1995 06-13
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
AGENDA
TUESDAY, JUNE 13, 1.995 - 7:30 P.M.
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING HELD MAY 9, 1995:
(APPROVED)
TABLED MAY 9, 1995: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR CENTRAL VALLEY
CORPORATE PARK PHASE 5 BY RON NAHAS: (TABLED UNTIL
JULY 11, 1995)
2. TABLED MAY 9, 1995: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR PACKARD SUBDIVISION BY
PNE/EDMONDS CONSTRUCTION: (PASS ON FAVORABLE
RECOMMENDATION)
3. TABLED MAY 9, 1995: ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF 73.5 ACRES TO C-G
BY LANGLY AND ASSOCIATES: (CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW)
4. TABLED MAY 9, 1995: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN APPROXIMATELY
700,000 SQUARE FOOT RETAIL PROJECT BY LANGLY AND
ASSOCIATES: (CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE FINDINGS OF FACT
AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW)
5. TABLED MAY 9, 1995: ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF 42.02 ACRES TO R-4
FOR WHITESTONE ESTATES SUBDMSION BY WHITESTONE ESTATES
PARTNERSHIP: (CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE FINDINGS OF FACT
AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW)
6. TABLED MAY 9, 1995: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR WHITESTONE ESTATES
SUBDIVISION BY WHITESTONE ESTATES PARTNERSHIP: (TABLED
UNTIL JULY 11, 1995)
7. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR ANNEXATION AND
ZONING OF C-G FOR 20.67 ACRES BY W.H. MOORE: (APPROVED;
PASS ON FAVORABLE RECOMMENDATION)
8. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR ANNEXATION AND
ZONING OF C-G FOR .65 ACRE BY LEEANN LONGSON: (APPROVED
PASS ON FAVORABLE RECOMMENDATION)
9. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF 4.5 ACRES
TO C-G BY JACKSON FOOD STORES: (CITY ATTORNEY TO
PREPARE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW)
10. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A
TRAVEL CENTER BY JACKSON FOOD STORES: (TABLED UNTIL
JULY 11, 1995)
11. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF R-4 AND
L-O FOR 180 ACRES FOR HIGHLANDS RANCH SUBDIVISION BY GEM
PARK II PARTNERSHIP: (CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE FINDINGS
OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW)
12. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR HIGHLANDS
RANCH SUBDMSION BY GEM PARK II PARTNERSHIP: (TABLED
UNTIL JULY 11, 1995)
13. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT RESIDENTIAL FOR HIGHLANDS RANCH
SUBDIVISION BY GEM PARK II PARTNERSHIP: (TABLED UNTIL
JLY 11, 1995)
14. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF 22.24
ACRES TO R-4 FOR LOS ALAMITOS N0.3 BY FARWEST DEVELOPERS:
(CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE FINDINGS OF FACT AND
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW)
15. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR LOS ALAMITOS
NO. 3 BY FARWEST DEVELOPERS: (TABLED UNTIL JULY 11, 1995)
16. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF 23.27
ACRES TO R-4 FOR SALMON RAPIDS NO.3 BY FARWEST
DEVELOPERS: (CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE FINDINGS OF FACT
AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW)
17. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR SALMON
RAPIDS NO. 3 BY FARWEST DEVELOPERS: (TABLED UNTIL JULY
11, 1995)
18. PRESTON APPLICATION TO BE RECONSIDERED AT SPECIAL MEETING ON
JUNE 22, 1995:
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
AGENDA
TUESDAY, JUNE 13, 1995 - 7:30 P.M.
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING HELD MAY 9, 1995: ~P/a~~ve~
1. TABLED MAY 9, 1995: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR CENTRAL VALLEY
CORPORATE PARK PHASE 3 BY RON NAHAS: ~~ ~-'*~'~
Thy !/~ h.
