of the application, the lighting for the shopping center will be designed and installed to reduce or eliminate any glare off the shopping enter property. The bads of the Fred Meyer store which I will show you another plan that dearly shows that, the back of the Fred Meyer store where the loading docks are is over 400 feet from the nearest resident. It will be screened by the construction of the mini-storage in that area. That is the plan f have of the Fred Meyer, do you think that is clear Mr. Chairman? Johnson: Yes I think it is, any questions on that? Durkin: Now I would like to put up just another plan that is a little bit more difficult to read but it is a plan, an identical shopping center plan but it also includes the entire 40 acres or site planning. You can now see the distance from the loading dodo in the back of Fred Meyer and the mini-storage in that area. Johnson: Excuse me, could you point out the property line to the north? Durkin: The area that is not shown improved are the 2 pads along the loop road on the east, or the right hand side of the plan. The shopping center property is all covered by a cross (inaudible) agreement for its operation, maintenance, and we are real comfortable with the project, we think it frts well. I might add for some of you who may not be familiar Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 14, 1995 Page 4 with earlier testimony we had on this project, the Fred Meyer or the shopping center project is really a result of a major research project that we hired an outside research firm to conduct and they studied the need in Meridian for general merchandise discount department store and a grocery store. We found that about 5% of the Meridian shoppers shopped in Meridian for their discount department store needs and the rest of that shopping was done outside either at Boise or outside of the City. About 40% of the people in Meridian shopped at the Albertson's store for their groceries, I beg your pardon 47°,6 of them and the rest traveled to Boise for their grocery needs. So we feel the project is responding to that study. Key Bank has done a study and felt that there was a need for their branch but in addition they go through the complete FDIC approvals and have to justify the need for another branch bank and that is all completed. Johnson: I am sure you covered this in earlier testimony, but just from a comparable standpoint, how does the size of this store relate to the one on Five Mile and Overland? Durkin: I have a gentleman here tonight that is from Fred Meyer, his name is Dave Shrom, he is a long time employee, in fact you were probably involved in that project. Why don't you stand up and let everyone know you are here. It is my understanding that store on Overland and Five Mile is about 140,000. Shrom: It is 164,571, the basic difference in the 2 prototypes the Five Mile store is a linear, long and thin whereas this is our square prototype and we use which ever based on the format of the site. Johnson: Thank you, so this is about 20°~ bigger than the other one roughly. Durkin: It is very comparable in size to the Glenwood and Chinden store. Crookston: What are the plans for buffering of the storage on Locust Grove? In the initial presentation the annexation, you were talking about a retirement home or something like that in that north west area of the Avest property. It looks now like you are going storage all the way. Durkin: This is a drawing for storage all the way but 1 would like to remind that for each parcel each lot on the project wee have to gain, wee have to go through the conditional use process and that is just not one that we are submitting or going through at this particular time. When we do that we will clearly show that. That will evolve at a later date. Crookston: Maybe a better question is that the buffering that you are proposing along Locust Grove as it relates to the area around Fred Meyer will that continue north to Avest's north property line? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 14, 1995 Page 5 Durkin: Yes Crookston: Thank you ~~ Durkin: There has been a lot of concern on the lighting as it relates to this buffering, we have talked with a number of people about that. With the mini-storage facility there is actually a building that backs up to Locust Grove and no lighting should escape that way as far as auto lights are concerned. Johnson: Does that conclude your remarks then? Durkin: It does. Johnson: Any questions before we open it up to the public? Durkin: Mr. Chairman, will we address each one of these individually again? Johnson: Yes, we are addressing the preliminary plat, is there some one from the public that would like to address the Commission on this issue? Barry Gavin, 1515 South Carol, was sworn by the City Attorney. Gavin: If I could you one of their graphics, the one that was just prior to this, that is fine. Chairman Johnson and members of the Committee, I have a couple of concerns. The primary one is the berm along Locust Grove, in all of the pictorials that you see they show a berm that is at least the 4 foot level and that is what the previous public hearing that many of the people addressed, they would require or request a four foot minimum height along the Locust Grove roadway to protect those adjacent houses from lights from the cars in the parking lot moving through the parking lot. And in fact they have drawn it up that way, yet if you look at what they are asking for as a 2 foot to 6 foot varying height you can cut the height of that berm down and the car lights will shine across it and I don't think that is a fair turn to the people that live across the street. They have asked to be sheltered from this particular development sheltered from the tights, sheltered from the noise and t think a 4 foot minimum would be the least that the committee could recommend. So, that is basically the only thing I wanted to talk about. Johnson: Let me ask you a question, if that 4 foot berm were on the west side of Locust Grove that would accomplish the same thing wouldn't it? Gavin: In many cases height wise it would not because the lights are going to be shining up in the parking lot area, you are going to be closer the head lights therefore you are Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 14, 1995 Page 6 going to be, the angle of repose is going to be closer and block out more of that light, the closer you get to the headlights. The second thing is that a lot of the houses don't have a whole lot of room to put a berm out there, that is their front yard and if you try and take and put a 4 foot berm that is going to travel over probably 15, 16 maybe 20 feet wide you are going to take up a major portion of what exists as their front yard. They are going to be walking out their front door and stumbling over portions of your berm. So I would recommend that the landscape berm and the shielding from the lighting come from the development side of the roadway. Johnson: And questions of Mr. Gavin? Thank you, anyone else from the public that would like to come forward? Mary Cahoon, 1875 North Locust Grove, was sworn by the City Attorney. Cahoon: I would also, Mr. Gavin stated some things about the 4 foot berm, 1 live right there and you know I like that idea a lot better. If you make a berm too high on my side of the road it is going #o make it very difficult for me, I back out onto Locust Grove, it is really tough for me right now. When I have a berm there on my side of the road which I want t have and I am really grateful that they are willing to do that for me, however it is going to obstruct part of my view when 1 am backing out of my driveway. So, I, they are going to have rolling berms and with the lights and everything I would prefer that it would be at least, a rolling berm 4 to 8 feet. I guess the other thing on the berm is the fact that where I live right now I have this really beautiful view of the sunrises in the morning and to a lot of you maybe this doesn't mean very much but it means a lot to me that is one of the reasons that I moved there before this was zoned commercial. It was agricultural when moved in there and I happen to be an inspirational writer, I have one that I wrote about a sunrise and anyway I have a really wonderful view of a sunrise in the morning. This is my view from my front window, I can look from my bedroom and my front window at the sunrise. I have several different pictures that 1 took, I have another one. I just think that it is really sad that it wasn't a part of this, it was (inaudible) I know you can't stop development but 1 can't ask you to lower the elevation of your building but 1 can ask you if you would pretty please make those berms a little bit taller so 1 don't have to see so much of your cinder blocks. I took some pictures of the Fred Meyer off of Five Mile and Overland just to kind of see what I would be looking at. It certainly isn't as pretty as these sunrises. That is the back side shot, I am actually going to be looking at part of the back side of the building. I live right off of the property where loop road where their trucks are going to be cruising in and out, you are going to have this all be movement or however you say that 1 don't know. Where they can come in and out both ways, I have two small children, I am concerned about the safety issues there too. Alidjani: I like that picture by the way, the reason is it is a trash dumpster. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 14, 1995 Page 7 Cahoon: This is a semi-truck that they had in their back and they don't have any berms back there. And you can kind of see, I knowthey are not real nice but it is reality that 1 am facing. This is my reality, this is my life that we are talking about here. This is the area where they have their delivery trucks come in and out. The height of the building is really pretty tall, I talk to some of the neighbors who lived behind the Fred Meyers off of Five Mile and Overland, it blocks their view of the mountains that was one of the things that they had discussed. One thing, this is impacting me and I don't know about your impact fees or whatever for this but with your loop road and entrances coming on the opposite side of the road right from this is really going to back up the traffic, how am 1 going to get in and out of my driveway? Can you guys help me with a circular driveway so that I don't crash and burn when I am taking my kids out in the morning and we are leaving. I don't know how to, the other thing that 1 am really concerned with is the delivery trucks, the hours that they have their delivery trucks come in and out in the mornings. 1 talked to some of these residents that live there off of Overland and Five Mile right behind Fred Meyers and they say that these delivery trucks are running constantly, 2 and 4, from the time they eat their dinner to the time they go to bed to the time they get up in the morning. The sound factor there too. Alidjani; I don't know if it makes any difference to you but I believe those trucks would use the Fairview side and not the Locust Grove side. It is a lot harrier for us to turn around in the Locust Grove area than Fairview. That is just my guess, my experience of driving trucks. Cahoon: Can I have any written documentation? Alidjani: It is a public road, you have to realize it is a public road. The common sense of a truck driver it is a lot easier for him to get around on Fairview than on Locust Grove. Johnson: Do you have any other comments? Cahoon: No not at this time. Johnson: Thank you, anyone else from the public? Crookston: Jim, we need the photographs. Johnson: You need to leave those photographs with us ma'am, just give them to Will. Liz Groin, 1515 South Carol Street, was sworn by the City Attorney. Groin: One concern I had, my husband didn't mention is that also these people have fairly Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 14, 1995 Page 8 small front yards that are along Locust Grove the ones that face. 1 am not sure, I would say 50 feet, they are going to lose as far as I could ascertain from the County they are going to lose about 15 to 20 feet off of that front footage there. So, they are not really going to have a lot of room to put 2 large of berm in their. So we really do need to have consistent height of at least 4 feet along locust Grove for those people so they don't get those lights in their houses and stuff. Another thing is, i sort of went around and driven. around by Park Center and looked at Fred Meyers now a little more closely than I usually do and it is pretty hard to see that there are any berms on any of those so I don't know maybe they do all 2 foot berms. I don't' know how you are going to control that, if you have allowed, are you going to say they can go from 2 to six feet what is stopping them from going all 2 feet. I don't see any berms where they say are berms. 1 really think that is something that needs to ~ addressed, I don't like the idea that there needs to be a certain height that they have to have and that should be it because I can see there being all 2 foot berms instead of all 2 to 4 to 6. Another thing is that the type of landscaping that I have noticed is l would think it is something on the order of barbeny bushes which are those red bushes that are very slow growing, probably low maintenance, but 1 vwuld like to see some sort of evergreens put along Locust Grove Road. I don't think that the developer really needs to worry about people not going to Fred Meyer or any of the other stores in that development because let's face it Fred Meyer is all over the place they are more or less a generic type store. People know Fred Meyer either they shop there or they don't they will either use it or they won't. I don't' think it is a problem of being visual because people, there are a lot of people that go to Fred Meyer and use it already. So they pretty much know what their stores are and anything else that is going in there Key Bank, McDonald's the way things are people already know those stores so they are not getting a full view of them as they rush down Locust Grove Road. It is probably not going to hurt business if that is part of their problem, why they don't want to have berms a# a certain height. So I don't know, that is about all 1 had to say on the subject. Thank you Johnson: Thank you, anyone else? Don Brian, 2070 North Locust Grove, was sworn by the City Attorney. Brian: First off I would tike to thank whoever is responsible for putting this on the first of the agenda. Johnson: It is a lottery system. Brian: This is the first time. Since we are talking about a preliminary plat, my biggest concern right now is the lot 9 parcel which is between Fred Meyer and myself to the north. t believe the storage facility Wayne was talking about, the retirement center on the, when the on set of this project came on board they were talking about different things they had Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 14, 1995 Page 9 in mind. I have been talking with Roger Allen about 1 was the one who talked to him about preferring the storage unit on that parse! along side of me to more or less block me oft of that commercial development. I would be more happy with that than some sort of development as a retirement center. Anyway, that property there has me concerned as far as the time span we have that particular parcel when they get their conditional use on the storage facilities, 1 don't knowrf they have that or not, I don't believe they do but when they get that I am sure that end will be the last phase and it will be talking with Roger that will be the final addition to that storage facility. It will work from Dixie Lane on around and fill in as the need comes on end more storage is needed they just develop it. 1 am wondering how many months or years that parcel is going to sit undeveloped and me listening to the trucks backing into Fred Meyer and .all of the traffic on the loop road between how long it is going to sit there bare property before they develop it into that storage facility. And ff there is some sort of a time limit or rf could sit there indefinitely and then they could change their mind down the road it would concern me. I am more or less stating my opinion now so it just goes on the record when it comes up later. Also, as you al know the problems I have with the ditches is the same scenario up stream with the development of Dove Meadows and Wingate Place, all of those people had to abide by the rules and regulations and ordinances of the ditches, well they do that as they develop and none of that has been developed yet. The Dove Meadows project was started in January of 1993 and Wingate shortly after in May. And they still have not addressed any ditch problems out there because they are waiting for the last phase of the project to do anything. This is the second year in a row that I am dealing with ditches that aren't being taken care of. I would like to see when they develop a parcel they go in and do all of this ground vuork in the ditdies and the site work and berming and screening before they start developing the inside of the project. I haven't' mentioned it to Roger but 1 was going to mention it would be a real nice place to pile all his excess top soil right there next to me if it is going to be any length of time then you know a 40 foot high berm. And then the development of the sidewalk that runs down Locust Grove and the site work the last I heard there was a retention pond right there on the comer which would be, it is not there anymore. Anyway there will be sidewalk all the way down there and that sidewalk going right into my pasture and there are my horses. 1 was wondering if there is any type of fencing or screening or anything that is going to keep kids and traffic away from my livestock or if I am responsible for that, I think that needs to be addressed. 1 talked to the engineer and Roger both about the irrigation problems I have been having and what we need to do and we had the meeting in March about the problems on that site with all the parties involved and the developers upstream. A tot of things ware decided but nothing has been done. 1 feel confident with the developers on this project right by me but 1 just want to make sure and go on record that I can change my mind if they are riot going to come through with what we agreed and come bads and say they didn't do it and you guys will help me out here. That is all I have for right now. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 14, 1995 Page 10 Johnson: Thank you, is there anyone else that would like to address the Commission? Diane Beaulieu, 1895 Star Lane, was sworn by the City Attorney. Beaulieu: This development is going to be part of the community and having a McDonalds there and a Fred Meyers is going to attract a lot of children they are going to be biking down from the subdivisions north of there. One of the things I have noticed when I go to the Albertson's here in town is that the children bring their bicyces, the bicycle rack is right on the sidewalk, so 'rf you are walking around that little, from one store to the next you have to step out into the parking area to get around the bicycles. So I would like to have a place made for bicycles so when people are walking the sidewalk they do not have to go out where cars are speeding around. That is a real problem over at Albertson's. Another concern I have is noise, I have an acre so I do a lot of yard work, last fall I was out in my yard doing some work and with this nice weather I was out a couple of weeks ago and I could hear was a constant roar of noise. We have cars, it is not cars now and then, so I think we need to look at berms, the higher berms that will absorb and trees and shrubs to absorb the noise. That is part of our quality of life, we don't want to hear cars all of the time. So I am concerns whether in the landscaping or in the division between the back of the property the north that they have some trees or something that will absorb the noise so those people there don't have to listen to that all of the time. Thank you. Johnson: Is there anyone else that would like to come forward? .Karen Blayney, 2000 North Applewood Avenue, was swum by the City Attorney. Blayney: I will be living like behind Fred Myers so the berming on Locust Grove won't directly affect me but I would like to see at least a 4 foot berm put in there because I don't want to be driving down the road kind of looking over all of those masonry block buildings. I have some concerns about the lights in the parking lot, I would like to seem them maybe put in some like mercury vapor lights because they are not quite as glaring as the ones over at the store on Five Mile and Overland. Because I did go over there and kind of see how far the light shined and things like that. 1 was also wondering when they start construction I have noticed that 0 & B Supply there seems to be a fot of mud and stuff that gets out on the road, so you have to kind of drive over it, 1 was wondering 'rf there was something they could do to kind of keep the dirt on the site when they start construction. I do have some concerns about the loading and Fred Meyer because from looking at the map and where they are going to be it is going to be almost directly south of me. 1 have lived by a shopping center before and even though it is like 400 feet away 400 feet isn't' very much distance for the noise to carry and the trucks coming in the middle of the night. And at night there is not as much traffic and stuff so it seems like that noise carries further. They did say it was going to be screened eventually with the rental storage buildings but • Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 14, 1995 Page 11 from what they initially told us that is going to be 2 years. So that is 2 years with nothing between me and the noise that is going to be going on with the loading docks and seeing all of those dumpsters and stuff back there. That is not attractive so I would like to see some screening on there even if it is just temporary between when they build the Fred Meyer store in 2 years or however long down the line it takes them to build those rental storage units. Then 1 also had a concern about what, I think they called it a containment pond or something like that, I know that anyplace there is water that is allowed to stand there is going to be a mosquito problem. I don't want too many more of those around if we can help it. That is basically it. Johnson: Anyone else? Cheri Mansayon, 1555 Carol, was sworn by the City Attorney. Mansayon: Mary Cahoon has a very legitimate concern and I am concerned with the same things as well. If you are aligning this road across from Carol, the drive that is coming out of this Fred Meyer complex, I will have lights bouncing into my living room. In my dining room and bedroom, on the back of my house I have the stop light from Fairview and Locust Grove blinking continually all night. The 4 foot berm I agree should be on the development side, when Ada County comes in to do the road widening wee are going to have to, if we put in a berm we are going to tear that all out because they are going to come into widen the road. So a year from now ws are going to lose all of this that we have done to try and protect ourselves from this. She is right with the view, right now 1 can see Bogus Basin, I can see the twinkling of the lights on the mountain and I think it is beautiful right now but I am going to look out to tinder block and Fred Meyer. Another thing is a neon sign, there right across from Locust Grove and Carol on the development side. I would really like to not see a sign on that side. That is another glare into my living room. Thank you. Johnson:. Thank you, Beverly. Beverly Donahue, 3775 North Locust Grove, was sworn by the City Attomey. Donahue: Okay, my concern is the road on North Locust Grove which it always has been, how many lanes do they plan on building on North Locust Grove with Fred Meyer going in, is it going to be 5 lanes up to Ustick, is that the just of it, 3 lanes or 4 lanes. Hepper: They are going to build that road regardless if Fred Meyer goes in or not. Donahue: Granted, but how many right now with Fred Meyer going in, is it going to be subject to? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 14, 1995 Page 12 Hepper: 1 don't know for sure. Donahue: My main concern is the traffic, the second thing is there is a cross walk that goes to the elementary school right acxoss Locust Grove that is just going to be up a ways just before Ustick right about in the middle, it is right past Carol. Are those kids going to still be able to walk across that street with Fred Meyer being built there and all of that traffic going up and down. Is there going to be lighting or something or are people just going to stop when a kid enters that cross walk. Alidjani: Are you referring to the one on Chateau? Donahue: Yes that is the one that 1 am concerned about. 1 also have a concern about how long would North Locust Grove be closed due to all of this construction going down from Ustick to Fairview because a lot of us people take that road. Are we going to have to go all the way around a different route, when are they going to start it. My other concern is when the roads get torn up who is responsible for them after they patch them here and there ACRD or is it Fred Meyer or how because over by where 1 live now the roads are, it is just pothole city. You just can't even drive on the road it is just ridiculous. Then my other concern is listening to these berms on the opposite side of Fred Meyer are they are going to have a sidewalk ail the way down where those people homes will also besides that berm. Because going up North Locust Grove now you have gravel, sidewalk, gravel, no sidewalk. Are we going to have a sidewalk or are wre not going to have a sidewalk and right now there is a sidewalk that goes straight out and it stops and then there is a ditch. Now if a kid had a skateboard and was flying down that sidewalk he is going to kill himself, is the City liable or who is responsible for the way the sidewalks are going in down North Locust Grove. So do I need to contact ACHD or what is the deal, this is ridiculous, it is embarrassing. And these are my concerns and we are going to keep more commercial, are we going to take care of it, are we going to make it straight. One side walks out 3 feet, one is in 2 feet, nothing matches. You can see which section is being done. Thank you. Johnson: Thanks Beverly, anyone else? Seeing no one then I will close the public hearing at this time. I am sorry, the public hearing remains open, 1 will give you an opportunity for a rebuttal. Durkin: The last note 1 made relates to the comments 1 heard tonight. I would just like you and the public to know this project will generate roughly $400,0 in impact fees payable to Ada Courrty Highway District The obligation under that agreement is to use that money in this are for improvements. The public has to understand that the roads in the County are completely controlled, the manner in which they are constructed, how wide they are, how thick they are, how they are repaired that is completely handled by Ada County Highway District. We have very little if any say on that, we try our best with them but they Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 14, 1995 Page 13 have a firm set of rules and that is it. We are providing the money and that money is to be used for the improvements to Locust Grove. There have been a number of public hearings at ACHD and they have talked about the lanes and what is going to happen and when. When this project goes under constnuxion we will be installing, it is complicated to explain but when the store is open is the easiest way to explain it there will be a center turn lane, there will 2 lanes going north on Locust Grove, there will be one lane going south on Locust Grove. Unless ACHD accelerates their schedule for the improvements to the west side of Locust Grove. That is not anything in our control, although they do have the money the day they take our building permits out in their bank. I would encourage the public to express those concerns directly to them. The landscaping that is to be installed for this project is to be installed in accordance with the City code. The berm matters that we have discussed tonight 1 have talked with the people individually (End of Tape) I feel very confident that we can accommodate in their height, however, 1 would just like to walk over to the plat and point out a few things. This is the first residence if you are going north on Locust Grove, this is all commercial property right in this area. This residence faces north onto Carol Street, what our, the berm height, we didn't pick that number out of the air that was a result of recommendations from the City, but it is our intention to construct it probably in the lower, in the 2 foo# area to keep that intersection, we think it will be safer. We do have and I would like to go on record tonight and 1 wouldn't mind at afl this being in the motion or letter from us, w~ have 68,000 cubic yards of top soil excess on the site, there is no shortage of material for us. We have told these people we will happily install a berm at the higher side of the 2 to 6 scale however we think it is important to have it rolling to some degree. We think that is something we can work out with staff as we take our landscape plans through. We would build it to the lower end down here where it is across from other properties and so there is no negative effect on the adjacent property owners. We will happily commit to the higher, I don't want it to be 6 feet high just running straight because we don't believe that is appealing but we think some roll in that area is fine and vre will happily commit to that. I just want to really emphasize that all the traffic issues and everything else are covered by ACHD we have done our best with them. As far as sidewalks on the property we have to install them in accordance with their plans from Fairview to the north end of the property, we just don't have the latitude with ACRD to tell them what to do with them when that get to that. That is something that the residents and wre will happily work with them and meet out at ACRD at any time, but it is something the residents have to work directly with. The other issue that came up tonight is the loading dock and how that functions. For those not familiar with retail operations, it is important to note that Fred Meyer they are one of the oldest general merchandise discount department store companies in the United States of America. They are far older than the Wal-Marts, Shop-Ko's and Targets of the world, txit they self distribute their merchandise for their general merchandise and their groceries. They average about 19 semi loads of merchandise to the store a week. The loading dodo has posted hours, there is another type of delivery that occurs that isn't self distributed, in other words not in Fred Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 14, 1995 Page 14 Meyer trucks and not Fred Meyer employees and those are what we call vender trucks. That is the truck you will see a fifth wheel with a beer truck, the bakery truck those types of deliveries. They occur very early in the morning, the vast majority of them. You will see them parked and waiting for the loading dodo people to come on duty early in the morning and then they are usually gone. A rare case for a delivery to occur after 10:00 at night because Fred Meyer doesn't have the staff on hand to handle unloading the truck and the vast majority of the deliveries occur during the day, the early part of the day. Although they can't limit the hours of operation for their loading dock because they are running out of product and they have to have something rushed in that is what occurs. You have your vendors, lots of different small vehicles delivering early in the morning, again they average 19 semi loads a week and their Fred Meyer trucks with Fred Meyer employees and that is the status of that. There is some screening on the bads of that loading dock. Those are some additional points I wanted to make. Any questions? Johnson: I just had one question, you covered a couple of things I had noted with respect to Mr. Don Brian's comment or question on timing of the storage units. Is there anything in your plans that speak to that? Durkin: Mr. Chairman, vue will be coming in with an application for a conditional use for the storage unit properties. The gentleman is correct in that they will be done in phases, the company that is developing the storage units, a company called Stor-It, I have a representative here tonight, Kathleen Weber, Kathleen is also one of the partners in the Avest project. Would you care to address the time schedule, do you have anything to add on that, when I am finished. I don't know exactly precisely what the time schedule will be but he is correct it will be phased and the last phase will occur over on Locust Grove. Alidjani: Larry, as the people mentioned, is there a possibility to have some kind of buffer for the whole project especially on the part that is going to be the back of the storage units towards the residents, I would say on the north portion of the parcel Lot 9. Just in case the second phase or the third phase of the storage units got prolonged for a year or 2 or three. (Inaudible) Alidjani: Right, along that area. At the present time is there any plan for a buffer or trees or shrubs? Durkin: I just don't want to answer the question incorrectly so may I just ask one of these gentlemen here. We do have a 15 foot buffer for that part but I just want to check on (inaudible). I think the best way I can answer that we do have 15 feet of property dedicated along that north property line for a buffer. I am just not prepared to commit to Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 14, 1995 Page 15 tonight a schedule and I don't want to say anything that is misleading. I can only tell that we are proceeding with vigor on these storage units and it is a market call. I just can't give you an assurance on a time schedule other than the storage company is an established company in the market with thousands of units. They are a local company and have managed them themselves and I would anticipate that they would be developed as quickly as possible. I want to point out on this plan, in the back of Fred Meyer, we have landscaping, then there is a street, then there is 410 feet to the nearest residence. I really believe that is a great deal of distance without the storage units. With the storage units there and the landscaping buffer I think it will be ideal. That is the most I can commit to tonight I would like to say more but I can't. I do have an answer by the way on the road elevation that you asked me earlier as it relates to that berm. You asked me what the height of the crown was, I have to call ACRD to get that, they haven't come up with a design yet for Locust Grove that is all being done in their court as it relates to this project. We would be off by several feet one way or another. So that street design and street elevation is in there. Johnson: Thank you, anyone else have any questions? 