2. TABLED MAY 9, 1995: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR PACKARD SUBDNISION BY
PNE/EDMONDS CONSTRUCTION: ~~rl bn ~avo-~-w b-~ recah..~..~~-a+'u ~"~-'
3. TABLED MAY 9, 1995: ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF 73.5 ACRES TO C-G
BY LANGLY AND ASSOCIATES: C~~y af~~?y ~PrePa-tee ~~l ~c%
4. TABLED MAY 9, 1995: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN APPROXIMATELY
700,000 SQUARE FOOT RETAIL PROJECT BY LAyGLY AND
ASSOCIATES: C~~ ~t~a~-wry f~~up~ {/'L~'`'~~
5. TABLED MAY 9, 1995: ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF 42.02 ACRES TO R-4
FOR WHITESTONE ESTATES SUBDMSION BY WHITESTONE ESTATES
PARTNERSHIP: c'i~ a;t~vv~..e y {a /ne/'u"R {/~' ~c~l L
6. TABLED MAY 9, 1995: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR WHITESTONE ESTATES
SUBDMSION BY WHITESTONE ESTATES PARTNERSHIP:
7. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR ANNEXATION AND
ZONING OF C-G FOR 20.67 ACRES BY W.H. MOORE:.~pp~~~ ~~~ t~c%
~atl'an rpcor"~..~^-aC~`""'' f-a 11~z ~~e
8. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR ANNEXATION AND
ZONING OF C-G FOR .65 ACRE BY LEEANN LONGSON: czppro~e 1/f
ClL ~~2Sd cm rec {r~ ~fxe C~c,
9. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF 4.5 ACRES
TO C BY JACKSON FOOD STORES: ec~ G-/~~~y ~ ~ repa-~-Z
~~ ~ C/L
10. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A
TRAVEL CENTER BY JACKSON FOOD STORES: ~ ~- ~e£~J~
~iz. eo~ncli~ia~a-e wx u~.~tLe .7uPr~i !//~-
11. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF R-4 AND
L-0 FOR 180 ACRES FOR HIGHLANDS RANCH SUBDIVISIQN BY GEM
PARK II PARTNERSHIP: ~<~' u-~~v~y ~'"~/~~ ~l~ ~c°%
i ~
12. PUBLIC~HN HISUBDMSION BY GEM PARK II IPARTNE SHIP: ~~G~- NDS
gyp. ,ve~,t-
13. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT RESIDENTIAL FOR HIGHLANDS RANCH
SUBDIVISION BY GEM PARK II PARTNERSH~ : r~'L~- u""`'~'Q'
14. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF 22.24
ACRES TO R-4 FOR LOS ALA~~~O~S /`• 3 BY FARWEST DEVELOPERS:
~~ ~ y Ct /'faz~2 y try /~~u"~ ~~tt
15. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR LOS ALAM~
N~O. 3.~~ B'pY FARWEST DEVELOP~ERS:.~~e u~`"~ °n"/~`/"
Li/,Ltt.~ ~ Q-G~ o'h- a~.~-.~/?'~ zorun\~J ~J a~t~p rvv~sL'
16. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXA/ TION AND ZONING OF 23.27
ACRES TO R-4 FOR SALMON RAPIDS N0.3 BY FARWEST
DEVELOPERS: Ce~ ~ff°r'"`.~ fv/~~°"e f~F f'c?-fie
17, PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR SALMON
RAPIDS N0.3 BY FARWEST DEVELOPERS: ~~ a~b-.. °'~,z
p-u,('.~_l~k~ u~L «-v'y~ 2e~yu-f'"'.To%CCa'w~e /~-~> e~- .T~y !/
18. PRESTON APPLICATION TO BE RECONSIDERED AT SPECIAL MEETING ON
JUNE 22, 1995:
~ CITY OF MERIDIAI~
PUBLIC MEETING SIGN-UP SHEET
~K~-6£so9
-U~ y
NAME PHONE NUMBER
~ CITY OF MERIDIAl1~
PUBLIC MEETING SIGN-UP SHEET
8`~7 - 95
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 13, 1995
The regular meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order
by Chairman Jim Johnson at 7:30 P.M.:
MEMBERS PRESENT: Tim Hepper, Charlie Rountree, Jim Shearer:
MEMBERS ABSENT: Moe Alidjani:
OTHERS PRESENT: Will Berg, Wayne Crookston, Shari Stiles, Herbert Papenfuss, Glen
Colson, Rex Young, Malcolm MacCoy, Dorothy Colson, Linnea Worden, Randy Worden,
Lydia Aguin'e, Dale Binning, Marty Goldsmith, Pam Haynes, Wes Garvin, Glen Ward, Lois
Ward, Julie Gaffin, John Gaffin, Pam Rogers, Linda Robbins, Gordon Harris, Brian Rayl,
Wayne Forney, Wanda Ruckert, Nancy Hansen, Marvin Hansen, Ted Hutchinson, Karen
Gallagher, Russ Keithly, Pat Dobey, Cindy Woodington, John Shipply, Trever Roberts, Jim
Allen, Bonnie Glick, Mary Crish, Bill Clark, Steve Benson, Richard Moore, Marty
Goldsmith:
MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING HELD MAY 9, 1995:
Johnson: Are there any corrections, deletions or additions to these minutes? Entertain
a motion for approval.