1 will close the public hearing. This is a preliminary plat so it doesn't require findings of fact, right Wayne? Crookston: That is correct. Johnson: What would the Commission like to do? Rountree: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion that we pass the preliminary plat onto the City Council with a favorable recommendation. Hepper: Second Johnson: We have a motion and a second to recommend approval to the Ciry Council on the preliminary plat, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Crookston: Mr. Johnson, wee will need these charts that you addressed the Commission. ITEM #2: TABLED JANUARY 10, 1995: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A 3,000 SQUARE FOOT DRIVE-THRU BANKING FACILITY BY AVEST LIMITED PARTNERSHIP: Johnson: I will now open the public hearing and invite the applicant to address us regarding this permit request. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 14, 1995 Page 16 Larry Durkin, 380 East Park Center Boulevard, Boise, was swam by the City Attorney. Durkin: Again, this is all kind of merging together and 1 don't want to take a lot of your time and repeat the same things. I am speaking on behalf again of Avest Limited Partnership, Key Bank and Dakota Development, the applicants in this case. What we are proposing is a 3,000 square foot drive up banking facility at the corner of Fairview and Locust Grove. This will be part of the overall shopping center covered by (inaudible) agreements for access traffic, maintenance. The facility design and construction is very similar to several of their other new facilities in the valley. One is over on State Street, the other one is over on Park Center and Apple Street, it is an attractive facility. I think we are in full agreement with the staff recommendations that we have received. As far as the noise level referred to in the recommendation we are well below that. We ask for your favorable approval tonight and 1 will answer any questions that you have. Johnson: Thank you, any questions for Mr. Durkin? Okay, thank you, this is a public hearing, anyone from the public like to address the issue regarding Key Bank conditional use permit? Liz Gavin, 1515 South Carol, was sworn by the City Attorney. Gavin: I just have a comment about the noise level, at the last hearing I think the engineer on that project seemed to kind of think just because it is already noisy there their noise wasn't going to make that much difference, but it will. We have already had a problem with Idaho Athletic had their swimming pool covered and we heard who was at the front deck and who should be at the front desk and all that kind of stuff. I really don't want to hear how much somebody is putting in the bank or what all day at my house. tam just one lot in. So 1 don't know what recourse we would have ff the noise carries over into our properties. That is what I would like to know, from their drive up window or their loud speaker. Johnson: Okay, is that your testimony? Gavin: Well, that is what 1 would like to know what vwuld we do. Johnson: We are not in the answer business, but we will take your question and it will be referred to the City Council but of course we can't answer that. Gavin: Can you tell me about the ordinance on noise, isn't there an ordinance for loud speakers? Johnson: Do you want to address that Wayne? • s Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 14, 1995 Page 17 Crookston: We don't have a specific ordinance on the decibel levels, we have placed decibel limitations as part of development applications. Groin: I think I was at a Council meeting where they were talking about a loud speaker at a car lot and the noise was not to carry more than 100 feet from the property line. Crookston: As I remember that decibel level was set so that it would not be greater than I don't remember the decibel. Johnson: I think it was 55. Crookston: It could not be that level past I think the 100 feet is correct. Groin: So will that pertain to this also? Crookston: If that is the decision of the Council or the recommendation of the Commission it could be. Groin: 1 would like to see that recommendation put because it is not a lot of fun to have to listen to announcements all day. That is why I quit working for the school I got tired of it. Johnson: Is there anyone else that wants to come forward? Mr. Durkin Durkin: We have met with Ms. Gavin on a number of occasions and have tried to answer her concerns, she keeps asking the same questions and we keep giving her the same answers. I would like to walk over the site plan and point out to you where the drive through facility is located on the site plan. I would also like to point, and please she is welcome to correct me if I am wrong where her house is. This is just not a relevant issue, the drive up lanes are located on the Fairview side of the project. The average street decibel noise of that intersection is 50 right now, I honestly don't know what the drive through decibel is but I know it is substantially less than street noise and it was so far less that it wasn't an issue as it related to your recommendations by the staff. We go up about 350 feet across this parking lot with a 2 foot berm rising up to 4 foot berm on this side, across the street we have another berm, and down Carol Street to the second house down facing north and this is Ms. Groin's house. Now if she is very quiet and careful and sits out on her front porch with some kind of device in her ears maybe she will be able to hear somebody making a banking transaction on this comer but I don't believe that is a legitimate concern and I don't believe it would be a legitimate recommendation. Key bank property is adjacent to other commercial uses down in that property and I just, we really have done an excellent job with the design of that to accommodate. We spec~cally turned Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 14, 1995 Page 18 the building so that wouldn't be an issue. Any other questions? Johnson: Any other questions for Mr. Durkin from the Commission? One last chance, anyone else from the public before I close the public hearing on the conditional use request? Seeing none then I will Gose the public hearing. This takes findings of fact gentlemen. Hepper: Mr. Chairman, I move we have the City Attorney prepare findings of facts on this. Crookston: There have been preliminary findings prepared. Johnson: I will ask you Wayne, do you think these preliminary findings of fact will hold up in view of the testimony we received this evening? Crookston: I think that they do, the only item that is not addressed in their is the noise level and you could amend the findings to address those. Noise is mentioned from the Subdivision, from Doris Subdivision, so it is addressed. Hepper: There is a comment on page 9 Mr. Chairman that mentions a 4 foot high berm or a masonry fence along Locust Grove, this would be for the commercial development on the comer there. 1 think it was stated that from a side view standpoint that the 2 foot would be adequate along the commercial part, however once it gets north of that point I think we need to consider the 4 foot minimum. I think on this particular part that the 2 to 6 foot berm would be adequate just on this particular comer. Johnson: Rather than to hold to that recommendation of a solid four foot, is that what you are saying and it could vary beyond 4 feet? Hepper: Yes, go from 2 to 6 feet as the developer recommended, but just strictly on this triangle on this comer pad not go beyond the south property line of the residential across the street. Johnson: That could be included in your motion. Any other comments. Rountree: Is that a suggested amendment to this? Hepper: Yes, I don't think a 4 foot berm right on the comer of the intersection would be appropriate just from a safety standpoint. You wouldn't be able to pull out and still see. I don't think Ada County Highway District will allow that either. Rountree: Our ordinance won't either for fences or berms. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 14, 1995 Page 19 Johnson: Yes, that is your site plan, your fencing ordinance. Hepper: So at this point I move the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts and approves these findings of fact and conclusions of law. Rountree: Second Johnson: As amended right? Hepper: Yes as amended. Johnson: It is moved and seconded that we approve the findings of fact and conclusions of law with the amendments mentioned this evening, roll call vote. ROLL CALL VOTE: Hepper -Yea, Rountree -Yea, Shearer - (Absent), Alidjani -Yea MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Johnson: Any decision or recommendation you wish to pass onto the City at this time? Hepper: Mr .Chairman, I move the Meridian Planning and Zoning hereby recommends to the City Council of the City of Meridian that they approve the conditional use permit requested by the applicant for the property described in the application with the conditions set forth in the findings of fact and conclusions of law. Rountree: Second Johnson: It is moved and seconded to pass a favorable recommendation onto the Ciry as stated, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #3: TABLED JANUARY 10, 1995: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW AN APPROXIMATELY 172,000 SQUARE FOOT RETAIUGROCERY STORE BY AVEST LIMITED PARTNERSHIP: Johnson: Will the applicant or his representative please address the Commission at this time, I will open the public hearing. Larry Durkin, 380 East Park Center Boulevard, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 14, 1995 Page 20 Durkin: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make arrangements for an overhead projector. While they are setting that up, I just want to say I am here tonight on behalf of the Avest Limited Partnership, I am here tonight on behaff of Fred Meyer Stores, Inc. and Dakota Development requesting your approval of our application. We are in full agreement with the staff recommendations dated January 8, 1995. A few of the points I will mention here reiterated something I said earlier. The building is 171,126 square feet. Johnson: Excuse, I will have to ask that you do hold down the conversation because it does feed back and vve have trouble transcribing the testimony, thank you. Durkin: The building is 171,126 square feet masonry block and split base block construction. It is a standard Fred Meyer construction very similar to the one that you are familiar with at Overland and Five Mile. The building is 28 feet high at its highest point and the colors and what have you will be very similar to the other building. Our parking meets or exceeds the city standards including all of our handicapped parking. The landscaping as I mentioned will meet or exceed all of the city's standards and codes. The lighting will be designed and installed to reduce or eliminate any glare off of the shopping center property. And as I mentioned earlier the back of the Fred Meyer store is over 400 feet from the adjoining residential. This overhead that I have it is a preliminary lighting plan overhead but it is just to give you an idea of how the parking lot lights work. 1 would like to say that there are a number of inconsistencies in this site plan in this overhead compared with the one that we are asking approval for tonight. This overhead was prepared for an earlier public hearing that we had in this room and we also used this at our ACRD meeting. But you can see that the Carol Street is not lined up, and some of the access points on Fairview. So I am showing you this tonight primarily for the lighting but I would like you to disregard the access because of what we submitted and what we looked at earlier is what we are actually requesting your approval on. Parking lot lighting is, it is tricky, we have a large group of engineers that tried to come up with a design that is safe and sane for the public the people that are using it both during open hours when the business is open and also when the business is closed and the parking lot you want it to be lighted in some way so that it is safe. There is no reason for the glare from the lights to spill over onto adjacent properties. The light fixtures are designed with a shield in the lens and the lights that are along, the fixtures or posts that are along the streets they move the shield over to eliminate the glare from going out on over to any of the other properties. This is a photometric plan that is preliminary, it will be fine tuned but I was hoping I could show you this tonight so that you can see really where the lighting will be going out from the Fred Meyer project. In addition there is other lighting along some of the other pad buildings they will additional light poles that aren't shown on there but this really covers the Fred Meyer parcel. I would be happy to answer any questions, .again I want to remind you I have a gentleman from Fred Meyer if anyone had any questions regarding the store construction or operation, he would be more than happy to answer questions. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 14, 1995 Page 21 Hopper. I have quick question, it appears that the trucks on the loading dock w+ouldn't be able to back up in that configuration if they entered the property from Locust Grove. It appears that they would have to probably come down the loop road to be able to back up to those loading bays is that correct? Durkin: That is correct. Hopper: Okay, but in return they would probably have to exit onto Locust Grove because they couldn't make the turn to get back onto the loop road. Durkin: The semi would probably have to exit from the loop road onto Locust Grove. Vendor trucks wouldn't necessarily have to do that they are quite a bit smaller, but the semi will be in all likelihood they will come in on that loop road, pull into the project, back into the bays and then pull out. They will be going through an all movement 5 lane street up on Locust Grove and coming off of the loop road. Johnson: Referring back to your earlier testimony then you gave us an average 19 such deliveries a week, and that is what we are talking with respect to those that have to exit onto Locust? Durkin: I would say that they would have to exit onto Locust, the semi. The other deliveries are the smaller deliveries, but the average 19 loads a week are going to be coming out the loop road and going down to that intersection and likely taking a left onto Locust Grove. Johnson: Any other questions of Mr. Durkin? Okay thanks, you will have an opportunity if you wish at the end of the public testimony. Don Brian, 2070 North Locust Grove, was sworn by the City Attorney. Brian: I would like my testimony from the previous preliminary plat be reflected in this public hearing. And I ~nrould also like to reiterate the problem 1 have with some sort of temporary harming or fencing or screening of some type that separates this commercial development with the livestock and my property line. I have a real concern about safety of that area where tl~e kids are going to be cutting back through going to the store and to the McDonalds and whatever is going to be over there and hitting Don's petting zoo on the way and losing a finger. I don't want some irate parent knocking on my door and asking where the kid's finger is. I think it is a legitimate eoncem. So something there needs to be addressed. Thanks. Johnson: Thanks Don, anyone else? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 14, 1995 Page 22 Beverly Donahue, 3775 North Locust Grove, was sworn by the City Attorney. Donahue: Also, I had a concern with afl of this lighting and the security matter with all of this new growth going in is our police department going to be able to handle this or are impact fees going to be rela#ed to Avest and all these other developers that are coming in now like the fire department, police department because the Meridian Albertson's already has enough incidences down there with police calls already. Plus, I don't know do we have an ordinance about kids staying up late when summer comes 10, 11, 12:00 o'clock you are going to have a McDonald's over there, is it going to end up a hang out, you know gangs or whatever. Are we going to have some kind of thing to kind of detour that. Like Don said they are going to be cutting through his place at night or day time, we in the area would like to keep some stuff in our houses. Thank you. Johnson: Anyone else? Mary Cahoon, 1875 North Locust Grove, was sworn by the City Attomey. Cahoon: On the issue of the lights, since this is directly impacting me I took the liberty of talking to some of the people who reside behind Fred Meyers off of Five Mile and Overland. They did say that Fred Meyers was really good to work with as far as dealing with their managers and stuff but they had several problems with the lighting. They said that they could actually mow their lawns at midnight. I don't know if that type of lighting is the same time of lighting fixtures they are going to be using where I am at right now but that concerns me. Although they said that it ended up alternating turning the lights off every other one. So if we could work both things out that is pretty good but still you know they say it is still very very bright in their back yards. They don't front it, it is the back of their homes their. The other things that they told me is that they have a street sweeper that comes each evening and at 2:30 in the morning they are out there sweeping the street, I am going to have to listen to this. It doesn't make me very happy. The other thing is snow removal, a blade across the pavement in the middle night, they have to do it in the middle of the night and I know that but I am going to be having to listen to this as well that really concerns me. I am a working mother and my sleeps is really important. They also said as far as those trucks coming in and out they have been pretty much 24 hours a day. I talked to probably 5 of the neighbors back there and they said that it wasn't just until 11:00 at night.. The red trucks they say they will come there at 4:00 in the morning, they unload the dumpsters like at 5 in the morning, they say there are some trucks at 2:00 in the morning. During the holiday season when they have to keep their stores stocked those trucks are coming in and out all of the time. From what Mr. Durkin just said as far as how the semi trucks are going to be coming obviously that is going to be me hearing the roars of these trucks. Another thing is the privacy issue, they say that their privacy is pretty much is gone although they are going to be building a wall there for them later on. And Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 14, 1995 Page 23 one of the ladies have actually lost one hour of sun in her backyard, she has a swimming pool. Other things that I am concerned with ,obviously the noise, the air pollution. You know these vehiGes sitting there the exhaust fumes from the cars and stuff waiting to get in and out. The dust level and that type of thing. Alidjani: A couple of questions, the people you talked to were they on Overland and Fred Meyers area we are talking about? Cahoon: They live on Southerland and they would be willing to furnish me with names. Alidjani: What is the distance between their homes and let's say the Fred Meyers docking area on that side versus this one that they are claiming that is 410 feet or 400 feet between the dock at the Fred Meyer and the residence on the north side of that lot. Is it closer? Cahoon: Well, their situation is a little bit different because obviously, I have the road right there on, the loop road (inaudible) is in alignment with the north side of my property. Alidjani: I understand your side where you are at. When you talked to the people in the Five Mile area, how close are their houses to the Fred Meyer? Cahoon: I don't know the footage, the back side of the building is right behind them, their little delivery road or whatever is right behind and then there is a like a little swampy area. So it is about the same, but see I don't know exactly where Fred Meyers is going to be as far as like the parking lot and everything. Alidjani: Thank you Cahoon: I want somebody if they would pretty please to come out and mark on my property line how much of my front lawn you are going to take and also could you mark on Fred Meyers side where that loop road is going to be so I can kind of see where that road is in accordance with the location of my property? That is it, oh, I also have my little letter that I wrote with my points. Johnson: Has this been submitted before? Cahoon: No Johnson: Thank you Karen Blayney, 2000 North Applewood Avenue, was sworn by the City Attorney. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 14, 1995 Page 24 Blayney: I just wanted to move my comments from the preliminary plat and go on record for the Fred Meyer the things that I was talking about as far as the berming between me and Fred Meyers until they put up the storage buildings and I am still concerned about the noise and the lights. Thanks. Johnson: Thank you, is there anyone else that would like to address the Commission on this application? Is there anything you would like to say Mr. Durkin? Durkin: I have just an answer to a question you are asking. The Overland and Five Mile Store is, it is quite a bit of a different layout. The property at Overland and Five Mile was purchased by Fred Meyer about 15 years ago. It is a very long, shallow piece of property. They have a specially designed store to squeeze in there if you will and it is less than ideal layout for them. As far as I am understanding they have not, they have some work to do in the back of their store that is not yet completed. I believe there is going to be a wall back there and some vuork there to a drainage pond, I am not certain of that. It is not the same type of a bade of the store that we are going to have here, this is going to be nicer. The other point is the distance between the back of their store and the closest residence is about 60 feet at Overland and Five Mile, the closest residence that 1 can get to here is about 350 feet, I would just like to walk over to the overhead for a moment. I always lose my bearings on these things. My understanding is the woman that just testified lives right here, the woman with the concern, is this about correct. From our scaling that is about 350 feet (inaudible) which is over a city block from the loading dock here to her property line. I am not positive as to how far her house is from the property line. But it is a great difference compared to the Overland and Five Mile store. We certainly have a conflict in opinions on when the trucks are coming and going. The only thing I can suggest on that is there is at that development across Five Mile there are additional retail developments and I don't know if the delivery vehicles are cutting through Fred Meyer and going over there, that is the only explanation I can give you. But, I am again happy to go on record tonight in testimony that on behalf of Fred Meyer that they average 19 trucks a week. That the bulk of their deliveries are during the day, it is extremely rare that they have a delivery after 10:00 o'clock at night, they don't have the staff to handle it unless it is an emergency where they are running out of something. So the only other suggestion I can give is that it is a new store and maybe they were talking about the deliveries during the original stock of the store or something like that. The lighting here, this is the last comment I will make, the lighting in the parking lot, there is an energy management system and the bulk of the lighting is shut off at 11:00 at night, it just clicks on at each pole there is a security light which is a small light but the rest of the lights go off. The lighting on the Overland and Five Mile store I am not familiar with exactly what it is, I can tell you that the property that is developed is in the county, it isn't governed by any City codes. Meridian has strict codes on what lighting can go over and ff the adjacent property owner can mow their lawn off our lighting in the middle of the night the City has a code that they will enforce to make Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 14, 1995 Page 25 that not happen and we are in agreement to abide by that code. That is it. Hepper: t have a question, you said you have a lot of excess dirt, 65,000 or something like that. Are you going to haul that dirt off site or are you going to store it on perhaps lot 9 to the north. Durkin: That was our plan, that is what we did at our South Shore development in southeast Boise where we stored our extra material between our project and the adjacent residential areas. Hepper: With a pile of dirt like that would it be prohibitive to string it out into a long berm configuration for later removal. Durkin: That is quite a bit more than, I certainly wouldn't want to be in a position to commit to build a berm out of that much material, that is far more material than you need for a berm along that north (inaudible). Hepper: I am just talking a temporary berm until a later date when the dirt is removed and the storage facilities are built. Rather than one big pile out in the middle of that lot, if you could string it out. Durkin: We normally would stock pile with a scraper and they do it in long rows. Hepper: That is the way I have normally seen it done. Durkin: That is how we would do it. Hepper: Twenty feet wide on top and 30 foot wide on the bottom and 12 or 14 feet high or something like that. That would seem like the normal way it is done and 1 think that would alleviate some of the concerns about trying to block some of the noise and glare and (End of Tape) Durkin: We would certainly be in a position to if we can call it a temporary berm, we are not going to have irrigation facilities as far as watering on that side, but we would certainly be in a position to commit, we would prefer to call it a stock pile of some excess material along there. There are a lot of field decisions and I wouldn't want that to hold up any kind of, as far as people out there measuring that, it is hard to be accurate with scrapers. We would certainly be willing to commit to stock pile some of our excess top soil along there. Hepper: I think that was the general idea those of those people. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 14, 1995 Page 26 Durkin: That was actually our intention, I was trying to get the quantities and the miles and miles long if we used of the material. Johnson: If you have any excess topsoil the City of Meridian could use it for their new park, Tully park. Are you finished Larry, is that it? Any other. questions? Is there any one else from the public before I close the public hearing? I will Gose the public hearing at this time then. We have preliminary findings of fact. Alidjani: Wayne, do wre need any additions or deletions on these findings with respect to the questions and answers. The stockpile on the north on Lot 9. Crookston: Certainly the testimony is not reflected in those findings. You could approve the findings with the addition of a synopsis of what the people testified to which could be added after tonights meeting. You could approve them if the findings meet your approval and you could do anything you want with the decision. Johnson: So, what would you like to do? The same comment you made regarding the berm is it in these findings of fact too? Hepper: I think the findings of fact are sufficient and we have a verbal commitment from the developer on stock piling the dirt. I am certainly not going to, I don't think place any restrictions on the size of the temporary dirt pile, it is just an attempt to try to minimize the noise and glare. And the developer has verbally committed to that as part of the testimony. So I think the findings are adequate. Johnson: Do you want to make that in the form of a motion? Hepper: Mr. Chairman, I move the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts and approves these findings of fact and conclusions with a synopsis of the testimony. Rountree: Second Johnson: It is moved and seconded to approve of the preliminary findings of fact and conclusions of law as prepared with a synopsis of the testimony presented this evening, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTIOfV CARRIED: All Yea Johnson: Is there a decision or recommendation you wish to pass onto the City? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 14, 1995 Page 27 Hepper: Mr. Chairman, I move the Meridian City 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. Johnson: We need a roll call vote first. ROLL CALL VOTE: Hepper -Yea, Alidjani -Yea, Rountree -Yea, Shearer (Absent) Yea MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Johnson: Now the decision please. Hepper: Mr. Chairman, I move the Meridian City Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council of the City of Meridian that they approve the conditional use permit requested by the applicant for the property described in the application with the conditions set forth in the findings of fact and conclusions of law. Rountree: Second Johnson: It is moved and seconded to pass a recommendation as stated onto the City Council, all those in favor'? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Crookston: I just advise the people in attendance that the reason for amending the findings to reflect the testimony is that will be forwarded onto the City Council. Hepper: Mr. Chairman, I have a question is if it wouldn't be appropriate to read item #7 on page 9 just so the public would be aware of what it was that we just passed. I think they have some questions. Johnson: You can do that but these are public now that we have passed them on and they could get a copy if they want from the City Clerk tomorrow. Go ahead if you want to read it. Hepper: It wilt just take a second, I think it is pretty conclusive of all the testimony we have. As a condition of the conditional use permit a landscape plan must be submitted to the Planning and Zoning Administrator. At a minimum it must provide for 35 feet of landscaping along Locust Grove Road and Fairview Avenue and at least a solid 4 foot high berm or masonry fence along Locust Grove Road measured from the highest point Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 14, 1995 Page 28 at the parking of the entire development except where roadway entrances are planned for entrance into the parking lot. The landscape plan must provide for protection of Doris Subdivision from light, noise, vibration, odor and/or glare for bike lanes, sidewalks along Locust Grove and the berming and modem landscaping and buffering as represented by Avest in the annexation and zoning process. I just wanted to state that most of the concerns that were brought up have been addressed. Johnson: Thank you, we will take a five minute break now. FIVE MINUTE BREAK ITEM #4: TABLED JANUARY 10, 1995: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING FOR THE LAKE AT CHERRY LANE SUBDIVISION N0. 5 &6 BY STEINER DEVELOPMENT: Johnson: We will take care of this one first I guess, but vwe do have a request that this be tabled until the March meeting, we need a motion to that effect. Rountree: I so move. Atidjani: Second Johnson: The date certain on that would be the 14th is that correct? We have a motion and a second, all those in favor? Opposed? ITEM #5: TABLED JANUARY 10, 1995: REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR THE LAKE AT CHERRY LANE SUBDIVISION NO. 5 & 6 BY STEINER DEVELOPMENT: Johnson: We have the same people involved and also request a table until our regular March meeting which is March 14th. Rountree: Mr. Chairman, I move that we table that item until our next regularly scheduled meeting, March 14th. Alidjani: Second Johnson: We have a motion and a second to table that also, item #5, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 14, 1995 Page 29 ITEM #i6: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR REZONE REQUEST FROM R-4 TO L-O BY JAMES AND JEAN FULLER: Crookston: Mr. Chairman, I need to step down due to a conflict of interest. Hepper: Mr. Chairman, I need to step down too for the same reason. Johnson: Mr. Riddlemoser, would you please assist us here and sit in for Wayne Crookston? We are addressing item #6, findings of fact and conclusions of law for the rezone request. Are there any comments or discussion regarding the findings of facts as prepared by the City Attorney? Rountree: Mr. Chairman, I have a concern that if we make a recommendation for approval for the zoning request are we then in a position then to not to be able to condition or deny approval of the conditional use permit for the proposed use at this location? Crookston: It sounds like a legal question to me. We had some discussion on that point and I don't know that we have arrived at a decision. I would think that perhaps what we would want to do here is include that concern in any motion we have. Are we prepared, even though you have stepped down, Wayne are you still in the room? Just hypothetically, is that a possibility or not as far as you are concerned? Crookston: Without discussing this particular application, if a use is listed as a conditional use in whatever zone it is basically an allowed use which you can place conditions on. Johnson: Thank you, does that help Mr. Rountree? Rountree: Yes, given that, I would move that we re-draft the findings of fact and conclusions of law for item 6 to indicate a denial of the rezone request until such time as we have a use proposed for that property that is consistent with the land use in that particular area. Johnson: I am sorry, you made reference to 5 and six did you mean six and seven? Rountree: Excuse me, item #6 request for a rezone from R-4 to L-O. Johnson: Is that your motion? Rountree: Yes Alidjani: Charlie, for me to understand the motion, you have a problem because there is Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 14, 1995 Page 30 no designated use at that present time and also you wish to deny these findings of fact and not approve them, is that correct? Rountree: That is correct. Alidjani: I will second it. Johnson: Charlie, please re-state your motion? Rountree: I knew you would ask that. My motion is to amend the findings of fact and conclusions of law to reflect denial of the application for the rezone request until such time as we have a proposed use for the property that is consistent with the surrounding land use activities. Alidjani: I second it. Johnson: It is moved and seconded that we amend the findings of fact to state that we deny the application until such time as the plans for the property is more consistent or consistent with the surrounding uses, roll call vote. ROLL CALL VOTE: Hepper (abstains), Rountree -Yea, Shearer - (absent), Alidjani -Yea, Johnson -Yea MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Johnson: Is there an interest in a recommendation to the City Council? Rourrtree: My recommendation would be amended to read that the Planning and Zoning recommends denial of the request for rezone. Alidjani: Second Johnson: Moved and seconded to pass on a recommendation to the Ciry Council to deny the application, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Johnson: I have a couple of comments regarding the findings of fact which are just editorial which I will pass on to the City Clerk unless you care to here them now. They are just editorial, punctuation that sort of thing. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 14, 1995 Page 31 ITEM #7: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT A CONVENIENCE STORE/GAS STATION BY JAMES AND JEAN FULLER: Johnson: This is the conditional use permit request. Crookston: Mr. Chairman, I would continue to step down on that matter. Hepper: Same here Johnson: Any discussion or suggestions regarding the findings of fact as prepared by Attorney Riddlemoser? Rountree: Mr. Chairman, I move that the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts and approves the findings of fact and conclusions. Alidjani: Second Johnson: It is moved and seconded that we hereby adopt the findings of fact and conclusions of law as written, roll call vote. ROLL CALL VOTE: Hepper - (Abstains), Rountree -Yea, Shearer - (Absent), Alidjani - Yea, Johnson -Yea MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Johnson: Is there a decision or recommendation you wish to pass onto the City? Rountree: Mr. Chairman, I move the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council they deny the conditional use request by the applicant. Alidjani: Second Johnson: It is moved and seconded to deny the conditional use request by James and Jean Fuller, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #8: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR AN ACCESSORY USE PERMIT REQUEST FOR A FAMILY DAY CARE BY KELLY NESTEN: Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 14, 1995 Page 32 Johnson: You have read the findings of fact and conclusions of law as prepared by the City Attorney, are there any comments or discussion, additions or corrections? Rountree: I have one request to make Mr. Chairman, if we could handle items 8 through 13 as a consentrf there aren't any concerns or questions related to the findings of fact and approve them together. Johnson: Does anyone have any objection to that? Rountree: I move that we approve the findings of fact and conclusions of law for those items as written. Alidjani: I second it. Johnson: Just a minute please, I need to refresh my memory since we are jumping ahead here. With respect to item #11 I would like to have you make clear which findings of fact and conclusions of law. Rountree: My motion would address the findings of fact and conclusions that are indicated, this is the one that should be used. Johnson: I didn't want that confusion. We have a motion and a second to approve of all the findings of fact numbers 8 through 13, roll call vote. ROLL CALL VOTE: Hepper -Yea, Rountree -Yea, Shearer - (Absent), Alidjani -Yea MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Johnson: What about the recommendations to the City Council? Rountree: Mr. Chairman, I move that the Meridian Planning and Zoning hereby approves the recommendations, discussions and decisions as written for items 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13. Hepper: Second Johnson: Moved and seconded that these same number of findings and fact 8 through 13 that the decisions and recommendations so stated be passed on to the City Council, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 14, 1995 Page 33 ITEM #14: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF R-8, R-15 AND L-O FOR 180.9 ACRES BY GEM PARK II PARTNERSHIP: Johnson: I will now open the public hearing and invite the applicant or his representative to address the Commission. 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 working with Gem Park II Partnership which is Westpark Company, Greg Johnson right here on the front row. Greg lives in Melba, Idaho and has developed property in Meridian for several years. Most recently his project is Sportsman Park Subdivision which is very near the comer of south Locust Grove Road and Overland Road. I think he is on phase 2 or phase 3 construction on that project right now. The Westpark Company has watched development happen in Meridian for several years. A lot of projects happen by 20 acres at a time or 40 acres at a time. The Westpark Company and their directors decided that it might be a good idea to try and assemble several parcels of land to get maybe 150 or 200 acres to do a neighborhood project, a planned community rather than just chip away at 20 or 30 or 40 acres at a time. So, Greg and his company looked at the Meridian Comprehensive Plan, looked at the growth plans of the City, the Area of Impact, the Urban Service Planning Area where growth was projected to occur, where it is occurring and went out and started to assemble some property. I am going to take 3 or 4 minutes and go through some slides quickly. 1 know it is late and we have a lot of folks have waited to get to this public hearing. So I will be concise Mr. Chairman to acquaint you with the project. Can we dim maybe one or 2 lights would that be possible? Thank you, this is a slide of the adopted 1983 Meridian Comprehensive Plan generalized land use map. This property that is requested for annexation is between Locust Grove Road and South Eagle Road but on the north side of Victory. You see quite a few symbols in that area. If you see the words Nine Mile Trunk right below that green circe that is the future alignment of the Nine Mile Trunk Sewer project which has been already planned by the City. That green circle that you see and the little school symbol with the flag on it means that is an area where the school district and the City have anticipated a future school and park site. The little triangular symbol that you see right by the S on South Eagle Road that is an anticipated future satellite fire station. The little half circle right below the triangle and that is a# the intersection of Eagle Road and Victory Road, that is a symbol meaning a future well site for the City. The orange that you see at the intersection of Victory and Locust Grove and also on the north side of Overland and on both sides of South Eagle Road is anticipated for Mixed Use Development meaning a variety of integrated planned land uses from commercial to residential to office. The red circles that you see on the north and south side of that interchange are generally meaning commercial. So there is a lot of activity occurring there. The yellow that you see is a designated mixed residential in the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 14, 1995 Page 34 Comprehensive Plan. The application submitted by Gem Park Partnership includes several groups. I am one of the planning team members working with David Clinger, who is an urban planner from Denver, Colorado. My role in this is to make sure that all of the agency comments, planning and zoning comments, citizen comments in particular get boiled down into a good preliminary plat. We did not submit a preliminary plat, we have taken the position that this is such a major project that we wanted to submit an annexation request and run this project up the flag pole so to speak. Get the reaction and input and ideas and take all of that and make a good preliminary plat based on everyone's input. Here is the concept master plan that David Clinger has worked on and it is a starting spot with Westpark. A lot of different types of home sites would occur in the area along south Locust Grove Road and Victory Road in that comer would be much like any of the other subdivisions that you see around the community except as you notice as we get into this there is a lot of green space. Trails, parks, a lot of landscaping, nice entrances on the other side of Ridenbaugh, which would be east of Ridenbaugh canal a lot. of nice cudesacs, parks, pathways, some cluster homes which fills a market need in Meridian. And also proposed multi-family up near Eagfe Road and the Ridenbaugh canal. This is a starting spot that we have taken to approach this annexation request. First of all there are some zoning constraints, the R~ zoning requires an 80 foot lot width by 100 foot depth which referred to generally is an 8,000 square foot lot. The city has a regulated size of a 1400 square foot minimum house size. Everyone that we have researched with, the banks, the housing agencies, realtors, builders tell us that there is a big market out there in Meridian and the agencies put it at about 73°h of potential home buyers that cannot afford that R-4 type housing. There is a great need we feel for some housing that fits a big need in the market, something in the 1000 square foot size, 1200 square foot, 1400 square foot, 1600 square foot and larger. There are a lot of vacant R-4 lots on the market, in fact the City estimates about 1300 lots right now in Meridian that are available that are vacant. There are a lot of R-4 projects already approved and in the City. Johnson: Those aren't all R-4 for the record. Forrey: According to the City staff we have been told #hey are, but there could be some R-8. Johnson: Yes, there is some R-8 in that 1300 figure,. if you are going to use that figure. Forrey: Okay, here is one approach, the solution as we see it. The Meridian Comprehensive Plan indicates mixed residential for that area of the community so vve took the approach of an R-8 and an R-15 zoning request with a density development agreement That would accomplish basically 2 things, the R-8 and R-15 allows lot widths to be down in the 50 to 65 foot width. The R-4 requires a minimum of 80 foot, if we can get down to 50 and 65 foot wide lot there is creativity there that we can meet with different Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 14, 1995 Page 35 housing styles and different costs. So our request for R-8 and R-15 was not based on getting 8 or 15 units to the acre but rather to get the flexibility that the City has right now in your ordinance to get a 50, 55, 60, 65 foot wide lot. The overall density in this project is 682 units or an overall project of 3.94 units to the acre. Johnson: Could you go back to that slide for a second? I will come back to that with my question. Forrey: Here are the properties involved in this annexation request, it involves about 173 acres assembled by Westpark Company. The little sliver of property on Locust Grove Road owned by the Schaffer family requested for Limited Office. That is a triangular piece of property, there are some very nice homes on the west side of Locust Grove Road. Westpark Company proposes to build a nice office there and would like to use that for their office. The rest of the Schaffer property is proposed R-8, Kdlgore property R-8, the Record property is R-8. Then on the east side of Ridenbaugh Canal is the Sally Martin property proposed R-15 and then the Nixon property up next to Eagle Road would also be R-15. Johnson: Wayne would you go to the map and point out the various properties. I can't read the green from here and maybe the public can't either. Forrey: The triangular parcel right here is owned by the Schaffer family, it is up next to the Eight Mile Lateral. This is the area we think will be good for a small professional office building. The Schaffer ownership here would be R-8. This is the Killgore ownership requested for R-8, the Record property requesting R-8. This parcel and this parcel next to the canal. Johnson: What are the names on those 2 I can't read that? Forrey: Martin family, and this large parcel right here is also the Martin property requesting an R-15. And the. Nixon property here requesting R-15. I would like to point out the indication here of R-15 is because your current ordinance allows a more flexible lot dimension those zones than it does in the R-4. The objective was to get some lots that are not 80 feet wide. So that is the reason for this type of zoning request. In that area, there are several approved subdivisions already annexed into the City and about ready to start construction. The brown at the top of that map is Sundance Subdivision, the yellow is Los Alamitos Subdivision and the green that you see there is the proposed Meridian Highlands Ranch project. The blue in the center is a proposed school park site, Sundance Subdivision has committed to donate a portion of that site to the City and the school district. The same with Los Alamitos, Meridian Highlands Ranch would also donate I think 4.9 acres to the City of Meridian to be donated to the school. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 14, 1995 Page 36 Johnson: I am sorry, maybe you said this, how large is that blue area there? Forrey: I am not sure of the exact, at development 15 acres. Its a combination of elementary school site and City park. Of that 15 acres Meridian Highlands Ranch is donating 4.9 and I am not sure exactly how many acres Sundance or Los Alamitos has agreed to contribute to the school district, but they have made a commitment to provide land in those general locations. Okay, project features, elementary school site 4.9 acres, neighborhood greenbelt and open space there is actually 7.8 acres over and above the school and park contribution. An additional 7.8 acres that would be donated to the homeowners association for recreation use and maintenance. There is a full pedestrian path along the Ridenbaugh Canal that is over a mile, 6,000 linear feet, 2 pedestrian bridges to connect the neighborhoods and the school. An additional 4,000 feet of green belt paths just within the neighborhood itself outside of the Ridenbaugh canal pathway. A homeowners association for paid professional maintenance of the grounds and 7 neighborhood mini-parks, open space areas within that entire project. Now there is proposed to be 6 integrated housing choices, lots A would be the luxury home sites somewhere between 9,000 and 9,700 square foot lot size, 1600 square foot sized. homes and larger. The next would be the executive home sites, 8140 to 8800 square foot lot size and the homes would be 1400 square foot. The greenbelt home sites would be on a little smaller lot and this is where we need the R-8 and the R-15 but it would allow 6000 square foot lots to maybe 7700 and there would be a variety through the project and we could build a 1.000 square foot home or larger. The keyhole home sites would go down a little smaller now to 5000 to 6000 square foot lot and a 900 square foo# or larger home. There are lifestyle homes, 1400 square feet and up, you would own the home it would be single family detached but you would not have to do any yard maintenance. It would be done by the homeowners association. Johnson: Have you broke that down by projected number of units for each category? Forrey: Yes, I have that to hand out, then the multi family would tie 2 story apartment units. Johnson: While the slide is on there I would like to see that or have you address the number of units. Forrey: Okay, I can tell you, the A lots there would be 51 units of luxury home sites, the B lots would be 112, the C lots which is the green belt home sites would be 196, the keyhole home sites would be 93 lots, the lifestyle homes which some people would call a town house is 52 and muki family apartments is 178 for a total of 682 units. The overall density of the project would be 3.94 units per acre and if you remove the multi family then the overall density would be 3.07 units to the acre. There would be an on site sales Meridian Planning 8 Zoning Commission February 14, 1995 Page 37 pavilion, a large water pond, extensive landscaping. All the entryway would be landscaped prior to any lot sales. A landscaped berm on Eagle Road as a buffer, attractive street entrances, a small professional office building, attractive design on Locust Grove Road. We have also incorporated traffic calming design, ACHD and APA have been promoting anon-continuous collector design features and we have included that in this project, I will show you here in a moment. A safe traffic aa;ess, every home would have linkage to at least 2 arterials be it Eagle and Victory or Victory and Locust Grove. The non~ontinuous collector format that 1 talked about, if you look, Ada County Highway District has looked really hard at neighborhood traffic issues and the complaint has been cut through traffic. So the concept here is that all of the traffic in this portion of the project would feed to 2 arterials, Victory Road or Locust Grove and would not be cutting through to impact these neighborhood this piece of the project. The same with this development, access to either Eagle or Victory Road and minimise that cut through traffic by automobiles, but there would be a pedestrian bridge here and a pedestrian bridge here so that school kids and people that are walking in the neighborhood can certainly walk and link and not have the cars and the cut through traffic. This is the area for the keyhole homes, the D that I referred to. This is the area for the lifestyle homes which is E on the list. And then the greenbelt homes are through here, the executive lots up on this ridge. And just nice single family detached homes throughout the balance of the project. David Clinger designed the project in Ketchum, Idaho called the Pines. And it includes keyhole homes, Duster homes and the same type of design format, in fact this was the inspiration for the Highlands Ranch. Our project team has looked at this and this is the feeling that we are trying to bring into this project. This happens to be the entrance of the Pines, this would be characteristic of the same type of entrance we would have coming into the Meridian Highlands Ranch. Now here is an example of the keyhole lot, the lot on the left, the house has anorth-south orientation, but it is wider at the rear so the yard is actually wider. So it is narrow at the front and wider at the back. Typically lots are rectangular or square and you end up with a lot of wasted space. The house on the right has more of an east-west orientation. The owner maybe wants a wide type of house so the lot is wide at the front and narrow at the back. Also, that means you have to look pretty close at the fencing. That area D that you see right there up against the multi-family and Eagle Road is the area we anticipate for the keyhole lots. Johnson: Both D's? Forrey: Yes, the tan that you see there. And that is the 93 units that I referred to. Here is looking at keyhole lots in the Pines project in Ketchum. This is identical to the type of keyhole development we envision right here at Meridian Highlands Ranch. You see the fence and the angular construction of that fence. At the time that lot is developed and the home is built the fence is also built at the same time and landscaped so when the buyer comes in to buy the keyhole lot and home the home is there, the yard is already Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 14, 1995 Page 38 landscaped, the fence is already constructed. It gives someone room in the backyard but it is not a lot of yard. It is low maintenance, louver cost housing, it is affordable housing but it is very nice. Johnson: Back to that slide, are these permanent residents? Forney: Yes, these are not summer homes. In this portion of the project w+e envision the lifestyle home. All of that area, in fact the folks that live out there will recognize this where Sally Martin has her pine grove. We want to use those pine trees and not displace those. Any that would come out as a result of roadwork would be used somewhere in the project. One of the advantages of submitting an annexation request without a preliminary plat is that we get a chance to meet with fire departments, citizens, police, ACRD and take all of their ideas and try and tum it into something better. We met with the fire department, the Fire Chief said I just don't like these culdesacs here can we loop those streets right through here. That is an excellent suggestion and on the preliminary plat you will see that we will not have these dead end culdesacs but rather loop that through. Tonight perhaps we may hear from some property owners that want a different kind of treatment through here a buffer. We are willing to look at that. The highway district likes this type of entrance, this will be heavily landscaped, but it may mean that we need to make some adjustments or changes based on citizen testimony. So we are open to good design. Here is an example of the sales area in the Pines project in Ketchum. This would be similar to the sales office that is built at Highlands Ranch, but here is the important things here is one of the lifestyle homes in the Pines project. This home is over 1400 square feet, this is the type of unit that is envisioned in the lifestyle home section I just referred to on the Sally Martin property. And all of the green space that you see there will be maintained by a homeowners association, paid professional staff. So you would own the home and have the privacy of a patio but not have to worry about the yard maintenance. And that is quite frankly that is niche in the market, they would like to buy a home like that. This is another lifestyle in another project (End of Tape) there will be water in the project and it will be in the lifestyle home area. Again this would all be maintained by the professional paid staff. And you would just have to take care of your own home. This is the last photograph Mr. Chairman. This is the Pines again, we used the same concept, a lot of landscaping, curvilinear streets, trying to blend all of these good things into a good. project and with testimony tonight I think we can do an even better job. I do have a list, the citizens that vve have talked to and also that provided comments had some very good ideas. I noted 14 comments that came out of the information I received. First of all citizens want a density of about 4 units per acre in this area. I am here tonight to state that is pertectly acceptable to Westpark. There is no need for us to go over 4 units to the acre overall on this project. Citizens want to see a preliminary plat and what wa would like to do is send a copy after this meeting after we get all of this information boiled down and make sure we have a good project let's make sure we put a preliminary plat together and Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 14, 1995 Page 39 send it to everyone within 300 feet or whoever is one the mailing list. Screening fences, definitely we will put that in the project. It was asked that we have single story level homes on the perimeter. Westpark says that is find, if that is a concern of citizens we can live with the single story level homes on the perimeter. Water impacts was mentioned a lot by citizens, City of Meridian has a policy of taking their municipal wells very deep. 1 think most of the wells are around the 600 to 700 foot depth and that is to avoid impacts to the shallow separate water aquifer above that level to minimize impacts to the rural wells that are definitely out in this area. The City has asked for a well site on the east end of the project, Westpark is committed to donate a well site to the City. Another concern was adequate police and fire service, this area is in the Urban Service Planning area of Meridian, it has been in the Meridian impact area since 9978. The fire department asked that we provide and donate to the City a 160 foot square satellite fire station on the east end of the project next to Eagle Road. Westpark Development will commit to that and you will see that in the preliminary plat It has been suggested that we have a berm and a pine tree screen buffer. Greg and 1 spoke about this at length with some property owners and I think one thing we can commit to is the lifestyle homes along Victory Road, the multi- family along Eagle Road and then wherever the project touches Eagle Road, Victory Road or Locust Grove road we would install a berm with pine trees. It was also suggested that we use the pine trees if possible on the Sally Martin property. We will definitely use those trees they won't be destroyed they will be used in the project. Strong covenants was another concern and what Westpark will do is submit with the preliminary plat and submit it to the citizens everyone that gets