Rountree: Mr. Chairman, I move we approve the minutes of the previous meeting.
Shearer: Second
Johnson: It has been moved and seconded to approve the minutes as written, all those
in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #1: TABLED MAY 9, 1995: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR CENTRAL VALLEY
CORPORATE PARK PHASE 5 BY RON NAHAS:
Johnson: This was tabled at their request, I haven't received any additional information on
this. Is there a representative here this evening for Central Valley Corporate Park?
Shearer: I move we table this until the next regularly scheduled meeting.
Rountree: Second
Johnson: We have a motion and a second to have this item tabled until our next regularly
scheduled meeting in July which is July 11, all those in favor? Opposed?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
June 13, 1995
Page 2
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #2: TABLED MAY 9, 1995: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR PACKARD SUBDIVISION
BY PNE/EDMONDS CONSTRUCTION:
Johnson: Is there a representative for Packard Subdivision here? 1 was hopeful that Shari
S#iles or Gary Smith would be here apparently this item was tabled due to some of the
concerns of the City that hadn't been addressed. Can you shed some light on that?
Hutchinson: Yes, Mr. Chairman on I believe it was last week we had a meeting with Gary
Smith and went over some of the concerns and in fact wrote him a letter that addressed
those concerns. We discussed the temporary lift station situation that will be involved with
this particular subdivision, extension of water service and just a general review of the
subdivision plan. f believe that, I came out of the meeting feeling that we had
accomplished quite a bit. It is unfortunate that he isn't here because he does have that
letter that we did send to him.
Johnson: Do you have a copy of that letter with you this evening?
Hutchinson: I believe I do, just a moment.
Johnson: Do you we have your permission to make copies of this and enter it into the
record?
Hutchinson: Yes
Johnson: Do you recall any areas of contention that still remain?
Hutchinson: Mr. Chairman, 1 don't recall any that remained after that conversation. I don't
know if Mr. Smith had any after receiving the letter and the copy of the plat.
Johnson: Did you discuss the letter with him or had you just not heard back from him?
Hutchinson: We had discussed each of the items in that list of conditions of approval and
then we went through and answered those questions in a letter form.
Johnson: So the meeting was prior to the letter?
Hutchinson: Yes it was, in fact I believe the date of the letter is on there.
Johnson: Yes, you met on the 6th and the letter is the 9th. Shari Stiles, we are on item
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
June 13, 1995
Page 3
#2, did you have any discussions with Gary regarding whether or not the City's concerns
have been satisfied or not?
Stiles: No I haven't, I don't know, I haven't read his comments.
Johnson: You haven't seen anything in writing?
Stiles: No, excuse me Mr. Chairman, I do have a letter dated June 10th, do you have a
copy of this. But whether there were any issues that needed to be resolved on Gary's part
don't know.
Johnson: What is your pleasure gentlemen, what would you like to do?
Rountree: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion that we pass the preliminary plat onto City
Council with a favorable recommendation.
Shearer: Second it.
Johnson: We have a motion and a second to pass the preliminary plat onto the City
Council with a favorable recommendation from Planning and Zoning, all those in favor?
Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #3: TABLED MAY 9, 1995: ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF 73.5 ACRES TO C-G
BY LANGLY AND ASSOCIATES:
Johnson: We conducted a public hearing on this, we tabled this item pending some traffic
study and some comments and recommendations from ACHD. To my knowledge we
haven't received anything from ACHD, directly from them. We have the specrfic site
recommendations that came in initially.
Stiles: Mr. Chairman
(Inaudible)
Gallagher: Karen Gallagher, Ada County Highway District, this item has not been ailed
on by the Ada County Highway Distrid Commissioners at this time. It was on their agenda
as of last Wednesday and was tabled until tomorrow night to accommodate people from
public who would like to speak. I do have staffs recommendations with me at this time that
includes 2 of the recommendations were to given to our commission and I could recite
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
June 13, 1995
Page 4
those to you if you would like.
Johnson: We are probably familiar with those.
Gallagher: I don't believe you are.
Johnson: Do you have a copy of it? No we haven't seen this, this must be like the third
version of it. We have 2 other versions without those sentences on there.