the plat with get a copy of the covenants, conditions and restrictions so they can get a chance to comment on that as well. Retain and file ditches, several property owners were concerned about continuing their irrigation water. All the ditches will remain and they will be tiled. A school site will be donated to the city and made available to the school district. Another concern was impacts to septic sewers, this entire project would be connected to the Nine Mile Trunk sewer, there would be no septic systems on the property. Transition buffers, Johnson: Excuse me, while you talk could you go back to the diagram, to the plat. Forrey: Transition buffers to adjacent homeowners, we would design #his preliminary plat with input from any property owner that is next to the project and try to work out some type of transition, whatever buffer they feel is best for them. As far as development controls, one gentleman asked that there be development controls to prevent a trailer park. In the R~ and R-15 zoning the city may allow a trailer park, that is certainly not what Westpark is proposing. But if you feel there needs to be a contract zoning approach here that is pertectly fine to Westpark or the development agreement to list the uses that are not allowed or could not tie developed as part of the R~ or R-15 request that is certainly reasonable and we would help do that. After we get all of the comments we want to sit down again and work with property owners and design a good preliminary plat, this is a Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 14, 1995 Page 40 major project it will probably take 10 years for Westpark Company to build this out. We think this neighborhood has everything that everyone has always said Meridian neighborhoods should have. It has pedestrian paths, access to a school park, parks within the development, no cut through traffic, we are meeting a variety of housing needs, Tots of pathways. We think it is a good project and hope it is approved. The last thing Mr. Chairman, I have a list of conditions that we would suggest that could be added to any future conditions that your commission might develop for this project. We generated a fist for you. Johnson: Okay, we would like to have those for the record, you also have a list of the people you talked to, you mentioned 14, or those comments you read to us. Forrey: It came from the City staff packet, there is I think a petition. Johnson: We have the petition, is that the same list you are talking about? Forrey: Yes Johnson: Could you show me where the proposed fire station and well site are? Forrey: The Meridian Comprehensive Plan map has a symbol about right here for a fire station and well site symbol approximately here. Those are general locations, when we met with the Fire Chief he asked that right in this comer here closest to Eagle Road that there be a 160 foot square site donated to the City. We also talked about the possibility of putting it up here at this entrance to the subdivision as part of the multi-family development and the Fire Chief doesn't have a problem with that. Either site is acceptable to the City. Johnson: I guess I am confused, what can you possibly do with a 160 square foot site? Forrey: The City of Meridian right now is negotiating with Steiner Development company to acquire a 160 square foot site on North Ten Mile Road. Oh excuse me 160 foot by 160 feet. Johnson: Oh, okay I was thinking maybe the size of my house jumped up. Forrey: This site may actually be bigger because we want to dove tail in with that a well site and that takes 100 foot by 100 foot piece of property. So this will be a combination satellite fire station and city well site right in this location on Eagle Road. Johnson: Thank you Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 14, 1995 Page 41 Alidjani: Wayne I have a question, I see on the comments that Chief of Fire Kenny Bowers has he has some concerns about those cluster homes on the bottom end. And then you said later on you had met with him and took care of some of that. If you can point it how did you go through those culdesac and reopen them or make a circle that he was happy with that idea? Forrey: (Inaudible) This is just a concept, so if we get to the preliminary plat stage we will sit down with the fire department and make sure that these are looped all the way through here an not have these type of hammerhead T arrangements for the fire trucks. This is something that the chief just said he couldn't live with. We have to do a little better design for the fire truck. It would be easy to (inaudible) a personal vehicle in there but and you would to with a garbage truck I think. So we are going to redesign this area. Alidjani: So I guess if 1 may continue there are 3 culdesacs, all of those are going to be looped from the upper portion of the entrance comes all the way down below, gets other there and the other 2 will also be connected. Forrey: At this point that is the input wee have received that says that is the best way to do it. Alidjani: Thank you Hepper: Where would the water from the pressurized irrigation system come from? Forrey: It would come from either the wells on site or existing irrigation water, irrigation water rights on site. It would not come from the City of Meridian, it would comply with your ordinance. Hepper: What would be the depth of those wells, would there be any concern for the neighbors that have mentioned about their wells drying up? Forrey: I don't know the depths. Greg mentions there are 2 existing domestic wells that would charge the irrigation system. Johnson: Okay, then maybe to answer Tim's question in depth, how deep are those wells? Do we know at this point? Forrey: They are on the Sally Martin property, I don't know Mr. Chairman. Johnson: Okay, I thought maybe you had that information. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 14, 1995 Page 42 Forrey: A lady in the audience indicates 150 feet deep. Johnson: Any other questions of Wayne? Hepper: Is the area of the canal is that figured in as part of the common area of the project? Forrey: No, it is not, that is easement area. Shari Stiles has been a real stickler on that, that you can't include the easement area as part of your open space calculation. Hepper: You also stated there was 1300 lots in Meridian that are on the market right now, is that lots that are developed ready to build on or is that lots that have been approved by the City but not developed? Forrey: According to the Knipe report and that is what I got it out of, the Knipe Real Estate Report, there are 1300 approved, ready to build on lots in the City of Meridian. Hepper: Within City limits? Forrey: Well, it said City of Meridian, that are still vacant, no construction on them yet. Johnson: Any other questions of Mr. Forrey at this time? I will give you an opportunity to come back Wayne. This is a public hearing, is there someone from the public that would like to address the Commission at this time? Herbert Papenfuss, 2680 South Eagle Road, was sworn by the City Attorney. Papenfuss: Well, I am not one of those that they con#acted because if they had contacted me it wouldn't have been very favorable. I have 3 aa-es right across the street from where this is going to be. Johnson: Where would that be on that map there? I guess we lost the map, it we could keep that up Wayne it gives us a reference point. Papenfuss: The property would be right here across from the Nixon property. They say they are going to put a fire station right here and that is almost across from me because am right in here. I can't see that is going to help my property values any. The traffic will increase, in fact when they put that interchange on Eagle Road it increased the traffic unbelievably. In the morning it is almost bumper to bumper down that road. People come over even though it means going out of their way 2 miles, people come over from Cloverdale and that area to hit the free way, this will add a number of cars to that. This Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 14, 1995 Page 43 access on V ictory Road, they will just come down Victory Road and hit Eagle and go right on down Eagle Road. Several years ago when I had to face medical bills that I didn't have insurance for I borrowed money on my home so I had to have an official evaluation before 1 could borrow the money and the evaluator deducted $5,000 for the evaluation on the basis of traffic. So increased traffic certainly isn't going to increase the valuation of my property in anyway that you could imagine. Then you are putting homes there with a high density, low income homes, that is what he said, that isn't going to increase property values in any way at all. What that means is that I am stuck with a home that if 1 try to sell and go somewhere else and find a comparable home I am going to have to make substantial payments. When I moved out there 25 years ago, I moved out there because I wanted to be on a quiet road. I bought an acreage because I wanted an acreage. This whole set up will increase traffic, it will increase the number of people there. And low income housing certainly won't help. 1 am not opposed to development, I am not, but would sooner see development of the acreage comparable to what wB have on the other side of the road, all of them are acreages. I would much sooner see that sort of a development, that would help our values not decrease them. When I look around this place and we have looked around I see a lot of acreages for sale, in fact there is almost a premium on them. You go out to the Eagle area and you will pay a substantial amount of money for 1 or 2 acre lot. So, I don't see the people really hard up for property and I don't see the need to impact this area with that much housing. Not with what housing is already there. That is basically all I have for right now. I am opposed to it as it is because it is not going to benefit my valuation whatsoever, it is going to decrease it. Johnson: Thank you, is there anyone else from the public that would like to come forward? John Shipley, 2770 South Locust Grove, was sworn by the City Attorney. Shipley: Let me show you where my property is. (Inaudible) this border line here (inaudible). Johnson: For the record Mr. Shipley's property is on the northwest corner of this development. Shipley: It is my south border line. I believe I would be for the development because if I am allowed to do with my property what I vwuld like to do would be either build some low level town houses or to just make a parking lot for people's campers and boats that they won't rea-ly have enough room for in this other development. If the developer would stub me in a sewer line up the back side on the drain ditch it would leave me open to do either thing. Either build some low level type town houses or a nice tittle parking lot for hundreds of peoples boats and campers and things like that, that they don't have proper place for and it is Gose to wfiere they are going to be living so they would be able to get in and out Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 14, 1995 Page 44 of there. It might not be aesthetically beautiful, I am sure the advantages would be a lot better than the disadvantages for the people that are living there. That is all I have to say. Johnson: Thank you, yes sir. Wes Carve, 2590 South Eagle Road, was sworn by the City Attorney. Carve: I said that 20 years ago and I am still paying for it. Johnson: Wes, we don't normally let people testify with their hat on but yours is so beautiful I don't know. Carve: I am not responsible for the glare when I take it off. My residence is right here on the east side of South Eagle Road directly across. You can see where the majority of saturation of the planned housing is. I roughly just figured it out and right there, I can be corrected, I don't mind be corrected I am a substitute teacher so I get corrected quite often by students, but we are looking right there and the D's and F area 271 dwelling units, that is multiple family and single dwelling units. Before 1 go on let me address something about irrigation water, I am the ditch manager for our lateral. Our irrigation water is supplied for this whole area on the east side of the Ridenbaugh canal is supplied by the Boise Board of control projects. Domestic wells by law are not allowed to be used for irrigation, the domestic wells in this area normally do not go below 250 feet. In the last 4 years with the droughts a vast majority of the acreages of the homes have had to re-drill wells because of the drought they have been going dry. The water table continues to drop, if this, if somehow they do get permission to use these domestic wells for irrigation we will all be re~tirilling our wells to a deeper level. The cost of drilling a well today just for domestic use ranges from $6,000 to $10,000 and you are waiting up to 6 months just to get a company to come and drill it. So if that helps you on where you are going to get your irrigation v~rater. Pressurized system on domestic wells right now isn't allowed by law. So that will help you out. Johnson: Sir, could you enlighten me as to how deep the re-drilling of the wells has gone, the new wells? Carve: Four years ago I had to re-drill my well and it went from 100 feet to 264. I went about 70 feet below the existing water table at that time. t and a good, upstanding republican, ditto head which probably doesn't really matter, but I am for progress. But 8 years ago my family and I moved from Boise out to South Eagle Road because it was a nice quiet area, we bought over 5 acres where we could farm. 1 have been accused of being a gentleman farmer, I don't know as if I like that term but it holds pretty true. I raise livestock, beef, sheep, pigs, chickens, kids, more the kids than I can afford most the time. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 14, 1995 Page 45 We had some very beautiful areas out there, lot a wildlife, wildlife is diminishing rapidly. We have had partridge, quail, pheasant, fox, even mule deer run around our areas. As I see the development moving closer and closer to us, our wildlrfe dwindles more rapidly. But even that is not my major concern because I can raise all the fowl 1 want. But what does concern me is what Herb said is traffic. When we moved out there in 1987 Eagle Road was a nice quiet 2 lane country road. My family and I enjoyed a nice leisurely walk in the evening all year round. Then in 1988 they opened up the Eagle interchange since that time I have lost 2 dogs, 3 cats and almost every member of my family. Eagle Road now is not safe to walk up and down. We are not going to stop this development, but we might be able to change and you might be able to change some of it. This many units in this small of area gentlemen is just pure saturation that is not needed. You check with all major reakors in Boise you will find that rental units, apartment buildings today there have been so many built we are no longer short. There is no need now for 2 story apartment complexes. Not only will this give us mgre of a saturation of people that we need the aesthetics and the lifestyle that we bought into and that Herb and Cathy they have raised their whole family in their home, that will be gone for us. Berms and pine trees, we will never see another sunset, 1 would like to borrowthe lady earlier pictures of the sunrise and just shirt it to the west. We have some of the most beautiful in Ada County from our front lawn. I can sit out there my wife and 1 in the evenings in the summer time and actually listen to our grass grow after dark. I won't be able to anymore. Where the road empties onto Eagle Road that empties right directly into my bedroom, every headlight that comes out there it won't matter how many berms and pine trees there are those lights are going to be shining right into my bedroom. That is going to be 24 hours a day because people in this valley work 24 hours a day. This gentleman has built some very nice homes, I have been through some of his homes out here, I looked at them. There is no yard with them, a lot of people like that. Myself I have a riding lawn mower I have that much lawn, but that is the lifestyle I like. This is a developmenrt coming in and taking away what I have had for years. I wilt have no choice in it, but you can have a choice on how much of that comes in. Like 1 said there is not a need today for all of the condominiums out here and for all the apartment complexes. It is bad enough we get that many people living that close together. 1 like waking up in the morning and I stretch my arms I don't want to hit my neighbor in the eye. Herb lives far enough south of me that can't happen. Basically the gentleman already answered my concerns about the wells and sewage, they will hook up that won't affect me any as long as it is not for ircigation. But for that much traffic that is a major concern. It takes very little research to find out the need for the apartment complex is not necessary. The need for the condominiums is not necessary. We don't have that many people that are going to be coming into this valley. Just in Sunday's paper there was a listing in there by area on home homes have been sold in 1994. And the vast majority of homes in the Meridian area were pre-existing homes, not new construction. That is if you can believe the Statesman. Gentlemen there is not much else I can say, except you can't control what Ada County Highway District is going to do because they are going to do it Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 14, 1995 Page 46 anyway. They have a plan of building in my living room which is on the opposite side of the house. Basically that is it, thank you for your time. Johnson: I appreciate your comments, any questions? Thank you, anyone else from the public that would like to come forward at this time? Torie McAlvain, 1975 East Victory Road,. was swum by the City Attorney McAlvain: I live right off of Victory Road just across where this is going to dump onto Victory Road and t live quite a ways back in about 1200 feet. 1 just built a new home in there. I am concerned about the size of the homes they are going to put in there. My home is not small, it is not overly huge but I built it to have some value and I am worried about the value of my home falling if they build smaller homes in there. I am not sure where they are going to start this development at. He stated it was over a 10 year period if the market falls flat here where does it start. Are they going to start and go for so long and when it falls flat they are going to (inaudible) I am just really concemed about the traffic again like everybody else. 1 know there is nothing we can do about it, but more so the impact it is going to have on the value of my house. Johnson: Thank you Jim Allen, 3040 East Victory, was sworn by the City Attorney. Allen: I will give you an idea of where I am at, right here. Unfortunately I am not within 300 feet so nobody contacts me but 1 am in an area that will be impacted by traffic. I am in an area that has been impacted by drought. Neighbors on both sides of me wrells went dry last year, I furnished water for them. I hope I don't have to do it again. If you are looking at what you can do with water for irrigation check with the Water Resources Board you already know that. Ada County Highway is going to do it to us, we are going to have traffic out there. We are losing a lifestyle, what we are really losing though is farm ground. You can raise houses cheap, you can turn the ground under but you are not going to be able to eat houses. Johnson: Thanks Jim, I saw a lady over here. Diane Beaulieu, 1895 Star Lane, was sworn by the City Attorney. Beaulieu: My concern is what happens between the presentation and the reality. Igo back to a subdivision that is near and dear to my heart and it was presented that the homes would start at $130,000 and then you discover that their advertising in the paper for $90,000. That is over $30,000 difference, so what is going to keep the subdivision that Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 14, 1995 Page 47 they are going to have the mix. They are not all going to be the lower end of houses. I am really concerned because when you are presented something and you believe that is going to happen and it doesn't and you call the office and Shari Stiles says huh we can't hold them to it. That is really disappointing. Johnson: What we can do and our ordinances say, we go by square footage, we don't go by value. Normally a developer will give us a range, but our ordinances and everything we do are geared towards square footage and then we put limitations on certain subdivisions for square footage. We don't address values because values are not as constant as square footage. Beaulieu: Well, you know that is quite a big difference in value, but I think it is very mis- leading to the people who don't come here all the time and see what happens. Johnson: Well, I am trying to clear it up for you. Beaulieu: 1 understand that is what happens, but the people don't understand that happens. They expect that houses are going to be a certain type of house. I think people need to be aware of that. Johnson: Thank you, anyone else? David Lombardy, 277 North 6th Street, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Lombardy: I represent James Griffen, Mr. Griffen owns the 80+ acre parcel to the north of this project, north of the Ridenbaugh Cana-. My primary reason for appearing on behalf of Mr. Griffen today is to advise Mr. Forrey and his colleagues that Mr. Griffen is present he is an adjacent property owner and would very much like to speak with you concerning your plans, particularly in light of the suggestion in the Ada County Highway District's report that they might wish to place a road across the Ridenbaugh Canal at the area where a foot bridge is presently planned by the developer. We have no objections to this property being annexed and we have no objections to the zoning s proposed with the understanding clearly stated by Mr. Forrey today that there is no preliminary plat before you at this point that they are only seeking the annexation and zoning. Thank you. Johnson: Thank you Mr. Lombardy, any questions? Anyone else that would like to come forward? Bonnie Glick, 2860 East Victory Road, was sworn by the City Attorney. Glick: I submitted a letter, which I guess Mr. Forrey received because he addressed a Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 14, 1995 Page 48 number of my concerns. My property is 2.2 acres adjacent to Sally Martin's property where if you will notice at the bottom he has all the green trees and he talks about putting the lifestyle homes in there that are going to be maintained by a professional lawn service etc., 1 live right next to that. I have 2.2 acres that run up the east boundary of that green area there at the bottom on Victory Road. Along with the concerns I expressed in my letter, I also want to raise tonight just that I think why are we looking at this kind of density in Meridian. Micron isn't coming, they are not doing their developing here, we just rejected a library bond in Meridian. Pretty soon we are going to have another school bond I am sure, which who knows if that will be approved. They don't seem to have very good luck getting approved so I have a concern about this density being proposed here well the development at all. I agree with my good neighbor here in the cowboy hat that we all are out there enjoying a wonderful rural lifestyle that ,many of us have enjoyed for many years. I have lived there for 13 years, most of my neighbors, the lady next to me has lived there 25 years. We all have acreages that are, I think I am probably the smallest at 2.2 and then right along Victory Road where I am up to Eagle Road there are just acreage, acreage, acreage. Mr. Allen is one of them, I don't know how what he has, 2.11, Vernetta next to me has about 6 or 7, Rex Young has 2, these guys have 2 and then on the corner Teddy think you know her, Teddy Hepper has an acre up there. Anyway we watch the fox run through the trees, I sit on my couch and look out my front window and I look at the fox in Sallys little forest. My kids, she mows little paths through there in the summer and my kids play in there. It is a hiding place, it is like an enchanted forest, the deer come through there. So the Irfestyle we have enjoyed all these years and that we are raising our children to enjoy is very threatened. It feels like their are invading us. I appreciate Mr. Forrey's interest in working with us, I don't think that I can stop development, but I do question the density that is being proposed here. I really, really question and I want to know about this proposal they have to use Sally's irrigation, her domestic well for irrigation. 1 know what Sally's well is, it is 150 feet deep, hers is one of the deepest ones up there. Vemetta my neighbor had to re-drill her well, hers was 60, she re-drilled it 110. Mine is at 110, her neighbor re~irilled from 60 to 110, Mr. Allen is at 197, his is deep. If they start using her domestic well for irrigation we are all going to be wiped out. I would like in writing that they are going to pay to re-drill my well. I can't afford $6,000 to $10,000 to re-drill my well if they are using her domestic well for irrigation or for any reason to support this kind of density in a housing development. Other points as far as me being right adjacent to these lifestyle homes, if that is what goes in there. Yes, I prefer lower level homes there because I view now the. Owyhee mountains, the whole range, it is breath taking and it just kills me to think about looking at these monstrosity homes standing out there in front of my window. I would like to see the plat and have us be able to put some input into that. I appreciate like I said their efforts in wanting to work with us as homeowners that are adjacent to and around this property. But I would like some kind of assurance that step by step we do know what is going on so that we don't have any surprises like this lady was bringing up. It is hard to know how we can trust this process that is happening. My other Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 14, 1995 Page 49 questions are he talked about the R-4 vacancies in this area and I am saying I am wondering if it is because there isn't enough growth to meet this development. He says it is because people can't afford the houses but my golly is it because we don't have the growth to meet it. The other question is when will the school open to accommodate this growth. Do we do all the growth and then we open the school and in the mean time. Mary McPherson is sitting over there, they have already used up their music room and health room for class rooms. They have no more room, they are busting at the seams and all these kids are in that school district. I don't know 1 have a million concerns and I guess I would just like to talk with the developer as things go on. But basically the density and the irrigation the water issue is a huge one. I don't want to have to re-drill my well. Thank you. Johnson: Is there anyone else that would like to come forward? Matt Caris, 6161 North Drake Way, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Caris: I am more or less representing my father who is away he and my mom go down south every winter. So, his property, I can show you (inaudible). We had some concerns, we are generally in favor of the annexation mainly because my dad has always felt that a person should be able to do what he wants to do with his property. We have always worked that field, I grew up there, been there for over 30 years. We run a small landscape business out of that property and did some farming throughout the whole area. All the trees that everybody talks about over at Sally's my family planted along with the Martin's we have been real good friends with the Martin's for years. One of our main concerns is the density, at least over there on Nixon's property. I know my mom and dad won't be Crary about having apartments along that property if it is, I guess 1 was confused as far as what kind of housing that is. I am not really sure as far as the keyhole and that sort of thing, so t would like some more input on that, I know my mom and dad would. I am more or less representing them tonight. The fire station, I don't think they are going to want that right on the comer, if that can be shoved down towards Ridenbaugh, the closer the better tot he Ridenbaugh where they can use the canal as some buffer for the sound and the lights and stuff. I guess that is about it. Johnson: Thanks Matt (End of Tape) Would anyone else like to come forward? Nancy Hanson, 2460 East Victory Road, was sworn by the City Attorney. Hanson: I will show you where my property is (inaudible). I wrote a letter also and I think the developer has addressed quite a few of the concerns that I had in the letter that my husband and I both voiced. But I also had some other questions that I am thinking of tonight. They talked about the land they wanted to donate for a school and they said they Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 14, 1995 Page 50 would donate some acreage, but I am wondering who donates the furnishing for the schools and pays for the teachers salaries and the other expenses that go along with an added school. I am still concerned with the zoning, he said that it would be less than R-4 after you took out the apartment buildings. But I don't know exact-y what the apartment buildings, they are in that property, so it would be R-4 after the apartment buildings are taken out. Johnson: Correct me if I am wrong Wayne, didn't you say 3.94 with and 3.0 without? Forrey: (Inaudible) Johnson: And that would be R-4 also. Forrey: (Inaudible) Hanson: Then, mainly, I agree with the other concems of the water issues, we have a well and I would worry about have to drill deeper on our water. And then, I mainly would like the annex not be approved until you can look at a detailed plan and actually look at. A general plan does not seem a real good think to approve to me. That is all. Johnson: Thank you Nancy, is there anyone else that would like to address the Commission? Marvin Hanson, 2460 East Victory Road, was sworn by the City Attorney. Hanson: I will show you where I live, {inaudible) one of my concerns is the high density in that area. We have the wildlife, it will be gone. We see the foxes and deer they will all be gone. We have lived there 4 years, we have 4 acres that we really enjoy and it is all going to be gone. I am concerned about the traffic, the water level. Our well is 60 feet deep. I have checked the water level when we had the well drilled it was, the water level was 13 feet. I checked it last year and it was down to 40. It won't be long if they put that in we are going to have to re-drill. Another thing that I am concerned about, we border the canal and then on the other side of that is the high density. Our property sits probably 20 feet lower than the property on the other side of the canal. If they build 2 story apartments there that is going to be really high. We won't be able to see anything except apartments and this is one of my concerns. I really would push for the R-4, or R-8 to be developed in that section of land. Thank you. Johnson: Thank you, is there anyone else that would like to talk to us? Mary Creech, 2310 East Victory, was sworn by the City Attorney. Meridian Planning & zoning Commission February 14, 1995 Page 51 Creech: I have 6 acres and my concerns are all the traffic and water and what have you. Our property backs up to the proposed area and my question is I understood it is going to be an R-8 or R-15, doesn't that mean 8 or 15 houses an acre? Johnson: Yes, maximum. Creech: And now they are saying it is three point something per acre. Johnson: Well, the zoning doesn't give you anything except parameters. Creech: I didn't want to go through at 8 to 15, and see it lower and then they put in 8 to 15. Johnson: It is kind of a tricky mathematical thing. As Mr. Forrey indicated earlier if gives them flexibility on lot size because along with the zoning of R-4 or R-8 there are other restrictions such as lot sizes, not just the density. It is just a way of designating the zoning and then there are other conditions beside the number of units per acre with each zoning. Creech: Thank you Johnson: fs there anyone else? Lydia Aguire, 2620 South Locust Grove, was sworn by the City Attorney. Aguire: I have the same concerns l think that have been voiced by everybody else. I live on South Locust Grove and f have about 3 acres there. I question the density, I look at Meridian Greens, I look at Los Alamitos, we have R-4 zoning there, it makes some sense. There are some nice homes going in there, I think they will have some concern probably if we have R-8, R-15. If the citizens report is telling us that people want R-4 that makes some sense to just don't zone it R-4 instead of R~ or R-15. Irrigation, 1 irrigate my 3 acres along with my neighbors. I think that irrigation is going to become a problem, water is going to become a problem not only on domestic wells but also irrigation. I am concerned about how much water can be supplied with that much density. Also, traffic, South Locust Grove and Victory, they are 2 lane roads. With all the subdivisions going in, the density and the traffic I think are going to be pretty thick. The other thing I am concerned about, when we talk about lower income we talk about John Shipley possibly putting in storage units, lower income homes, smaller homes, that affects the property values of everybody. So those are my concerns. Questions? Johnson: No questions, thank you. Anyone else? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 14, 1995 Page 52 Clifford Babbitt, 11881 West Amity, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Babbitt: I have the property just south of (inaudible) Johnson: For the record that is the northwest area adjacent to the property. Babbitt: I am in favor of the R-8 down there, I would like to see an R~ really something like that where they have about 4 to 5 houses per acre. But I am in favor of the parcel down there. My well I did not have to drill this year, have not had to drill for 15 to 20 years. The water level is still the same and I know my brother's is, Gene Babbitt is also the same level roughly. There is a buffer between Lillian and the subdivision with John Shipley and me which is my property is approximately 275 feet wide there and Shipley's is 195 feet wide. It is a pretty good buffer between Lillian and this subdivision, she is bordering the R-4 there subdivision. The foxes, well, we love foxes, we have foxes in the back of our property. They raised 3 last year, but they also eat the pheasants they also eat the cats and so on. The deer do cross from one range to the other. And we can't do anything about the foxes. Johnson: For the record sir how deep is your well? Babbitt: I don't knowfor sure, 1 think it is about 120, but I only pump out of 40. The water table is 19 feet and I pump 40 - 42, the pump itself if 42. But the water table when it comes up in the pipe is about 19 feet from the top. Any other questions? Johnson: Apparently not, thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to discuss this application with us? Have you been up once before? (Inaudible) Johnson: Well, not necessarily, you got a fresh idea? And don't repeat what somebody else has said. McAlvain: My question is the quality of the homes that was shown in Ketchum were quite high; is this the quality of homes they are going to put in here as they showed in the pictures. tjust built on 5 acres and I just drilled a well and I was at 120 feet but it was silty and sandy and I had to go down to 250 to get out of all that before I could have a good well Johnson: Is there anyone else? Would you like to answer some questions presented by the testimony Wayne? Mr. Forrey Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 14, 1995 Page 53 Forrey: Thank you Mr. Chairman, I will be very brief. I want to thank everyone for the letters, the petition, the input that they provided tonight. I noted 4 things that we have to do. One we do definitely need to include properties formally as we get this preliminary plat put together. Let them be part of the platting process and look at their property and ways to blend a good project next to their property. And let them look at covenants and help us write the covenants. Second thing, I think it is real obvious that we have a water problem so the best thing we can do to help our neighbors is not use the domestic wells on the property to charge the pressurized irrigation system. We will use the canal water, the existing irrigation water right that Westpark Company has. But when the water is out of the canal then what we need to do is to make sure the City of Meridian will allow us to use City water as the bade up. That may take some negotiation with the City engineer that way we don't use those domestic wells and then we don't impact the neighbors wells. I think that is the solution to it is we don't use them. The third thing 1 wrote down is that we need to get a mailing list of all the property owners and several of them said we want to know what is going on so let's put a newsletter together. Have a regular mailing to them so they know where we are at in the process. What the decision process is, ask for their input, have some informal meetings. And then the fourth thing, I think we need a very strong development agreement so that what comes out of this preliminary plat what we alt think should happen does in fact happen and gets build on the ground. So that the things that several people brought up, well the the developer said this and a couple years later it is not built we don't want that to happen. This is a project that Greg and his company will build over a 10 year period so it has to be a good solid project and I think a good strong development agreement is a way to approach that. That is it Mr. Chairman. Johnson: I have one question, it has probably been answered. This late at night I have forgotten. Do you have a plan for phasing the development at this point? Forrey: Yes, the portion of the project, Greg you can point it out there. Right next to Locust Grove Road, at the extreme west end would be phase 1. Then the project would move toward the Ridenbaugh canal westward and then move into the interior and onto Eagle Road. The last phase would be the multi-family probably 10 years out. Westpark Company has an agreement with the Nixon property there that they are going to continue to operate their dairy for at least 5 years. Johnson: Thank you Wayne, any questions for Mr. Forrey from the Commission? Not at this point I guess. I will now close the public hearing. You have heard the testimony, what would you like to do Commissioners? Rountree: Mr. Chairman, 1 make a motion that we the City Attorney prepare findings of fact and conclusions of law on this application. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 14, 1995 Page 54 Alidjani: Second Johnson: We have a motion to have the City Attorney prepare findings of fact and conclusions of law on the application, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Johnson: Does anyone need an explanation as to what that is, since some of you don't come here all the time? Wayne Crookston will you explain what that is please? tie is the one that gets paid for doing it let him explain it. Crookston: I take all of the evidence that has been presented, all the ordinances, the Comprehensive Plan, which are basically the laws that the City has to follow, I then apply them to the facts that have been submitted. I call individually the Planning and Zoning Commissioners and ask for their input, what they want to see in the findings. And then I prepare written findings of fact and conclusions of law. They are then presented to the Commissioners and they have the right to modify them or change them or make whatever recommendations they want to make. Then they adopt those either as they have been written or as they have changed them. Then they are presented to the City Council and they review those. There will be another public hearing before the City Council, if the City Council, if there is different testimony they think is significant enough to change the findings they will that new findings be prepared. And they the same thing, and I do as just suggested that the Commission does. Then they approve findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is ultimately the City Council decision as to what is done. Johnson: Thanks Wayne, that concludes item #14. ITEM #15: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY/FINAL PLAT FOR CAPITAL PARK DEVELOPMENT, 2 LOTS BY FRED LOTRIDGE: Johnson: I will now open the public hearing, if the applicant or his representatives here would he please come forward and address the Commission at this time. Jim Merkle, 9550 Bethel Court, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Merkle: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission I am here on behalf of Fred Lotridge the applicant. Earlier this evening, item #10 was the findings of fact and conclusions with a favorable recommendation onto the City Council for the approval of the Conditional use, this is basically the same project. What I am here for tonight is just the public hearing for the preliminary plat to create 21ots out of one over the top of that conditional use planned commercial development that you recommended approval on earlier. This is the piece of Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 14, 1995 Page 55 ground on Fairview Avenue and Hickory Way. Capital Christian Center is right here, this is the vacant area right here, single family subdivision up to the west. Tonight's issue is basically the platting of the whole project, it is a 2 lot plat right now. One of the lines will be right in through here so that Mr. Lotridge can start on his portion of the project. This would be the other lot which would be developed in concert with the Capital Christian Center. The issues addressing the comments by the Planning and Zoning Administrator Shari Stiles and the City Engineer Gary Smith, I have prepared a written response and gotten it back to them. Basically they are all the same comments that were addressed. Johnson: We have a copy of that letter. Merkle: With that I would like to answer any questions if you have them. Johnson: Any questions for Mr. Merkle? Apparently none, this is a public hearing, is there anyone from the public that would like to address this issue? Seeing no one then I will close the public hearing. This would require findings of fact gentlemen. Crookston: Nope Johnson: Oh, it is a preliminary plat I'm sorry just a recommendation to the City. Rountree: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion that we pass a favorable recommendation onto the City Council on this application for preliminary/final plat. Hepper: Second Johnson: We have a motion and a second to pass a favorable recommendation onto the City Council for the preliminary~nal plat, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #16: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A FLOWER SHOP RETAIL BUSINESS BY BILL AND JOYCE BREWER: Johnson: 1 will now open this public hearing, if Mr. Brewer or his representative is here I would appreciate if he would address the Commission at this time. Bill Brewer, 105 East Carlton, was swum by the City Attorney. Crookston: Mr. Chairman, I have previously done work for Mr. Brewer, I may have a conflict of interest. I can swear people in and take testimony. I think the Commission can Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 14, 1995 Page 56 decide whether or not you want to waive the conflict of interest if I have it. Mr. Brewer can indicate whether he wants to waive it or not. I think we can go ahead with the hearing. Johnson: Well he has planted several of our relatives so we all have a conflict of interest. Brewer: Mr. Chairman, I can't possibly see where Wayne's and mine past affiliations have anything to do at all negatively. Johnson: Conflicts of interest are basically a state of mind so I will accept that. Brewer: This project is very insignificant in comparison to the other things you have had before you tonight. However, to the young lady who proposes to do this flower shop should you give us permission it is an exciting change in her life. Joyce and I personally all we are doing is the conditional use permit, we will not have anything to do at all with the flower shop should it be approved. I think in order to expedite this, it is getting late, what I would like to do is just maybe elude to maybe 2 or 3 of those of the comments here that I think you people are interested in and I know I am interested in and maybe you can ask any questions of me and the proposed lessee if you wish. We initially just eluded to on street parking thinking that would be adequate. However Joyce and I are prepared to provide the use of our east parking lot along with the funeral chapel to this business should she need additional over flow parking. That could also be made known through signage if necessary. So if you are concerned about parking that will take care of it. What I am doing right now making reference to general comments in department head comments here in Meridian. The lessee has agreed to abide by the signage and the ordinances of Meridian in reference to her signage. We are in agreement to replacing the existing sidewalks to 5 foot sidewalks in the spring when the weather turns a little better. But certainly hope that I can be given some lenience and defer from changing curbs and gutters. Joyce and 1 came very nearly to destroying this home not seeing any worthiness in it. We almost sold the property, then we were advised to try to keep our half a block together so our next choice was raise the home or try to make it usable for something. Even with the changes electrically and in other ways that we are having to make to this property we will never realize the improvements out of it in reference to the rent that we can charge for it or the lease. So, keeping in mind that I believe it could be referred to as more or less a temporary thing probably not to exceed 5 to 6 years and then the building will be removed and the property will be improved at this time I don't know how. But we will have a 3 year lease, hopefully with this young lady, it might renewed another time. But as soon as Joyce and I own the property outright we want to do something else with it. Let me quickly thumb through here and see if there is anything else that 1 might elude to before you. I did call and talk with Donna Moore at Nampa Meridian Irrigation District, upon her learning that there would be absolutely no changes made in regards to irrigation or run off or anything of that nature from its residential use to this flower shop use she said Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 14, 1995 Page 57 to not even do the paperwork to dispose of it and forget it. Let's see, I believe Central District Health, I had a couple of items here pertaining to central sewage, street run-off, storm water management, I really, we are not changing anything on this piece of property that would cause it to be any different than it was residential wise. With that gentlemen do you have any questions of me? Johnson: We probably have a couple here, just for clarification, we are talking strictly a retail business and no green house growing of flowers? Brewer: That is correct. Johnson: I think the main concern we had was the off street parking and in discussing this with Shari I think you have offered a good solution to that. If it becomes necessary where we need to put up some signage or something that there is additional parking on your property, it is directly adjacent. The only other item I had was in reference to the screening with the residential adjacent. She must be talking about to directly the south end those comments. Brewer: It could be across the alley the (inaudible) which has recently been bought by the Alger's. I really see no need in that, if you were to come and look at the property between the lilacs, the roses that we have, what they call a carriage house and hedging and everything on the Orden side with the alley in between I don't see anything offensive occurring there. I am sure that the Alger's the new owners of the property agree. Johnson: I drove down that alley and there is a lot of mature foliage there, bushes whatever. Brewer: I see no need for additional screening there personally. Johnson: Any other questions from the Commission? Alidjani: How about the hours Bill? Brewer: Well, why don't I introduce Brandy Barnhardt and let her allude to that. Brandy Barnhardt, 1965 North Dalton Avenue, Boise, was swum by the City Attorney. Barnhardt: As far as the hours go, it is a little bit dfferent from season to season. With you busy season it probably vwn't be open any earlier than 7:30 to 8:00 and it will not be open any later than 6:00. The slow season during the summer v~ will not be open any earlier than 9:00 wB wont' be closed any later than 5:30 to 6:00. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 14, 1995 Page 58 Johnson: So standard retail hours if there is such a thing. Barnhardt: Yes Johnson: Thank you, any other questions of Brandy while she is here? Thank you very much, this is a public hearing, is there anyone else that would like to comment? I don't see anyone, I will close the public hearing. This would require findings of fact gentlemen. Alidjani: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion that we have the City Attomey draw up findings of fact and conclusions for this conditional use permit. Rountree: Second Johnson: Moved and seconded to have the City Attorney prepare findings of fact and conclusions of law, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #17: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR CAR STEREO SALES AND INSTALLATION BY RICHARD CESLER: Johnson: I will now open the public hearing, if Mr. Cesler or a representative is here would you please come forward at this time and address the Commission. Tell us a little bit about what you have in mind. , Richard Cesler, 2107 Bentely, was sworn by the City Attomey. Cesler: I am asking for a conditional use permit to operate a car stereo sales and installation business on an existing piece of property that has been vacant for the last 3 years. It is located at 930 East 1st Street here in Meridian. That is kitty comer from the Circle K store. What I am proposing to do is use the existing structure, no external changes to the property other than the removal of the gas pumps, the gas tanks, anything that would be considered a contaminant. 1 am doing this in conjunction and with the permission from the property owner. We are attempting to clean this property as much as possible. It will be a retail business, with normal hours that will be approximately from 9:00 - 9:30 in the morning to about 7:00 at night. Johnson: Six days a week? Cesler: Actually we are going to try to do seven days a week however we intend not to do any installation in car stereo on Sundays and Mondays. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 14, 1995 Page 59 Johnson: Do you have any problem Mr. Cesler with any of the comments made by the different agencies? Cesler: The only thing we have noted so far is with the Ada County Highway District. They have made a notation that they would like us to change one of the accesses to the property which is the one closest to State Avenue and East first. They would like us to change that to a curb sidewalk and gutter because they don't feel that it is proper access. first of all to the property and secondly the length of the property they indicate does not warrant to entrances to the property. I have filed a formal protest with them on their decision, I don't think they have realistically looked at the property to see that it is a viable of fronting retail business, the type of business that 1 want to run there. 1 do have a meeting with them on the 27th to present my findings. The Nampa Meridian Irrigation District sent a letter to me and 1 contacted them also. The response is that it was premature on their part they would like to see a ~nditional use permit issued first and then they would make their determination from that point. But I have indicated to them there are no changes to the exterior facilities of this property that it will remain as it. Other than cleaning up the fuel tanks and pumps. Johnson: Are you under any obligation to remove the tanks at this point? Under financing or EPA or anything? Cesler: No sir, the tanks that are there were replaced I believe when that station opened up about 4 years ago, they do meet current EPA standards. It is my intention however not to operate this particular facility as a gas station and I do intend to purchase this property in the near future and I don't want them there. Again, the contention and the agreement that the owner of the property and I have is that it would be beneficial to both of us to have that gone. Johnson: The pumps are already gone right? Cesler: That is correct sir. Johnson: I have heard the jack hammers across the street. Cesler: Thank you so much, I was the one on it. Johnson: Any questions of Mr. Cesler? Crookston: 1 don't recall the tanks being removed, when was that done? Cesler: Approximately, it is just information that I have gotten, again I am not the owner Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 14, 1995 Page 60 of the property I am merely leasing the property to operate this business. The indication was that 4 years ago the old tanks had been removed from the property. I have been working with Mr. Keith Boots who is a licensed contractor for removal of tanks, pumps that sort of thing, he has been over there with me. The gentleman who did the remodeling work on the gas station stopped by Sunday to warn me not to try and use my truck to jerk any more concrete out because he was afraid I would destroy my vehicle.. He indicated that yes he had removed the old tanks, that these were new fiberglass tanks in the ground and they did meet EPA standards at this time. Crookston: Who was that gentleman? Cesler: To be perfectly honest with you I did not get his name, 1 asked him for his card and he didn't have it at the time. tt is petroleum specialties or something like that. Alidjani: 1 agree with you 89 or 90 is when they all got moved and brought in new fiber glass tanks and put in. Cesler: I am also aware that there are many test wells on this particular site. This property has one well, one test well that is closest to East 1st Street that has some small particular contamination, but the indication of that is that it is pretty much cleaning itself. Johnson: Any other questions? Thank you, anyone from the public like to address this? Have you been here all this time Becky, wow, I missed you and I never miss pretty faces you must have been hiding in the crowd. It was the guy with the hat. I will close the public hearing. What do we need to do here, let's do it. Rountree: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion that ~ findings of fact and conclusions prepared on this application. Hepper: 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 #18: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR TREASURE VALLEY BUSINESS CENTER PHASE 2, 66 LOTS BY GEMTONE, INC.: Johnson: I will now open the public hearing, if Mr. Wright or Mr: Wallace or his representatives are here I appreciate them coming forward. I know I left out a name or 2. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 14, 1995 Page 61 I will now open this public hearing.. Val Elg, 1911 South Orchard, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Elg: I am representing Gemtone this evening, Mr. Wallace is here also if you have any questions of him. This is a phase 2 of the Treasure Valley Business Center, you have Yellow Freight located up here, a trucking service. This is all (inaudible which comes down and crosses over the irrigation ditch here and culdesac here. We would be extending this (inaudible) through here and extending State Street out to Eagle Road and extending Pine in this location here. This property sat vacant for quite some time and the owners have now decided it is time to develop it. In talking with Shari, we found out tha# there isn't an approved planned development general application for this site which we had the findings of fact. I think Mr. Crookston is aware of those also. In addition to this PDG zone the property is also zoned IL which is Light Industrial which does not require a conditional use application. I guess the only thing, I have read through Shari's conditions of approval and there are a couple of questions. At the end it identifies the need for us to, it says all development should be guided and controlled by design review to ensure compliance with the conditions of approval as per City ordinance. I don't have any problem with that one. Number 2 says that 10% of the gross land area of the site shall be provided as common open space landscaped area as required by City ordinance 11-9- 607. Landscape buffers and additional screen will be required adjacent to any residential use along Eagle Road. 1 guess the only concern that I have about that is this is an industrial development and in reading through the ordinance and the previous approval I don't know that the 10% requirement applied nor does it apply in this case. I believe it is kind of an optional thing that is used and encouraged to acquire a density bonus and we are not interested in density bonuses with this planned development at this time. What Shari indicated to me and I hope I am correct in this is that each lot as it is sold may be required to provide some sort of landscaping, maybe a certain percentage of the lot in landscaping. Johnson: That is a precedent that we set probably with phase 1. Because Yellow, Tri-City Meats, Ida-Tran, Food Services, those people have all had to submit landscaping plans in accordance with our ordinance. There has been maybe a variance or 2 here or there. Elg: Right, and I guess maybe that is what I am getting at, rather than identify 10% of the gross land area of the site be provided as common open area, 1 feel much more comfortable indicating that each individual lot may be required to come in with a landscaping plan that will be submitted for review as part of the design review application which is required. That would certainly increase our comfort level vwth it. As you can see there isn't, in 75 acres we would have to have a 7 acre site of common area which in an industrial development. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 14, 1995 Page 62 Johnson: Well, we need another ball park, if you want to provide that. Can I pick out where. Elg: Other than that 1 guess in light of the time of night I would address any questions if you had any. Johnson: I think there are some. Commissioners you had a couple questions I believe. Welt, why we are waiting, you have a rather firm commitment do you not for a portion of this from a governmental agency? At least it has been alluded to. Elg: Yes, I think it is fairly common knowledge I don't know how firm that commitment is at this point. I believe it might be premature to assume that it is going to happen. I think there is some interest in a large site there. Johnson: That is the purpose of the design review so we look at each applicant anyway. Rountree: My question is (inaudible) Johnson: That might be the Bureau of Land Management and then again it might be the US Forest Service, Department of Agriculture. Crookston: Or maybe Jim Johnson wants to move is office again. Johnson: Any other questions? If not we will give the public a shot, anyone from the public like to address the Commission on this application. Thanks a lot, do you need that Wayne? Crookston: I don't. Johnson: I just ask because I noticed you asked for others earlier and you didn't ask for the slides of Wayne Forrey. I think anything presented before the Commission is our property if we want it to be. So just bring it back when you go to the City. The problem is without being facetious is the reason we take those is so it doesn't get changed in the interim and we don't know about it. Not that any of you would do that. I will now close the public hearing. This would require, preliminary plat, a decision or recommendation to the City. Hepper: Mr. Chairman I move that we recommend to the City Council that they approve the preliminary plat. Rountree: Second Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 14, 1995 Page 63 Johnson: We have a motion to pass onto the City Council a favorable recommendation for approval of the preliminary plat for Treasure Valley Business Center Phase 2, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #19: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY/FINAL PLAT FOR MR. SANDMAN SUBDIVISION N0. 