Gallagher: (Inaudible)
Johnson: Thank you, is there anything at this time the developer would like to add to our
discussion, are there any questions the Commission has of the developer?
Rountree: I would tike to ask about the site specific recommendations that were made by
ACHD.
Keithly: My name is Russ Keithly, Langley Associates.
Rountree: My question would be have you seen or had 8n opportunity to contemplate the
site specific requirements that have been laid out by staff of ACHD at this point?
Keithly: Yes, if I could, 1 believe I have, if I could just digress for one moment as far as
what 1 have seen. After our meeting we did meet with them and we reached an agreement
on a group a listing of site specific conditions and we subsequently received a draft copy
of that, that was to go to the Commission and yes we were in agreement with those.
Assuming that those have riot changed I don't know what you were just handed.
Rountree: These appear to have been faxed to you on the 9th.
Keithly: Those we agreed to although you were just handed something by ACHD which
is apparently, I have that copy. Yes the site specific conditions and the conditions on all
their approaches on Eagle Road and Overland Road and etc. and it is ail satisfactory to
us.
Johnson: Is there any further discussion among the Commissioners?
Rountree: Mr. Chairman, I move we have findings of fact and conclusions of law prepared
by Counsel.
Hepper: Second
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
June 13, 1995
Page 5
Johnson: We have a motion to have the City Attomey prepare findings of fact and
contusions of law on the application for annexation and zoning of 73.5 acres by Langley
and Associations, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #4: TABLED MAY 9, 1995: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN
APPROXIMATELY 700,000 SQUARE FOOT RETAIL PROJECT BY LANGLY AND
ASSOCIATES:
Johnson: Is there any discussion among the Commissioners regarding the conditional use
permit?
Rountree: Mr. Chairman 1 move that we have findings of fact and conclusions of law
prepared for the conditional use application.
Shearer: Second
Johnson: Moved and seconded that we have the City Attomey prepare findings of fact and
conclusions of law on the conditional use permit for Langley and Associates, all those in
favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #5: TABLED MAY 9, 1995: ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF 42.02 ACRES TO R-4
FOR WHITESTONE ESTATES SUBDIVISION BY WHITEStONE ESTATES
PARTNERSHIP:
Johnson: Awaiting ACHD's comments I believe. Is there any discussion regarding this
application that was tabled?
Rountree: We had a note on this one I think Mr. Chairman about a possible notice
problem, is that correct Shari?
Stiles: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Rountree, the owner of that 120 acres called me
today and said he written us a letter and mailed it about 4 days ago but we haven't
received it yet. He did indicate that he approve of the waiver.
Johnson: For the record what is the gentleman's name?
Stiles: Mirazin Shakuri.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
June 13, 1995
Page 6
Johnson: Thank you, if that holds to be true and he has consented to a waiver then I think
the question of proper notice is probably gone away.
Rountree: Do we have any comments from ACHD?
Johnson: I have not seen any, are there any?
(Inaudible)
Johnson: Do we have copies of that?
(Inaudible)
Johnson: Do you recall which meeting they were approved at?
(Inaudible)
Johnson: Which would have been last Wednesday. I believe that is the only reason we
tabled that according to the notes that I have. We can proceed on then if it is your
pleasure.
Rountree: Mr. Chairman, I move that we have findings of fact and conclusions prepared
for the annexation and rezone for the Whitestone Estates.
Shearer: Second
Johnson: Moved and seconded we have findings of fact and conclusions of law prepared
for Whitestone Estates Subdivision an application for zoning of R-4, all those in favor?
Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #i&: TABLED MAY 9, 1995: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR WHITESTONE ESTATES
SUBDIVISION BY WHITESTONE ESTATES PARTNERSHIP:
Rountree: Mr. Chairman, I would move that we table that item until the next regularly
scheduled meeting on July 11th.
Shearer: Second
Johnson: It is moved and seconded that we table this until the next regularly scheduled
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
June 13, 1995
Page 7
meeting on July 11, 1995, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #7: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR ANNEXATION AND
ZONING OF C-G FOR 20.67 ACRES BY W.H. MOORE:
Johnson: Are there any questions, errors, deletions, additions you would like to make to
these findings of fact?
Hepper: Mr. Chairman, I move the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of the
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission recommends to the City Council of the City of
Meridian they adopt and approve these findings of fact and conclusions of law.
Rountree: Second
Johnson: We have a motion and a second to have the City Council or our recommendation
to the City Council is to adopt and approve the findings of fact as prepared, roll call vote.
ROLL CALL VOTE: Hepper -Yea, Rountree -Yea, Shearer -Yea, Alidjani -Absent
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Johnson: Any recommendation you wish to pass onto City Council?
Hepper: Mr. Chairman, I move the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby
recommends that the property set forth in the application Lie approved by the City Council
for annexation and zoning under conditions set forth in these findings of fact and
conclusions of law including that the applicant or assigns enter into a development
agreement prior to final plat approval. That the property only be developed as a
commercial planned development or under the conditional use process. That if the
applicant is not agreeable with these findings of fact and conclusions and is not agreeable
with entering into a development agreement that the property shall not be annexed.
Rountree: Second
Johnson: It is moved and seconded that we pass a recommendation on as written and
stated, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
June 13, 1995
Page 8
ITEM #8: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR ANNEXATION AND
ZONING OF C-G FOR .65 ACRE BY LEANN LONGSON:
Johnson: Any discussion regarding these findings of fact as prepared by our City
Attorney?
Shearer: I move the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopt and approve
these findings of fact and conclusions of law.
Rountree: Second
Johnson: It is moved and seconded that we approve the findings of fact as prepared, roll
call vote.
ROLL CALL VOTE: Hepper -Yea, Rountree -Yea, Shearer -Yea, Alidjani -Absent
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Shearer: Mr. Chairman, I move the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby
recommends to the City Council of the City of Meridian that they approve the annexation
and zoning as stated above for the property described in the application under the
conditions set forth in these findings of fact and conclusions of law. Including that the
applicant agree that the development of the property will be done as a commercial planned
unit development and that the applicant enter into a development agreement as outlined
in the conclusions of law prior to the annexation. That if the applicant is not agreeable
with this developing the property under the planned use provision and entering into the
proposed development agreement it is recommended that the property not be annexed.
Rountree: Second
Johnson: We have a motion and a second to pass a recommendation onto the City as
stated by Commissioner shearer, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #9: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF 4.5
ACRES TO C-G BY JACKSON FOOD STORES:
Johnson: At this time I will open the public hearing and invite the applicant or his
representative to come forward and address the Commission.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
June 13, 1995
Page 9
Dale Binning, 756 North Megan Place, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Johnson: You can in just capsule form tell us what you want to do, which is helpful for the
audience also for us and we may have some questions of you.
Binning: Our application was the annexation of the property to the city limits and a request
for rezone to general commercial. In conjunction with a conditional use permit for a travel
center which would be fuel service and food service, food store.
Johnson: Are there any questions of the applicant at this point by the Commission?
Hepper: Have you seen. the comments from Shari Stiles, the Planning and Zoning
Administrator and Gary Smith the City Engineer?
Binning: No, I haven't received a packet yet.
Johnson: Well, it might be to your advantage to get your hands on those as soon as
possible. 1 don't know the date they were prepared, we have had them for a little while.
They are quite lengthy as I recall are they not.
Hepper: Yes
Binning: I would have been the one that was called to pick them up and I wasn't called.
Johnson: They may be mailed, I don't know the program. It appears we called Jackson
Food Stores, in any event you need to get your hands on those as soon as possible.
Those get pretty specific and are important and you need to see if you can comply with
them or not. It is kind of hard for us to respond if we don't know how you feel about what
we want you to do. lJnless you want a blanket say we will do everything we ask you to do.
Binning: I don't know, I was expecting to be able to get a copy of the packet this evening.
Johnson: Here is an extra set, they are quite lengthy you need to review these.
Binning: Would I be able to review these and come back up.
Johnson: What I would like to do is see if the Commission would approve that if maybe we
could go on with a couple of the other items and come back to Jackson Food Stores,
anyone have any objection to that at this time? Does anyone in the audience have any
objection to that, if we go on with a couple items so he has an opportunity to review those.
We will re-open this hearing.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
June 13, 1995
Page 10
ITEM #11: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF R-4
AND L-0 FOR 180 ACRES FOR HIGHLANDS RANCH SUBDIVISION BY GEM PARK II
PARTNERSHIP:
Johnson: I will now open the public hearing and invite the applicant or his representative
to come forward and address the Commission at this time.
Wayne Forney, 52 East Franklin Road, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Forney: Mr. Chairman and members of the Commission, I need about 30 to 45 seconds
to pull the overhead projector over here and set it up.