2, 3 LOTS BY BRYCE JOHNSON AND RUSS HUNEMILLER: Johnson: I will now open this public hearing and invite the applicant or representative to address the Commission. Crookston: Mr. Chairman, I have a conflict of interest on this but there are no findings or anything so I can swear people in. One of my associates represents Mr. Hunemiller and I have previously done some work. Johnson: Mr. Hunemiller needs lots of representing. Becky what do you have for us? Becky Bowcutt, 1111 South Orchard, Boise, was swum by the City Attorney. (End of Tape) Bowaxatt: This is a 1.74 acre site, it is zoned C-G, General Commeraal. We are proposing 3 platted lots, here is lot 1, lot 2, and lot 3. The existing JB's Restaurant is located here, Mr. Sandman Motel, one of its wings is here and then the other one is just further north. There is an existing secondary emergency access that is currently located right along this property boundary that comes in here. We have negotiated with the highway district and with the property owner adjacent to us to the west to relocate this at this position. One of the problems is that as you can tell by these contours that hill is there, very poor site visibility where that access is. ITD indicated that they wanted this to be located at least 160 feet to the west, we can meet that requirement and ACRD has worked with us based on the changes of their new policy plan to allow us to locate it at this location. It is a pretty good location and one of the nice things about this project is everything will be interconnected. We are utilizing the existing access on Meridian Road, we III bring that in and loop it into the parcel at this location and then this particular access here would come through so we will have a minimum number of approaches to these public streets and all interconnected. I have read through the staff report the conditions of approval. There is only one item that !have any problem with and basicaNy that is in reference to the curb, gutter and sidewalk. I basically have a conflict between agencies. Under item 1G site speck it states applicant will be required to construct curb, gutter, five foot sidewalk Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 14, 1995 Page 64 along the frontages of West Overland Road and South Meridian Road. Deposit to the ACHD trust fund is not an acceptable alternative. In the Ada County Highway District review Overland Road is not within their 5 year plan. Therefore their policy is to have the developer trust fund for the sidewalks and not make any, put in any curb, gutter and sidewalk or make any additional improvements such as pavement, widening. Johnson: Did you have an opportunity to talk to Bruce or Gary about that? Bowcutt: No I didn't, I got the staff report just this afternoon. I did talk to Karen Gallagher outside before the meeting. One of the problems that we have had in the past, we use to have a choice, the developers would say well gee 'rf I have to pay for it I would just assume put it in and take the advantage of it and have the aesthetics, but anymore the Highway District is coming bads and telling us that if we say we want you trust funded then we want it trust funded. Basically because when because when the go to rebuild a full section they have to match all of those sidewalk elevations. If I have one sidewalk here and there is another engineer that has done one say 400 feet down the road chances are those elevations aren't going to match. The Highway District has had to tear sidewalks out and basically just start from scratch and that is why they have started this trust fund policy. So I guess my plea to you gentlemen this evening isrf you impose a condition that contradicts the Highway District I can't comply with it. I have a real problem. The other issue with this condition, it references South Meridian Road, South Meridian Road is under tTD's jurisdiction. What we are doing here is exactly what their recommendation was as far as our approach. I have been dealing with them on this since 1992 because there is an access restriction on this corner piece that was not known when this parcel was sold and this approach was given to them. The property didn't know that was his only approach, so we have been working for 3 years now to work this out and ITD recommended this type of configuration. One of the things that we have dealt with lately is on State Highways they are intended to carry large volumes of traffic there. They are arterial, they typically are an 80 foot section, they have no curb, gutter or sidewalk, they use a ball ditch system for their drainage. We had a situation with Eagle Road for example where the City of Boise wanted us to go in and put sidewalks. ITD indicated to me that under no circumstances would they allow curb or gutter nor would they allow sidewalk within their public right of way. They said that if you were to put a bike path in say a landscaping area outside of the right of way that would be acceptable, but we will not allow within our right of way. I did talk with Ed Pettinger at ITD today, Larry Strough the traffic engineer is in Posi Falls at their Board meeting and Ed indicated they did not receive a transmittal from the City of Meridian. I did not see a comment in the packet from ITD. 1 asked Ed rf their position was still the same on putting curb, gutter and sidewalk on State Highways, he indicated he thought it was, but could not assure me of that he would have to talk obviously to his superiors. So, I guess I have the same situation with ITD, I don't want to be studs with something that basically violates their policies and I can't force curb, gutter Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 14, 1995 Page 65 and sidewalk on them. One of the other things I have a problem with is I looked through your Comprehensive Plan and on your pathway plan it indicates that your pathway plan comes down the east side of Meridian Road and this is Overland, this is Meridian, it comes down the east side. My client gave me a letter this evening written by Mr. Forrey's office and basically referencing a conversation with Mr. Leroy Meyer who is one of the head engineers at ITD and it says. Johnson: What is the date of the letter? Bowcutt: The date of the letter is July 8, 1994, it was to Bryce Johnson and Shari Stiles from Janelle Sanford at Wayne Forrey's office regarding bike path on State Highway 69. Basically, it states, this afternoon I spoke with Mr. Leroy Meyer of the Idaho Transportation Department District 3. He apologized for missing the breakfast meeting this morning etc. I had asked him about any future plans for a sidewalk or walking space on the I-84 interchange and State Highway 69. Mr. Meyer informed me that the City of Meridian has requested a 2 way sidewalk on State Highway 69, he has also informed that ITD has no plans to include a sidewalk on State Highway 69 as it was decided that a bike path on just the east side of the highway would be best. This bike path will be a step down path and will have a separation such as chain link fence between the bike path and the highway. 1 hope this information is helpful to both of you. I can provide Mr. Crookston with a copy of this letter, I only have one with me this evening. Johnson: Provide that to Will Berg instead of Mr. Crookston, he has a tendency to lose things. Bowcutt: I guess, so my comment is on this item G, I am not sure how this originated and 1 can't Johnson: I think we can beat this death but what it is going to take is a meeting of the minds you need to sit down with Gary, Bruce works for Gary, Bruce did this and obviously we probably erred in not notifying the Idaho Department of Transportation. It was probably an oversight so that needs to be addressed internally. I think wa can handle that part of it here in whatever motion we do. What else have you got? Bowcutt: Basically, that is it. It was very simple, we submitted a preliminary and final plat simultaneously. Johnson: Thanks Becky, any questions of Becky or anyone else? Rountree: Without curb, gutter and sidewalk how are you going to control access? Or curb cuts how are you going to control access in and out of that corner parcel? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 14, 1995 Page 66 Bowcutt: Welf, basically they usually have landscape and it runs that perimeter and typically you try to provide some type of vertical curb within the interior to protect your landscaping to have a separate. Therefore someone would not be inclined to run through the landscaping area. Rountree: Is there a note to that effect on the plat? Bowcutt: I think it is on the site plan, the site plan would reflect that not necessarily the plat. But ACRD has stipulated that curb cut location which basically we will just clear out and function similar to the existing emergency access. Rountree: And that probably answers my second question, what is going to be done in the interim on Overland until curb, gutter and sidewalk and lane widening is handled by ACRD and what is going to happen in the drainage ditch on the State Highway between the parcel and roadway as far as mudhole beautification and whatever? Bowcutt: Basically I spoke with my clients and they indicated that they would like to do a license agreement with, 1 knowACHD does them t am not sure about iTD I have never requested one from them. Where you go in and basically get permission to temporarily use public right of way and put in landscaping. It is usually turf, some iow maintenance shrubs and so forth so we don't have a problem with vision triangles. A lot of the subdivisions as you move out off Locust Grove you have found that they have landscaped out to the edge of pavement just to give it a better more finished look. And that is basically what my clients are proposing to do. And then (inaudible) will basiplly take care of some of that drainage. We would have to coordinate with the Highway District and ITD, technically ITD should be responsible for their own drainage but obviously we would work with them to make sure we didn't have a problem like you said create mudholes (inaudible). Johnson: Okay, with respect to and you will work this out with our engineer, but some of those things like the answer you gave to Charlie Rountree's first question are things that we are asking more and more and that is indicated on the plat rather than the site plan. So that might be something to bear in mind when you talk to Gary. Anyone else? Anyone from the public that would like to address this. Thanks Becky, I will dose the public hearing at this time. This is a preliminarylfinal plat so it takes a recommendation to the City. Rountree: Mr. Chairman, I make the motion that we pass onto the City Council a favorable recommendation on this preliminary plat. Conditioned on receipt of comments and cx~ordination with Idaho Transportation Department and any further darkcation from ACRD on the issue of curb, gutter and sidewalk. Hepper: Second Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 14, 1995 Page 67 Johnson: We have a motion and a second to pass on a favorable recommendation onto the City with conditions stated, all those in favor'? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #20: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A CONVENIENCE SORE BY BRYCE JOHNSON AND RUSS HUNEMILLER: Johnson: Again I will invite a representative from the applicant to address the Commission. Crookston: Mr. Chairman I have the same conflict of interest in this regard. I can swear the people in and then it would be up to you to decide whether or not I have a conflict as well as the applicant. Johnson: I appreciate that. Becky Bowcutt, 1111 South Orchard, Boise, was swum by the City Attorney. Bowcutt: This application is for a convenience store, as you are well aware in the commercial general zone a gas station is a principal permitted use, a car wash is a principal permitted use, however a convenience store requires a conditional use and that is what this application involves. There is 2,496 square feet, there would be 2 sets of pumping islands, these have 4 units and these have 2. We have provided substantial amount of parking along this perimeter and along the edges of the building there are 28 parking spaces total. When 1 calculate this based on your parking requirements we far exceed the required parking under the code. One of the reasons that Mr. Johnson and Mr. Hunemiller have been interested in this particular parcel is the problem with parking for the restaurant facility. They wanted to basically create some additional parking for their employees to allow some open spaces for their clients. Johnson: Business that good huh? Bowcutt: According to Mr. Johnson it is. So we do have a substantial number of parking spaces here, I kind of called them over flow parking. We have read through all the conditions of approval and find them quite acx:eptable we will be providing central services to this particular project. We have proposed some landscaping and there was a comment under site speck number 1 concerning landscaping. We have approximately 3,934 of landscaping or roughly just a little over 5°~ at 5.19. The comment in the staff report basically addresses this southern portion of the landscaping. What is shown here, 5 feet is to this dark line here and then as you can see there is an additional 5 feet and that is Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 14, 1995 Page 68 the area I discussed with you earlier as far as obtaining a license agreement to expand that out. The new right of way will be 45 feet off of centerline existing right now I believe is 25. We basically submit a license agreement and the Highway District has to approve it, they review and approve it rf found acceptable for landscaping. This one shown here is 10 feet. Shari's indication that the 5 feet that is correct that would be to our proposed boundary out to the right of way take. We have looked at this area here, we have 14 feet up in this area and through here and then it does taper a little bit because we do have a tapering of the highway as we come down through the intersection. I noticed that there is no indication to what would be an appropriate landscaping. What we predominantly use in a commercial area with major arterials ranges anywhere from roughly 5 to 15 feet under certain circumstances if we adjoin residential areas they may make us go as high as 20. I have read through your Comprehensive Plan and 1 would like to reference corridor goals where it encourages landscape setbacks for new developments and on entrance corridors. And the City has a condition of development approval shall stipulate landscaping along all of these entrance corridors but it doesn't specify 35 feet. I was told by Mr. Forrey at one time there was a reference to 30 feet but that was eliminated based on the fact that every condition may be different. Shari indicates that 35 feet was requested or required of a parcel that is kitty comer to us on Overland and Meridian Road. The only application that I was aware of was an annexation and rezone to a commercial zoning designation. wasn't aware of a particular use. Johnson: Where is that at? Bowcutt: It is kitty comer to us it would probably be (inaudible). Johnson: There was no use designated in that application. Bowcutt: So, is that part of the development agreement? Johnson: Part of the conditions of annexation was that it would a design review type approach there. There was nothing submitted on the basis of the use. Bowcutt: 1 guess if we were to look at this from a practical perspective, come in and take 35 feet in this direction and take 35 feet in this direction there is no room to have a facility. There is no room for parking especially the number of parking that we are proposing. One of the other issues that I have got to look at is this access is pretty much set right here where we intersect with the Mr. Sandman and existing JB's approach. If this is moved to the west then we start taking out parking bays. Which is basically defeating the whole purpose that Mr. Johnson is trying to do here is to provide substantial additional parking to the new facility and the existing facility. As you can see when you expand that, it dumps those parking bays. Now I did discuss with them what, from a practical perspective, what Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 14, 1995 Page 69 could we do. They said well we could shift this over say another 4 or 5 feet but vve have to get these parking stalls behind or at least flush with this approach here or we are going to have the backs of cars sticking out when cars come in. We are going to have basically a traffic problem and we are trying to create an internal circulation pattern that is very conducive to this type of travel related industry. The whole purpose statement under this CG zone states that the CG zone is to provide for traffic related industries at major arterials and basically expands on that. So the particular uses in conformance with your comprehensive plan it in compliance with the zoning. ordinance. I guess the issue is what does this particular body see as an appropriate landscaping corridor. We want to create something that is aesthetically pleasing, I have some pictures of the station that is across the street from us, the Husky station. Johnson: That is in the county we don't want to see that. Bowcutt: Their landscaping (inaudible) you don't want to annex that? Johnson: No not at this point. Bowcutt: 1 will be sure never to have that person as a client. Johnson: I think we can talk about that landscaping all night but we are making a real effort to get more landscaping. I know that we have not always held to the 35 because of reasons that would fall under a variance request, topography or whatever. That is another thing that you shou#d sit down, I would think, 1 would suggest talk to the Planning Director prior to your meeting with the City because that will come up again at the City if you don't have an answer prepared. That is the best guidance I can give you on that. We can't resolve that for you here but it will be an issue that will be addressed I can tell you that. We are trying to do more in landscaping. The fact of the matter is we don't have in place a strong landscape ordinance at this time.. We are working on that, whatever that means, part of that is my responsibility. You need to work that out. Are you through? We may have a couple questions of you. Any questions of Becky here? Hepper: What is the landscaping width over at JB's between the parking and the highway? What is the width of that, is there a landscape strip there? Bowcutt: I think it is like 5 to 7 I have been out on that site quite a bit. Those strips are pretty consistent with 5 to 7 feet. Johnson: You didn't respond to that one site specific comment that Bruce made, the location of the vacuum, is that a problem? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 14, 1995 Page 70 Bowcutt: We discussed that, the vacuum is located right here at the corner. The intent is the cars could come in here and pull in here to the vacuum in this direction or in this direction. One of my recommendations to the clients based on Bruce's comment is I don't really see another location that I guess makes sense as far as the circulation in which the traffic would take to stop and vacuum their cars. Usually that is done adjoining the car wash facility. But one thing that could be done would be to try to slide it over and then take this landscaping and basically create more of a triangle here and come back away from that right of way and then wrap shrubs around the back of that and create some type of a little mini barrier. Johnson: I think that comment was just aesthetic (inaudible) not functional t don't think. Bow~tt: I don't see anything in the code that would cause him to make the comment. It was more of an aesthetic thing. But I think through landscaping we could deal with the vacuum facility. We just have to be careful and like I say come back away from that vision triangle. I don't think it would be practical to put fencing up and I just can't find a way the traffic will come around and out this facility 1 don't know where else they would put it. You tuck it back and there is really no comer to tuck it in with these accesses, this is basically the only comer. I think that is it from the Commission then. Anyone from the public like to address this? Seeing none then 1 will close the public hearing. Conditional use permit requires findings of fact. Rountree: Mr. Chairman I make a motion that we have findings of fact and conclusions of law prepared. Alidjani: Second Johnson: Moved and seconded that wE have the City Attorney prepare findings of fact and conclusions of law on the application for a conditional use permit for a convenience store by Bryce Johnson and Russ Hunemiller, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Rountree: Mr. Chairman I move we adjourn. Hepper: Second Johnson: A motion to adjourn and a second, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 14, 1995 Page 71 MEETING ADJOURNED AT 12:08 A.M. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) ATTEST: ~~-~,~ ~ WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., ITY LERK APPROVED: • ORIGINAL BEFORE THE MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION WESTPARR COMPANY GEMPARR II PARTNERSHIP ANNERATION AND ZONING PORTION OF SECTION 20, T. 3N, R. lE, BOISE MERIDIAN MERIDIAN, IDAHO FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The above entitled matter having come on for public hearing February 14, 1995, at the hour of 7:30 o'clock p.m., Wayne Forrey, representing the Petitioner, appeared in person, the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Meridian having duly considered the evidence and the matter, makes the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. That notice of a public hearing on the request for annexation and zoning was published for two (2) consecutive weeks prior to the said public hearing scheduled for February 14, 1995, the first publication of which was fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing; that the matter was duly considered at the February 14, 1995, hearing; that the public was given full opportunity to express comments and submit evidence; and copies of all notices were available to newspaper, radio and television stations. 2. The property is approximately 180.9 acres; that the property is located near and adjacent to the City of Meridian and that the Applicant is not the owner of the property; that the owners are: Dale A. or Pamela G. Nixon, Harold Rillgore and GEMPARK II - ANNE%ATION FF & CL Page - 1 Rayelene Allen, Clayton or Susan Record, Richard S. or Linda E. Schaffer and Sally D. Martin; that each of the above mentioned parties are the titled owners of certain parcels and each have granted their permission for this application and to be annexed. 3. That the Application requests annexation and zoning of R- 8 Medium Density Residential, R-15, Medium High Density Residential and L-O, Limited Office, to be developed for future land use of mixed residential, a school, park, pathway, public and limited office. At the Public Hearing Wayne Forrey explained the proposed development. He discussed the various planning in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan; he stated that they wanted to only submit an annexation request, and not a plat so they could put all the comments together and come up with a good preliminary plat; that a lot of different types of home sites would occur in the area along south Locust Grove Road; that there would be a lot of green space, trails, parks, landscaping, nice entrances and cul-de-sacs, pathways, and some cluster homes which would fill a market need in Meridian; that there would be a multi-family portion in the subdivision near Eagle road and the Ridenbaugh Canal; he stated that there are some zoning constraints in the R-4 zoning because it requires an 80 foot frontage, a 100 foot depth, and at least a 1,400 square foot home; that his research indicated that 73~ of potential home buyers cannot afford that R-4 type of housing; that there is big market for homes in the 1,000 square foot size; that there a lot of vacant R-4 lots in Meridian. Mr. Forrey went on to state that the Meridian Comprehensive GEMPARK II - ANNE%ATION FF & CL Page - 2 Plan indicates mixed residential for the area where the subdivision is located so they took the approach of an R-8 and an R-15 zoning request with a density development agreement; that the R-8 and R-15 allows lot widths to be 65 and 50 feet and with those sizes they can creatively meet different housing styles and costs; that their R-8 and R-15 request was not to get 8 and 15 units per acre, but to get the flexibility in the Zoning Ordinance that allows 50, 55, 60, and 65 foot wide lots; that the overall density would be 3.94 units to the acre; he stated that the Schaffer property would be L-O and R-8, the Killgore property R-8, the Record property R-8, with the property on the east side of the Ridenbaugh Canal, the Nixon and Martin properties, being R-15; he stated that the R-15 was to allow a more flexible lot dimension. He also stated that the project amenities included 4.9 acres for a school site, 7.8 acres for neighborhood greenbelt and open space, an additional 7.8 acres that would be donated to the home owners association for recreation and maintenance, a full pedestrian path along the Ridenbaugh Canal that is over a mile long, two pedestrian bridges to connect the neighborhoods and the school, 4,000 feet of green belt paths, a home owners association for paid professional maintenance of the grounds and seven neighborhood mini-parks and open space areas. He later stated that a well site and a 160 X 160 foot square site for a fire station, would be donated to the City, and that there would be a berm with pine trees placed along Locust Grove, Victory, and Eagle Road; that the ditches would be tiled, a school site would be donated to the GEMPARK II - ANNE%ATION FF & CL Page - 3 City and made available to the School District. He stated there were six integrated housing choices, which would be luxury homes with lots between 9,000 and 9,700 square feet and 1,600 square foot sized homes and larger; the next choice would be executive home sites with 8,140 to 8,800 square foot lots and homes would be 1,400 square feet; then green belt home sites would be on a little smaller lot and that this where we need the R-8 or R-15 but it would allow 6,000 square foot lots to maybe 7,700 and they would build a 1,000 square foot home or larger; the next was the keyhole home sites which would be down to 5,000 to 6,000 square foot lots and a 900 square foot home; then there were lifestyle homes of 1,400 square foot single-family detached homes with the owner owning the home but the yard maintenance would be done by the home owners association; that there would be 51 Luxury home sites, 112 Executive, 196 Greenbelt, 93 Keyhole, 52 Lifestyle and 178 Multi-family (Apartments). He further stated that all entryways would be landscaped prior to any lot sales, that there would be a landscaped berm on Eagle Road as a buffer, that a traffic calming design with every home having linkage to two arterials; he showed slides of the Pines Subdivision in Ketchum, Idaho, which he stated their subdivision would be similar to; he also stated that there would be transition buffers to adjacent home owners and they would design the plat with input from any property owner that is next to the project; that it was not their intent to develop a trailer park and if the City felt that contract zoning was desirable that was fine with them and they GEMPARK II - ANNEXATION FF & CL Page - 4 would enter into a development agreement listing the possible uses; he stated that water for pressurized irrigation would come from either wells or existing irrigation water rights on the site. Mr. Forrey also submitted a list of development conditions, which are incorporated herein as if set forth in full. 4. That most of the property is presently zoned by Ada County as R-T, Rural Transition, with a two acre parcel in the northeast portion of the land zoned as R-2; that the Application requests that the parcel be annexed and zoned R-8, R-15 and L-O; the land is adjacent and abutting to Sundance Subdivision which has been annexed into the City of Meridian. 5. The general area is used for farming with a few home sites. 6. That the property included in the annexation and zoning application is within the Area of Impact of the City of Meridian. 7. That the entire parcel of ground is included within the Meridian Urban Service Planning Area as the Urban Service Planning Area is defined in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. 8. That the R-8 and R-15 Residential Districts and the L-O Districts are described in the Zoning Ordinance, 11-2-408 B. 4, 5 and 7, as follows: (R-81 Medium Density Residential District: The purpose of the (R-8) Districts is to permit the establishment of single and two (2) family dwellings at a density not exceeding eight (8) dwelling units per acre. This district delineates those areas where such development has or is likely to occur in accord with the Comprehensive Plan of the City and is also designed to permit the conversion of large homes into two (2) family dwellings in well-established neighborhoods of comparable GEMPARK II - ANNE%ATION FF & CL Page - 5 ~, land use. Connection to the Municipal Water and Sewer systems of the City of Meridian is required. (R-151 Medium Hiah Density Residential District - The purpose of the (R-15) District is to permit the establishment of medium-high density single-family attached and multi-family dwellings at a density not exceeding fifteen (15) dwelling units per acre. All such districts must have direct access to a transportation arterial or collector, abut or have direct access to a park or open space corridor, and be connected to the Municipal Water and Sewer systems of the City of Meridian. The predominant housing types in this district will be patio homes, zero lot line single-family dwellings, town houses, apartment buildings and condominiums. (L-O1 Limited Office District - The purpose of the (L-O) District is to permit the establishment of groupings of professional, research, executive, administrative, accounting, clerical, stenographic, public service and similar uses. Research uses shall not involve heavy testing operations of any kind or product manufacturing of such a nature to create noise, vibration or emissions of a nature offensive to the overall purpose of this district. The (L-O) District is designed to act as a buffer between other more intense non- residential uses and high density residential uses, and is thus a transitional use. Connection to the Municipal Water and Sewer systems of the City of Meridian is a requirement in this district. 9. At the hearing Herbert Papenfuss testified that his property, containing three (3) acres, is right across the street from the Nixon parcel; that he was not contacted regarding this application; that he is opposed to this proposed application; that the traffic increase, since the Eagle Road Interchange, has devalued his property; that he does not see the need to impact this area with that much housing. 10. That John Shipley gave testimony regarding that his property is at the northwest corner of this development; that he is not opposed to the application; that if the developer would stub in a sewer line up to the back side of the drain ditch it would allow GEMPARK II - ANNEXATION FF & CL Page - 6 him to, some time in the near future, develop his property by either building some low level town houses or an RV parking facility. 11. Mr. Wes Garve testified that he has lived for eight (8) years on better than five (5) acres located on the east side of Eagle Road, across from the project; that he sees no need for the saturation of more housing in this area; that he is the ditch manager for the lateral; that domestic wells cannot be used for irrigation for this would cause wells to be lowered and many have had to redrill at a cost between $6,000 and $10,000.00. 12. Torie McAlvain testified regarding his concerns as to the type and size of homes proposed; he questioned whether the homes will be as Mr. E'orrey indicated that they would be, similar to the Ketchum Pines project; that he, too, is concerned about the traffic and the impact of home values. 13. Jim Allen, Marvin Hansen, Mary Creech, Lydia Aguire all testified with the common concern over traffic increase; Ms. Aguire also questioned the density, irrigation and property values being affected. 14. Mac Harris, representing his father and Bonnie Glick, offered testimony regarding their concerns over the density being too high; that the lifestyle in this rural area has been enjoyable; that Ms. Glick questions domestic wells for irrigation; that they will have to drill deeper and they can't afford to incur that cost; that lower level homes would be preferred; that the quality of life would certainly change the enjoyable rural lifestyle they now all GEMPARK II - ANNEXATION FF & CL Page - 7 enjoy; that the schools are already busting at the seams; that Mr. Harris stated that the proposed fire station should not be on the east end of the project at Eagle Road, but that he is in favor of the annexation because the developer favors people doing what they want with their property. That Mr. and Mrs. Glick submitted a letter which also stated they did not want more than four houses per acre, that they wanted a berm with a solid screen of pine trees and a high quality fence and that the covenants be in place for ~,--, this development so there are no junk cars and trash. 15. Diane Beaulieu offered testimony regarding her concern as to what is going to make the developer comply with what they've represented and reality. 16. That David Lombardy, representing James Griffen, who owns the 80 acre parcel to the north of this project, north of the Ridenbaugh Canal, testified that Mr. Griffen has no objection to this property being annexed and that the Ada County Highway District has suggested putting a road across the canal with the developer planning afoot bridge; that the understanding is clearly that there is no preliminary plat of this application to this point. 17. Matt Caris, representing his parents, testified regarding the density, at least on Nixon's property; that his folks would. not be crazy about having apartments along that property; that the proposed fire station would be better closer towards the Ridenbaugh canal rather than the corner. 18. Nancy Hanson offered testimony regarding that she had GEMPARK II - ANNESATION FF & CL Page - 8 sent a letter to the developer addressing her concerns; that the donating of some acreage for a school is great but ehe questioned who donates the salaries, furnishings and other expenses that go along with an added school; that she also has a concern with the well water issue. 19. That written testimony was received by Vernetta Hastings regarding many things, the biggest concern being the ground water that supplies well water to her home; she also stated that she hoped that her irrigation drain does not end up in somebody's basement; she also stated that some quality of life could be preserved; that Marvin and Nancy Hansen and Jon and Bonita Glick submitted written comment; that a petition was submitted which was signed by fifteen people, of which many testified at the public hearing; that all written comments are incorporated herein as if set forth in full; those people stated that they strongly object to the R-8 and R-15 zoning, that they wanted an accompanying plan showing what was going to be developed there, that there would be stress on ground water, that sewage be properly disposed of, they questioned whether there was enough police and fire protection for the development, and had concerns about the adverse affects of the population increase on the schools; that one of the signers of the above petition was Rex E. Young and he had sent an individual letter to the City stating that he strongly objected to the project because the R-8 and R-15 would be detrimental to himself and other property owners in the area who live on small acreages, but stated that approval of R-4 zoning would not be objectionable; he stated GEMPARK II - ANNE][ATION FF & CL Page - 9 21. That comments were received from the City Fire and Police Departments, Central District Health, Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District and Idaho Power; that such comments are incorporated herein as if set forth in full; the Fire Chief indicated that all of the cul-de-sacs would cause an emergency response nightmare 22. That the Ada County Highway District submitted comment and such are incorporated herein as if set forth in full; the District had many site specific requirements. 23. That the Applicant did not submit a subdivision plat application showing how the property would be developed but did, at the public hearing, present a plan of how the subdivision might be developed. 24. That the portion of the property which is the northeast part of the land, the two acre portion zoned R-1 by Ada County, is shown on the Meridian Comprehensive Plan Generalized Land Use Map as being in a Mixed/Planned Use Development area; that portion of the property which is south of the east-to-west half section line and east of the north-to-south half section line, is shown on the Meridian Comprehensive Plan Generalized Land Use Map as being in a Mixed Residential area; and that portion of the property which is south of the east/west half section line and west of the north-to- south half section line is shown as being in a single family residential area. 25. That in the Land Use section of the Comprehensive Plan, under Comprehensive Plan MdA, it does state in various sections, in part, as follows: GEMPARR II - ANNEXATION FF & CL Page - 11 that the proposed subdivision would adversely effect the ground water, he had concern over septic systems being able to handle the sewage, concerns over property values and the quality of life, concerns over only a concept plan being submitted, and he questioned whether the City would be able to provide police and fire protection. 20. Shari Stiles, Planning and Zoning Administrator, and Bruce Freckleton, Assistant to the City Engineer, commented that any existing irrigation/drainage ditches crossing the property and included in this project, shall be tiled per City Ordinance 11-9- 605 M unless a variance application is submitted; that any existing domestic wells and/or septic systems will have to be removed; that a City well site would be required near the easterly boundary of the proposed annexation area; that sewer service would be via an extension of the Eight Mile Lateral Sewer Trunk Line and domestic water service would be from an extension of the existing mains located in S. Locust Grove Road near the south boundary of Salmon Rapids and the developer would be responsible for extending the water and sewer; that a well site will be required near the easterly boundary of the area; that the Applicant is to enter into a development agreement and that the Applicant refine the requested zoning to more accurately portray what is being proposed and present the project as a planned unit development under the conditional use permit process; and that 2.5 elementary schools would be required for this development based on 1 elementary school for every 900 units. GEMPARK II - ANNEXATION FF & CL .Page - 10 "The land use element is based upon these objectives: 3. Quality residential neighborhoods, north, south, east, and west of Old Town. 7. The importance of maintaining compatible land uses to ensure an optimum quality of life. 26. That in the Land Use section of the Comprehensive Plan, under Land Use Goal Statement, 1. GENERAL POLICIES, it does state as follows: "1.4U Encourage new development which reinforces the City's present development pattern of higher density development within the Old Town area and lower density development in outlying areas. 1.SU Promote the development of high quality and environmentally compatible residential areas that contain the necessary parks, schools and commercial facilities to maintain and form identifiable neighborhoods." 1.12U Support regional agricultural/agribusiness by protecting productive agricultural operations when requested by agribusiness land owners. 27. That in the Land Use section of the Comprehensive Plan, under Land Use Goal Statement, 2. RESIDENTIAL POLICIES, it does state as follows: "2.3U Protect and maintain residential neighborhood property values, improve each neighborhood's condition and enhance its quality of life for residents. 2.5U Encourage compatible infill development which will improve existing neighborhoods. 28. That in the Rural Area section of the Comprehensive Plan, Land Use, Rural Areas, Section 6.3, it does state that land in agricultural activity should so remain in agricultural activity until urban services can be provided. GEMPARK II - ANNEXATION FF & CL Page - 12 29. That also in the Land Use section of the Comprehensive Plan, RURAL AREAS, it odes state as follows: "6.7U Existing rural land uses and farms/ranches shall be buffered from urban development expanding into rural area by innovative land use planning techniques. 6.8U 6.9U 30. That Meridian has, and is, experiencing a population increase; that there are pressures on land previously used for agricultural uses to be developed into residential subdivision lots. 31. That the property can be physically serviced with City water and sewer. 32. That Section 11-9-605 C states as follows: "Right-of-way for pedestrian walkways in the middle of long blocks may be required where necessary to obtain convenient pedestrian circulation to schools, parks or shopping areas; the pedestrian easement shall be at least ten feet (10') wide." 33. That Section 11-9-605 G 1. states as follows: "Planting strips shall be required to be placed next to incompatible features such as highways, railroads, commercial or industrial uses to screen the view from residential properties. Such screening shall be a minimum of twenty feet (20') wide, and shall not be a part of the normal street right of way or utility easement." 34. That Section 11-9-605 H 2. states as follows: GEMPARK II - ANNEXATION FF & CL Page - 13 Proposed urban density development which abuts or is proximal to existing rural residential development shall be subject to development review committee approval. "Existing natural features which add value to residential development and enhance the attractiveness of the community (such as trees, watercourses, historic spots and similar irreplaceable amenities) shall be preserved in the design of the subdivision;" 35. That Section 11-9-605 K states as follows: "The extent and location of lands designed for linear open space corridors should be determined by natural features and, to lesser extent, by man-made features such as utility easements, transportation rights of way or water rights of way. Landscaping, screening or lineal open space corridors may be required for the protection of residential properties from adjacent arterial streets, waterways, railroad rights of way or other features. As improved areas (landscaped), semi- improved areas (a landscaped pathway only), or unimproved areas (left in a natural state), linear open space corridors serve: 1. To preserve openness; 2. To interconnect park and open space systems within rights of way for trails, walkways, bicycle ways; 3. To play a major role in conserving area scenic and natural value, especially waterways, drainages and natural habitat; 4. To buffer more intensive adjacent urban land uses; 5. To enhance local identification within the area due to the internal linkages; and 6. To link residential neighborhoods, park areas and recreation facilities." 36. That Section 11-9-605 L states as follows: Bicycle and pedestrian pathways shall be encouraged within new developments as part of the public right of way or as separate easements so that an alternate transportation system (which is distinct and separate from the automobile) can be provided throughout the City Urban Service Planning Area. The Commission and Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider the Bicycle-Pedestrian Design Manual for Ada County (as prepared by Ada County Highway District) when reviewing bicycle and pedestrian pathway provisions within developments. 37. That in prior requests for annexation and zoning the GEMPARK II - ANNESATION FF & CL Page - 14 previous Zoning Administrator has commented that annexation could be conditioned on a development agreement including an impact fee to help acquire a future school or park site to serve the area and that annexations should be subject to impact fees for park, police, and fire services as determined by the city and designated in an approved development agreement; that such comment is equally applicable to this Application. 38. That in 1992 the Idaho State Legislature passed amendments to the Local Planning Act, which in 67-6513 Idaho Code, relating to subdivision ordinances, states as follows: "Each such ordinance may provide for mitigation of the effects of subdivision development on the ability of political subdivisions of the state, including school districts, to deliver services without compromising quality of service delivery to current residents or imposing substantial additional costs upon current residents to accommodate the subdivision."; that the City of Meridian is concerned with the increase in population that is occurring and with its impact on the City being able to provide fire, police, emergency health care, water, sewer, parks and recreation services to its current residents and to those moving into the City; the City is also concerned that the increase in population is burdening the schools of the Meridian School District which provide school service to current and future residents of the City; that the City knows that the increase in population does not sufficiently increase the tax base to offset the cost of providing fire, police, emergency health care, water, sewer, parks and recreation services; and the City knows that the increase in population does not provide sufficient tax base to GEMPARK II - ANNEXATION FF & CL Page - 15 i C provide for school services to current and future students. 39. That pursuant to the instruction, guidance, and direction of the Idaho State Legislature, the City may impose either a development fee or a transfer fee on residential property, which, if possible, would be retroactive and apply to all residential lots in the City because of the imperilment to the health, welfare, and safety of the citizens of the City of Meridian. 40. That proper notice was given as required by law and all procedures before the Planning and Zoning Commission were given and followed. CONCLUSIONS 1. That all the procedural requirements of the Local Planning Act and of the Ordinances of the City of Meridian have been met, including the mailing of notice to owners of property within 300 feet of the external boundaries of the Applicant's property. 2. That the City of Meridian has authority to annex land pursuant to 50-222, Idaho Code, and Section 11-2-417 of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian; that exercise of the City's annexation authority is a Legislative function. 3. That the Planning and Zoning Commission has judged this annexation and zoning application under Section 50-222, Idaho Code, Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code, the Meridian City Ordinances, the Meridian Comprehensive Plan, as amended, and the record submitted to it and things of which it can take judicial notice. 4. That all notice and hearing requirements set forth in GEMPARIC II - ANNEBATION FF & CL Page - 16 Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code, and the Ordinances of the City of Meridian have been complied with. 5. That the Commission may take judicial notice of government ordinances, and policies, and of actual conditions existing within the City and State. 6. That the land within the proposed annexation is contiguous to the present City limits of the City of Meridian, and the annexation would not be a shoestring annexation. 7. That the annexation application has been initiated by the Applicant 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 Citv of Idaho Falls, 105 Idaho 65, 665 P.D 1075 (1983). 9. That the development of annexed land must meet and comply with the Ordinances of the City of Meridian and in particular Section 11-9-616, which pertains to development time schedules and requirements, Section 11-9-605 M., which pertains to the tiling of ditches and water ways, and Section 11-9-606 B 14, which pertains to pressurized irrigation; that the Applicant shall be required to connect to Meridian water and sewer; that the development of the property shall be subject to and controlled by the Subdivision and Development Ordinance; that, as a condition of annexation the Applicant shall be required to enter into a development agreement as authorized by 11-2-416 L and 11-2-417 D; that the development agreement shall address the inclusion into the subdivision of the GEMPARK II - ANNE7CATION FF & CL Page - 17 • requirements of 11-9-605 C, G., H 2, K, L, M, ~ -' 11-9-606 b. 14; that the development agreement shall, as a condi.ion of annexation, require that the Applicant, or if required, any assigns, heirs, executors or personal representatives, pay, when required, any development fee or transfer fee adopted by the City; that there shall be no annexation until the requirements of this paragraph are met or, if necessary, the property shall be subject to de- annexation and loss of City services, if the requirements of this paragraph were not met. 10. That the Applicant's property is shown on the Generalized Land Use Map as follows: The two acre parcel in the northeast corner as being in the Mixed/Planned Use Development area that is north of the east/west half section line; that portion of the project that is south of the east/west half section line and east of the north/south half section line as being in a Mixed Residential area; and that portion of the project that is south of the east/west half section line and west of the north/south half section line as being in a Single Family Residential area; that development of the land in a residential capacity would be in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, and therefore the annexation would be in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. 11. However, that since the Comprehensive Plan states that: 1) there is an importance to maintainin com atible land g p uses to ensure an optimum quality of life, 2) encourage new development which reinforces the City's present development pattern of higher density development within the Old Town area and lower density GEMPARR II - ANNEXATION FF & CL Page - 18 GEMPARK II - ANNEXATION FF & w, development in outlying areas, 3) support regional agricultural/agribusiness by protecting productive agricultural operations when requested by agribusiness land owners, 4) protect and maintain residential neighborhood property values, 5j improve each neighborhood's condition and enhance its quality of life for residents, 6) encouraging compatible infill development which will improve existing neighborhoods, 7) new urban density subdivisions which abut or are proximal to existing rural residential land uses shall provide transitional densities with larger more comparable lot sizes to buffer the interface between urban level densities and rural residential densities; the development concept does not meet the goals of the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. 12. The Limited Office proposed by the Applicant is not a residential zone and where the Applicant proposes to have land zoned L-O is in the Single Family Area. 13. The R-8 Residential zone could fall in line with the Mixed Residential depicted in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan for the area that is south of the east/west half section line and west of the north/south half section line as being in a Single Family Residential area, but that zone also allows two family dwellings and the R-8 zoning would not meet the Meridian Comprehensive Plan goals of encouraging compatible infill development which will improve existing neighborhoods, protecting and maintaining residential neighborhood property values, improving each neighborhood's condition and enhancing its quality of life for residents, reinforcing the City's present development pattern of GEMPARK II - ANNERATION FF & CL Page - 19 higher density development within the Old Town area and lower density development in outlying areas, maintaining compatible land uses to ensure an optimum quality of life, and having transitional densities with larger more comparable lot sizes to buffer the rural residential land from urban land development. 14. That the above comments in paragraph 13 are equally applicable to the proposed R-15 development in the Mixed Residential area, shown in the Comprehensive Plan. 15. That if the land was annexed the requirements of the Meridian City Engineer, and of the Ada County Highway District, Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District, Meridian Fire and Police Departments, and the comments of the Meridian Planning Director, would have to be met and addressed in a development Agreement. 16. That all ditches, canals, and waterways would have to be tiled, if the land were annexed, as a condition of annexation and if not so tiled the property would be subject to de-annexation; that the Applicant would be required to install a pressurized irrigation system, and if not so done the property shall be subject to de-annexation. 17. That if the property were annexed, these conditions would run with the land and bind the applicant and its assigns. 18. That it is concluded that it would not be in the best interest of the City of Meridian to annex the land due to the facts found above and the conclusions stated herein. GEMPARR II - ANNEXATION FF & CL Page - 20 APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts and approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONER HEPPER COMMISSIONER ROUNTREE COMMISSIONER SHEARER ALIDJANI CHAIRMAN JOHNSON (TIE BREAKER) VOTED VOTED Q~ G~~ VOTED ( llV// VOTED l~l 1 VOTED RECOMMENDATION The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council of the City of Meridian that they deny he annexation and zoning as stated above for the property described for the reasons stated in the Conclusions of Law which are based on the Findings of Facts. MOTION: APPROVED: GEMPARK II - FF & CL DISAPPROVED: Page - 21 C • ORIGINAL BEFORE THE MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR RETAIL CORNER OF EAST CARLTON AND 2ND STREET LOTS 11, 12, AND TBE E 1/2 OF LOT 13 BLOCK 5, F. A. NOURSES ADDITION BILL AND JOYCE BREWER APPLICANTS MERIDIAN, IDARO FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS The above entitled matter having come on for public hearing February 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: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. That a notice of a public hearing on the Conditional Use Permit was published for two (2) consecutive weeks prior to the public hearing scheduled for February 14, 1995, the first publication of which was fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing; that the matter was duly considered at the February 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. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - BREWER PAGE 1 3. That the property is zoned Old Town, which requires a conditional use permit for the operation of a retail floral business and storage which the application requests. 4. That the Old Town District is described in the Zoning Ordinance, 11-2-408 B. 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 has been changing toward commercial business uses. 7. That sewer and water is available to the property. 8. That the Applicant, Bill Brewer testified, regarding the comments about parking, sidewalks, signage and irrigation. 9. That Mr. and Mrs. Brewer are prepared to provide the use of the east parking lot of the Chapel of the Chimes for additional over flow parking; that the lessee, Brandi Barnhart, has agreed to FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - BREWER PAGE 2 abide by the ordinances of Meridian regarding signage; that the Applicant is agreeable to replacing the existing sidewalk to a five (5) foot sidewalk, however would appreciate the Commissions lenience and defer from changing curbs and gutters. 10. That the Applicant is the owner of the building and stated in his testimony that this conditional use is a temporary thing that probably will not exceed 5 to 6 years, when the building will then be removed, and the property will be improved. 11. He also stated that mature foliage, and hedging exists for the adjacent properties, providing adequate screening. 12. That Brandy Barnhardt, owner of "Flowers By Nature", testified that she is the lessee of the property in the application; that her hours of operation may vary with the seasons; that she probably would not be open any earlier than 7:30 a.m and close at 6:00 p.m. in the busy season and in the slower summer season no earlier than 9:00 a.m. until 6:00 p.m., standard retail hours. 13. No other testimony was heard. 14. That the Meridian Planning and Zoning Administrator, Shari Stiles, and Assistant City Engineer, Bruce Freckleton submitted comments; that off-street parking, landscaping, drainage, lighting, paving and striping shall be in accordance with the standards set forth in 11-2-414; that all signage shall be in accordance with 11-2-415; that any existing wells and/or septic systems will have to be removed but that wells may be used for non- domestic purposes such as landscape irrigation; and that any FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - BREWER PAGE 3 existing irrigation/drainage ditches crossing the property shall be tiled pursuant to 11-9-605 M; a drainage plan designed by an architect or an engineer shall be submitted and required for all off-street parking areas and shall be approved by the City Engineer; that outside lighting shall be designed and placed so as to not direct illumination on any nearby residential areas and in accordance with 11-2-414 D 3.; that sidewalks will need to be replaced; that staff approval of the detailed site design is required prior to construction and operation; that a detailed remodeling/site plan must be submitted for Public Works Department review and to determine compliance with Codes; that additional landscaping may be required to comply with 11-2-414 D 2. ; that sidewalks need to be replaced pursuant to 11-9-606 B; and adjacent residential property must be screened with appropriate landscaping and/or fencing. 15. That the Ada County Highway District (ACHD) submitted site specific requirements and they are incorporated herein as if set forth in full; that its site specific requirements were to replace the damaged sidewalk on Carlton and East 2nd Street with 5- foot sidewalk, replace the damaged curb and gutter on Carlton and East 2nd Street, and construct pedestrian ramps on the corner of Carlton and 2nd Street. 16. That Nampa Meridian Irrigation District, Central District Health Department, and the Meridian Fire Department submitted comments and they are hereby incorporated herein as if set forth in full. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - BREWER PAGE 4 17. That proper notice has been given as required by law and all procedures before the Planning and Zoning Commission have been given and followed. CONCLUSIONS 1. That all the procedural requirements of the Local Planning Act and of the Ordinances of the City of Meridian have been met including the mailing of notice to owners of property within 300 feet of the external boundaries of the Applicant's property. 2. That the City of Meridian has authority to grant conditional uses pursuant to 67-6512, Idaho Code, and, pursuant to 11-2-418 of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian. 3. That the City of Meridian has authority to place conditions on a conditional use permit and the use of the property pursuant to 67-6512, Idaho Code, and pursuant to 11-2-418 D of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian, Idaho; 4. That 11-2-418 C of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian sets forth the standards under which the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council shall review applications for Conditional Use Permits; that upon a review of those requirements and a review of the facts presented and the conditions of the area, the Planning and Zoning Commission concludes as follows: a. The use, would in fact, constitute a conditional use and a conditional use permit is required by ordinance. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - BREWER PAGE 5 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, and all parking and landscaping requirements. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - BREWER PAGE 6 • • 8. That the parking must be paved, the landscaping placed, and any outdoor storage and/or trash receptacles properly screened, prior to issuance of an occupancy permit. 9. That the structure on the property must be brought up to all codes prior to issuance of an occupancy permit. APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts and approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONER HEPPER COMMISSIONER ROUNTREE COMMISSIONER SHEARER COMMISSIONER ALIDJANI CHAIRMAN JOHNSON (TIE BREAKER) VOTED 5~--.. C~ VOTED ~ VOTED~~1 VOTED VOTED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council of the City of Meridian that they approve the ~-- Conditional Use Permit requested by the Applicant for the property described in the application with the conditions set forth in the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. MOTION: APPROVED: DISAPPROVED: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - BREWER PAGE 7 • • ORIGINAL BEFORE THE MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR RETAIL CAR AUDIO SALES AND INSTALLATIONS RICHARD CESLER. APPLICANT 930 EAST FIRST STREET FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS The above entitled matter having come on for public hearing February 14, 1995, at the hour of 7:30 o'clock p.m., the Petitioner, Richard Cesler appearing in person, the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Meridian having duly considered the evidence and the matter makes the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. That a notice of a public hearing on the Conditional Use Permit was published for two (2) consecutive weeks prior to the public hearing scheduled for February 14, 1995, the first publication of which was fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing; that the matter was duly considered at the February 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 not the owner of the property; that the owner of record is L D W, Inc. and it has authorized the Applicant to seek a conditional use permit; that the property is described in the application which description is incorporated herein. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - CESLER PAGE 1 3. That the property is zoned Old Town, which requires a conditional use permit for the operation of a car stereo sales and installation business which the application requests. 4. That the Old Town District is described in the Zoning Ordinance, 11-2-408 B. 12. as follows: (OT) Old Town District: The purpose of the (OT) District is to accommodate and encourage further expansion of the historical core of the community; to delineate a centralized activity center and to encourage its renewal, revitalization and growth as the public, and quasi- public, cultural, financial and recreational center of the City. A variety of these uses integrated with general business, medium-high to high density residential, and other related uses is encouraged in an effort to provide the appropriate mix of activities necessary to establish a truly urban City Center. The District shall be served by Municipal Water and Sewer systems of the City of Meridian. Development in this district must give attention to the handling of high volumes of traffic, adequate parking, and pedestrian movement, and provide strip commercial development, and must be approved as a conditional use, unless otherwise permitted. 5. That the use proposed by Applicant is a specifically allowed conditional use in the Zoning Schedule of Use Control, 11- 2-409. 6. That the property has not been in use for several years; that it was formally an automobile service station. 7. That sewer and water is available to the property. 8. That the Applicant, Richard Cesler stated in the Application that the building will not be extensively remodeled as its present outlay is sufficient to serve the needs of the store he intends to operate; that the use of this property will not endanger the general public in any way as no combustible or hazardous FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - CESLER PAGE 2 materials will be stored on the property; that the physical outlay of the property has sufficient parking off the street to make this use practical; that it has adequate access to the public from three service driveways; that he agrees to pay any additional fee regarding trash, sewer, or water. 9. That Mr. Cesler testified before the Commission that this will be a retail business, with normal hours from approximately 9:00 or 9:30 a.m to 7:00 p.m., seven (7) days a week with no intention of any installation of car stereos on Sundays and Mondays; that he is only leasing the property to operate this business; that he proposes to use the building as it is now with no external changes other than the removal of the gas pumps, the gas tanks and anything that would be considered a contaminant; that he is attempting to clean up the property as much as possible; that they would be operating seven days a week but there would be no installation of car stereos on Sundays or Mondays. 10. Mr. Cesler also stated that he was under no obligation to remove the gas storage tanks because the tanks were replaced about four years ago, that the tanks are fiberglass, and they meet current EPA standards; that it was his intention not to operate as a gas station; that he intends to purchase the property and does not want the storage tanks there; that it was the intention of the owner of the property and himself to have the tanks gone; that there are many test wells on this particular site; that this property has one well, one test well that is closest to East First Street that has some small particular contamination; that the FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - CESLER PAGE 3 indication is that it is self-cleaning. 11. That Mr. Cesler also stated that he has filed a protest with the Ada County Highway District, scheduled meeting on March 27, 1995, regarding changing one of the accesses to the property to install curb sidewalk and gutter because the District feels that the State Avenue and East First Street access is a proper access and that the length of the property does not warrant two entrances to the property. 12. That the Nampa Meridian Irrigation District will make a determination on the conditional use permit after the permit would be issued; that Mr. Cesler responded, stating the District was premature in their decision; that no changes to the exterior facilities were taking place other than cleaning up the fuel tanks and pumps. 13. That the Meridian Planning and Zoning Administrator, Shari Stiles, and Assistant City Engineer, Bruce Freckleton submitted comments and they are incorporated herein as if set forth in full; that additional landscaping should be provided to comply with City Ordinance 11-2-414 D 2.; that applicant submit detailed remodeling plan to Building Department and to the Public Works Department to determine compliance with Codes; that adjustments to existing sewer and water assessments may be necessary due to the change of use; that striping of parking lot shall be in accordance with the standards set forth in 11-2-414 D 4. and 11-2-414 D 5.; that all signage shall meet 11-2-415. 14. That the Ada County Highway District (ACHD) submitted FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - CESLER PAGE 4 site specific requirements; that the northerly curb cut on East First Street be replaced with standard curb, gutter and sidewalk. 15. That Central District Health Department, and the Meridian Fire Department submitted comments and they are hereby incorporated herein as if set forth in full. 16. That the Meridian Fire Marshall submitted comment which was a copy of Section 79.116, Abandonment and Status of Tanks, of the Uniform Fire Code; that section states, in part, as follows: "(a) General. Tanks taken out of service as a result of a property's being abandoned or its use changed shall be removed in accordance with Section 79.116 (d) and (e). (e) Underground Tanks Out of Service for One Year. Underground tanks which have been out of service for a period of one year shall be removed from the ground in a manner approved by the chief and the site shall be restored in an approved manner. When the chief determines that the removal of the tank is not necessary, abandonment in place is allowed."; there are provisions pertaining to what must be done if the chief determines that the tanks need not be removed, but may be abandoned in place. 17. That proper notice has been given as required by law and 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 FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - CESLER PAGE 5 property. 2. That the City of Meridian has authority to grant conditional uses pursuant to 67-6512, Idaho Code, and, pursuant to 11-2-418 of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian. 3. That the City of Meridian has authority to place conditions on a conditional use permit and the use of the property pursuant to 67-6512, Idaho Code, and pursuant to 11-2-418 D of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian, Idaho; 4. That 11-2-418 C of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian sets forth the standards under which the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council shall review applications for Conditional Use Permits; that upon a review of those requirements and a review of the facts presented and the conditions of the area, the Planning and Zoning Commission concludes as follows: a. The use, would in fact, constitute a conditional use and a conditional use permit is required by ordinance. b. The use should be harmonious with and in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan but the Zoning Ordinance requires a conditional use permit to allow the use. c. The use apparently would be designed and constructed, to be harmonious in appearance with the intended character of the general vicinity. d. That the use would not be hazardous nor should it be disturbing to existing or future neighboring uses. e. The property has sewer and water service available. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - CESLER PAGE 6 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 landscaping must be placed, any outdoor storage and/or trash receptacles properly screened, and the gasoline storage tanks must be removed, 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. 10. That the provisions of Section 79.116, Abandonment and Status of Tanks, of the Uniform Fire Code must be met; that since FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - CESLER PAGE 7 the Applicant stated that he intends to purchase the property and does not want the storage tanks there and that it was the intention of the owner of the property and himself to have the tanks removed, it is concluded that the tanks shall be removed and there shall be no issuance of an occupancy permit until the gasoline tanks are removed. APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts and approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONER HEPPER VOTED ~'"~ COMMISSIONER ROUNTREE VOTE COMMISSIONER SHEARER VOTED COMMISSIONER ALIDJANI VOTED CHAIRMAN JOHNSON (TIE BREAKER) VOTED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION 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 aet forth in the Findings of Fact ~--~. and Conclusions of Law. MOTION: APPROVED: DISAPPROVED: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - CESLER PAGE 8 • ORIGINA[~ BEFORE THE MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FRED MEYER. INC. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AT LOCUST GROVE ROAD AND FAIRVIEW AVENUE FOR A GROCERY AND RETAIL STORE MERIDIAN, IDAHO FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS The above entitled matter having come on for public hearing on January 10, 1995, due to notice difficulties the matter was scheduled again for Hearing on February 14, 1995, at the hour of 7:30 o'clock p.m., the Petitioner appearing on January 10, 1995, through David Husk and through Larry Durkin. on February 14, 1995, the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Meridian having duly considered the evidence and the matter makes the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. That a notice of a public hearing on the Conditional Use Permit was published for two (2) consecutive weeks prior to the public hearing scheduled for January 10, 1995, and for February 14, 1995, the first publication of which was fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing; that the matter was duly considered at the January 10, 1995, and February 14, 1995 hearings; that the public was given full opportunity to express comments and submit evidence; and that copies of all notices were available to newspaper, radio and television stations. 2. That the property is located within the City of Meridian; AVEST - FRED MEYER GROCERY AND RETAIL FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Psge - 1 the property is described in the application which description is incorporated herein. 3. That the property is zoned C-G, General Retail and Service Commercial, which allows a grocery and retail store as a permitted use, but the annexation and zoning Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law adopted by the City on this property's annexation and zoning require development under the conditional use permit procedures, and the property is shown as a mixed planned use area in the Meridian Comprehensive which must be developed under a conditional use permit. 4. That the General Retail and Service Commercial District is described in the Zoning Ordinance, 11-2-408 B. 11. as follows: (C-Gl 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 property is being developed under a commercial planned development process, as required by the annexation and zoning Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. 6. That the property is at the corner of Locust Grove Road and Fairview Avenue which will be developed with more business later. AVEST - FRED MEYER GROCERY AND RETAIL FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Paae - 2 7. That at the January 10, 1995, Hearing, Mr. Husk testified that the parking lot lighting facilities are designed to keep the light within the site and have no spread or migration off site; that they use a very specialized fixture that has shields in certain sides to prevent migration off site; that the store hours of operation typically will be from 9:00 a. m. to 10:00 p. m.; that some of the lights will be left on during the evening hours, but very minimally. That on the February 14, 1995 Hearing, Larry Durkin testified that the property is zoned for the uses proposed in the application; that the Ada County Highway District has approved; that the adjacent property buffering will be by berm measuring two (2) to six (6) feet in height from the parking lot not the street and storage; that McDonalds is a tenant; that the store will be of masonry construction, 171,200 square feet, and 28 feet high; that the landscaping exceeds the City standard as does the parking and lighting; that the buffering along Locust Grove Road will be the same as along Fairview Avenue. That the Ada County Aighway District controls the roads; that on Locust Grove Road there will be two (2) lanes on the east, a center lane and one (1) lane on the west when the store opens; that the height on the berm can be handled; regarding the loading dock, Fred Meyer self- distributes; there will be nineteen (19) semi loads per week and vendor trucks - beer, etc., but it is rare to have a delivery after 10:00 p.m.. That at the January 10, 1995 Hearing, Mr. Durkin responded to Karen Blayney's testimony regarding the loading dock, AVEST - FRED MEYER GROCERY AND RETAIL FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 3 that there is a 300 foot land area between the loop road and the subdivision to the north; that the loading dock is over a City block away from the residences and there will be a storage facility which provides great screening from view and from noise. 8. Don Brian testified on January 10, 1995, about Dixie Lane being used for additional access to Fairview Avenue. That on February 14, 1995, Mr. Brian adopted his earlier testimony from the plat hearing, which was that the lot 9 parcel was his biggest concern; that he wants the storage facility rather than a retirement center to be adjacent to him; that he questions how long before development would begin and if lot 9 would probably be in the final phase; that his ditch problem is not being dealt with; that he would take a 40 foot berm next to him for separation but questions whether any fencing will be done to separate his livestock; that he feels the developer will do right by him but that he wants it of public record. 9. Beverly Donahue testified with regards to the traffic on Locust Grove Road, and how many lanes will be necessary and whether there will be a sidewalk along the west side, cross-walks and how long Locust Grove Road will be closed. 10. That Mary Cahoon testified regarding the lights; that she had been told by friends that the managers at the Overland and Five Mile Road were good to work with; that because of the bright lights at the Five Mile store, lawn mowing could be conducted late in the evening; that the street sweeper and snow removal were quite noisy AVEST - FRED MEYER GROCERY AND RETAIL FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 4 and that the air pollution, exhaust, and dust levels were a problem; that privacy would be gone; that Mary Cahoon submitted a letter also. 11. Karen Blayney testified on January 10, 1995, that she would like to know more about what is planned for the site before a conditional use permit is given. That she testified at the February 14, 1995 Hearing, adopting her earlier testimony on the plat, regarding her concern over the lighting of the site; that she would like to see mercury vapor lights used; that she does not want mud on the roads and that it be kept on the site; that she lives behind the proposed site and wants a four (4) foot berm separating the site from her property and that temporary screening is desired; that the loading dock is of concern as well; that two years for the storage unit phase is too long and that a containment pond should not be a problem. 12. Larry Sale, of the Ada County Highway District testified at the January 10, 1995 Hearing that it was the District's initial intention to have Dixie Lane as a full public street access but a developer had a traffic engineer study the matter and the Commissioners decided not to make that a requirement. 13. That proper notice had not been given for the hearing held on January 10, 1995, but subsequent notice was given, an additional public hearing held on February 14, 1995, and additional time for public testimony was afforded to those entitled to notice; that proper notice has been given as required by law and all AVEST - FRED MEYER GROCERY AND RETAIL FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Paae - 5 procedures before the Planning and Zoning Commission have been given and followed. 14. That the City Engineer, City Planning Director, City Police and Fire Departments, Ada County Highway District (ACHD), Central District Health Department, Idaho Power Company and Nampa- Meridian Irrigation District submitted comments and they are incorporated herein as if set forth in full. 15. That the City Engineer's comments were that all off- street parking, landscaping, drainage, lighting, paving and striping shall be in accordance with the standards set forth in 11- 2-414, all signage shall be in accordance with the standards set forth in 11-2-415, that sewer and water would be by means of mains that will be installed as part of the Avest Plaza Subdivision, that assessments will be determined during building plan review, and a late comers fee will also be charged. 16. That the Planning and Zoning Administrator, Shari Stiles, commented that a detailed landscape plan showing species, caliper of trees, and amount of paved area must be submitted, that one three inch tree is required for each 1,500 square feet of paved area, that a total of 36 handicapped accessible stalls are required of which five spaces should have an eight-foot access aisle to provide van accessibility, all trash receptacles must be screened, all landscape setback areas are to be beyond ACHD right-of-way, minimum five-foot-wide sidewalks with curb and gutter need to be constructed throughout this development but ACRD requires seven AVEST - FRED MEYER GROCERY AND RETAIL FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 6 feet, a variance will be necessary for a twelve foot high fence, illumination must be designed to minimize impact on adjacent residential properties, and that the more restrictive of ACHD's and the development agreement shall take precedence. 17. That the site specific requirements of ACHD were to dedicate 54-feet of right-of-way from the centerline of Fairview Avenue and 45-feet of right-of-way from the centerline of Locust Grove Road, construct curb, gutter and 7-feet of sidewalk on Locust Grove Road abutting the parcel, construct five-feet of sidewalk on Fairview Avenue, pave an additional 12 feet on Fairview Avenue, locate a signal at the site's eastern boundary, eliminate two of the proposed access points on Fairview Avenue, align the souther access point on Locust Grove Road with Carol Street, extend Applewood Avenue to the proposed ring road, and construct all access points as 30-foot wide curb-return approaches with 15-foot radii. 18. That, as a condition of annexation and the zoning of C-G, Avest Limited Partnership was required to enter into a development agreement as authorized by 11-2-416 L and 11-2-417 D; that the development agreement included that Avest establish a 35 foot landscaped setback required under the Comprehensive Plan and landscape the same; that the conditions ran with the land and bound the applicant, Avest, and its assign, Fred Meyer. 19. That in the annexation and zoning of Applicant's property at Locust Grove Road and Fairview Avenue it was stated that the AVEST - FRED MEYER GROCERY AND RETAIL FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 7 berming and landscaping along Locust Grove Road would be two to four feet high to retain automobile lights within the parking lots, the berm/landscape area would be twenty feet wide the full length of the shopping center, there would be extended and widened landscaping at entrances on Fairview Avenue and Locust Grove Road, and there would be landscape islands in parking sections per City requirements; that the berming and landscaping at the possible retirement center would be six to eight feet high and twenty feet wide. 20. That in the information booklets submitted in the annexation and zoning process, the Applicant also put forth a list of the benefits of a shopping center, including providing physical improvements of additional widening of Locust Grove, bike lanes, a minimum 20 foot landscaped berming along Locust Grove, sidewalk along Locust Grove, preferably in the berming, and modern landscaping and buffering. 21. The annexation and zoning was conditioned upon meeting the requirements of paragraph 19 of the Conclusions, which included the 35 foot landscaped set back; that under the Meridian Comprehensive Plan, Fairview Avenue is an entryway corridor. See Meridian Comprehensive Plan, COMMUNITY DESIGN, Entryway Corridors, Page 72. 22. That Section 11-9-605 G, PLANTING STRIPS AND RESERVE STRIPS states as follows: Planting strips and reserve strips shall conform to the following: AVEST - FRED MEYER GROCERY AND RETAIL FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 8 1. Plantings Strins - Planting strips shall be required to be placed next to incompatible features such as highways, railroads, commercial or industrial uses to screen the view from residential properties. Such screening shall be a minimum of twenty feet (20') wide and shall not be a part of the normal street right-of-way or utility easement; . 23. That at the Public Hearing, January 10, 1995, there was no testimony objecting to the application, but there was written comment suggesting conditions. CONCLUSIONS 1. That all the procedural requirements of the Local Planning Act and of the Ordinances of the City of Meridian have been met including the mailing of notice to owners of property within 300 feet of the external boundaries of the Applicant's property, now that the second notice was mailed and the additional public hearing held. 2. That the City of Meridian has authority to grant conditional uses pursuant to 67-6512, Idaho Code, and, pursuant to 11-2-418 of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian. 3. That the City of Meridian has authority to place conditions on a conditional use permit and the use of the property pursuant to 67-6512, Idaho Code, and pursuant to 11-2-418(D) of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian, Idaho. 4. That 11-2-418 C of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian sets forth the standards under which the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council shall review AVEST - FRED MSYER GROCERY AND RETAIL FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Paae - 9 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. b. The use should be harmonious with and in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan; the Zoning Ordinance allows the use as a permitted use, but the annexation and zoning of the land required the land to be developed as a planned development which requires a conditional use for development. c. The use apparently would be designed and constructed, to be harmonious in appearance with the intended character of the general vicinity. d. That the use would not be hazardous nor should it be disturbing to existing or future neighboring uses. e. The property has sewer and water service available. f. The use would not create excessive additional requirements at public cost for public facilities and services and the use would not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. g. The use would not involve a use, activity, process, material, equipment or conditions of operation that would be detrimental to person, property or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic or noise. h. That sufficient parking for the property and the proposed use will be required. i. The development and use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural or scenic feature of major importance. 5. That all ordinances of the City of Meridian must be met, including but not limited to, the Uniform Building Code, Uniform Fire Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, Uniform Electrical Code, the AVEST - FRED MEYER GROCERY AND RETAIL FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF .LAW Paae - 10 Uniform Mechanical Code, the Fire and Life Safety Code, all parking and landscaping requirements. 6. That the comments of the City Engineer, Planning and Zoning Administrator, City Planning Director, City Police and Fire Departments, Ada County Highway District (ACHD), Central District Health Department, Idaho Power Company and Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District, must be complied with. 7. That, also as a condition of the conditional use permit, a landscape plan must be submitted to the Planing and Zoning Administrator; at a minimum it must provide for twenty feet of landscaping along Locust Grove Road and thirty-five feet along Fairview Avenue and at least a solid four foot high berm or masonry fence along Locust Grove Road, measured from the highest point of the parking lot of the entire development, except where roadway entrances are planned for entrance into the parking lot; that the landscape plan must provide for protection of Doris Subdivision from light, noise, vibration, odor, and/or glare, for bike lanes, sidewalk along Locust Grove in the berming, and modern landscaping and buffering, as represented by Avest in the annexation and zoning process. AVEST - FRED MEYER GROCERY AND RETAIL FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Paae - 11 APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts and approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONER HEPPER COMMISSIONER ROUNTREE COMMISSIONER SHEARER COMMISSIONER ALIDJANI CHAIRMAN JOHNSON (TIE BREAKER) DECISION AND VOTED VOTED,,pp VOTED Ct ~J~~T VOTED VOTED The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council of the City of Meridian that they approve the Conditional Use Permit requested by the Applicant for the property described in the application with the conditions set forth in the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. MOTION: APPROVED: DISAPPROVED: AVEST - FRED MEYER GROCERY AND RETAIL FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Paae - 12 ~ ~ ORIGINAL BEFORE THE MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION BRYCE JOHNSON and RUSS HUNEMILLER APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NORTHWEST CORNER OF W. OVERLAND ROAD and MERIDIAN ROAD MERIDIAN, IDAHO FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The above entitled matter having come on for public hearing February 14, 1995, at the hour of 7:30 o'clock p.m. The Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Meridian having duly considered the evidence and the matter makes the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of law. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. That a notice of a public hearing on the Conditional Use Permit was published for two (2) consecutive weeks prior to the said public hearing scheduled for February 14, 1995, the first publication of which was fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing; that the matter was duly considered at the February 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 is owned by Petitioners, BRYCE JOHNSON and RUSS FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS - 1 HUNEMILLER and is described in the application which description is incorporated herein. 3. That the property is presently zoned C-G (General Commercial, which requires a conditional use permit for a convenience store/gas station which is the use the application requests. 4. That the convenience store/gas station proposed by Applicant is an allowed conditional use in the C-G district. 5. That sewer and water is already available to the property, but the use may require additional charges and fees. 6. That applicants shall comply with the following requirements and recommendations of the City of Meridian. a. Any existing irrigation/drainage ditches crossing the property to be included in this project, shall be tiled per City Ordinance 11-9-605.M. Plans will need to be approved by the appropriate irrigation/drainage district, or lateral users association, with written confirmation of said approval submitted to the Public Works Department. b. Off-street parking shall be provided in accordance with Section 11-2-414 of the City of Meridian Zoning and Development Ordinance and/or as detailed in sit-specific requirements. c. Outside lighting shall be designed and placed so as to not direct illumination on any nearby residential areas and in accordance with City Ordinance Section 11-2-414.D.3. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS - 2 d. Paving and striping shall be in accordance with. the standards set forth in Sections 11-2-414.D.4 and 11-2-414.D.5 of the City of Meridian Zoning and Development Ordinance and in accordance with Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements. e. All signage shall be in accordance with the standards set forth in Section 11-2-415 of the City of Meridian Zoning and Development Ordinance. f. No permanent structures, trees, etc., that would interfere with the operation of the sewer line will be permitted within the proposed 20-foot-wide utility easement adjacent to S. Meridian Road. g. Applicant will be required to construct curb, gutter and five-foot-wide sidewalk along the frontages of W. Overland Road and S. Meridian Road. h. As Meridian Road and Overland Road are both designated as entrance corridors, additional landscaping should be provided. Five feet adjacent to Overland Road is not sufficient. No trees will be allowed within the sewer easement off of Meridian Road. Additional trees and landscaping should be provided,to break up "heat island" created by paved area. 7. That applicants shall comply with all requirements and recommendations set out by Ada County Highway District. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS - 3 8. That notice was given to all property owners who are within 300 feet of the external boundaries of the land being considered, and all property owners included within the property being considered. 9. That there was no evidence in opposition to the application. CONCLUSIONS 1. That all the procedural requirements of the Local Planning Act and of the Ordinances of the City of Meridian have been met and complied with by Petitioner. 2. That the City of Meridian has authority to grant conditional uses pursuant to 67-6512, Idaho Code, and, pursuant to 11-2-418 of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian; and 3. That 11-2-418(C) of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian sets forth the standards under which the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council shall review applications for Conditional Use Permits; that upon a review of those requirements and a review of the facts presented and the conditions of the area, the Planning and Zoning Commission concludes as follows: a. The use, would in fact, constitute a conditional use and a conditional use permit is required by ordinance. b. The use would be harmonious with and in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan but the Zoning Ordinance requires a conditional use permit to allow the use. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS - 4 c. The use would be harmonious with the character of the general vicinity, and would not change the essential character of the area. d. That the use would be not hazardous and disturbing to existing or future neighboring uses. e. The property has sewer and water service available. f. The use would not create excessive additional requirements at public cost for public facilities and services and the use would not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. g. The use would not involve a use, activity, or conditions of operation that would be detrimental to person, property or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic or noise. 4. That subject to the conditions and requirements contained herein, the Conditional Use Permit should be granted. APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS That Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts and approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions. unr.r. ~nr.r. COMMISSIONER HEPPER COMMISSIONER ROUNTREE COMMISSIONER SHEARER COMMISSIONER ALIDJANI VOTED/~ VOTED Q. /E~Yw VOTE ~~'D~~,°°° """~~_ VOTED COMMISSIONER JOHNSON (Tie Breaker) VOTED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION That Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS - 5 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. MOTION: APPROVED: DISAPPROVED: Jack C. Riddlemoser Attorney at Law Meridian, Idaho 83642 FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS - 6