Johnson: That would be a new record for you Wayne.
Forney: My name is Wayne Forney and I am here tonight representing Westpark Company.
Greg Johnson is the owner of Westpark, he couldn't be here, he is at a family reunion
tonight. We submitted the Highland's Ranch project probably, I think back in March or
April to the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission. It went through a public hearing
process and it has evolved I think into a much better project. We have received some very
good citizen input, we had good findings of fact and conclusions of law which pointed us
in a different direction then we were initially headed. We made some changes and we re-
submitted anew application and that is the reason we are here tonight for the public
hearing. I would like to read into the public record a letter from Greg Johnson that we sent
to everyone within 300 feet of the project. Greg asked me to do that, it is on Westpark
Company letterhead and it is individually addressed to people but it starts like this, "My
name is Greg Johnson, I am purchasing property from the Shaffer, Killgore, Record, Martin
and Nixon families in the Locust Grove/Victory Road/Eagle Road area. This combined
property totals about 180 aches. Over the years I have developed dozens of high quality
subdivisions in the Treasure Valley and in Anchorage, Alaska. 1 am very proud of each
project. My company, the Westpark Company Inc. wants to develop this 180 acres as a
high quality residential and office community with parks, bike paths, a school site, quality
housing and strong covenants to ensure a high quality neighborhood for the community.
Right now my company is developing Sportsman Point Subdivision near Locust Grove and
Overland Road in Meridian. If you drive through Sportsman Point you will see that we take
pride in our work and commitment to good, positive development. On February
Johnson: Excuse me Wayne, just in the interest of time, we all have this letter and have
a comparison, is there someone from the public that would like this letter read since he
started it? Those of you within 300 feet I am sure have received it. So if you have some
highlights that you would like to point out rather than read it word for word because we all
have it right here in front of us.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
June 13, 1995
Page 11
Forrey: Okay, if you have it and as long as it gets into the public record. Let me proceed
then to show an overhead transparency and explain a few of the changes. Our initial
zoning request and annexation request was for R-8 and R-15 zoning and a small piece of
limited office along South Locust Grove Road. Given the direction that we felt the findings
of fact were headed as well as discussing possible changes with citizens in the area with
city officials and with public agencies involved in the development process we have
revised the application to an R~ zoning with a conditional use fora planned development.
We submitted a preliminary plat along with planned development information, and also I
guess the most sign cant change would be the Nixon property which is the 37 acres along
Eagle Road on the west end of this site.
Johnson: Wayne, if you roll that forward a little would we get the whole thing on the
screen maybe? So we can see Eagle Road and Locust Grove Road.
Forrey: East end not west end, that is proposed for a campus office park instead of the R-
15 in our original proposal. Other comments included thoughts on how to deal with the
water on the site, buffers, moving the cluster homes, increasing lot sizes, taking a second
look at more open space, increasing house sizes and ali of those things that we pointed
out in the letter. The major change in addition to the office park proposed on the Nixon
property is we did move the cluster homes more to the center of the project. This is the
location of the cluster homes right here, it used to be down here at Victory Road and they
have been located more into the interior of the project. All of the lots that you see
highlighted in blue are at least 8,000 square feet and many are larger. That is one of the
things that citizen input they convinced us that they wanted larger lots where possible.
And also for screening, 8,000 square foot lot is the entry level lot size in the R-4 zone in
the City of Meridian. Because this is a planned development we feel and we are asking
for the opportunity to have some lots that are less than 8,000 square feet. Now all of the
green that you see there comprises right at 10% of the total ownership. In a planned
development a 10°f° open space is required. When Greg developed Sportsman Point he
has 2 aa-es of private open space in Sportsman Point. It was $160,000 to develop that 2
acres, when you take the school and park site out which he won't develop but he is
donating that ground to the City and the school the balance that he would develop as open
space is 10.5 acres. When you take that times the 80,000 well there is $840,000 in just
development of open space, the green that you see there. That doesn't include the cost
of the pathway along the Ridenbaugh canal. That is over and above the $840,000 that he
would expend in the private open space. Now the Vade off in your ordinance is that when
a developer takes that commitment and puts that type of money and commitment and land
into a project the trade off is that there is some flexibility in lot sizes and in home sizes.
In the letter that we submitted in the back there was a summary of development features.
You will notice that what we are asking for in some cases is homes that would be at a
minimum of 900 square feet and larger. That is on some of the keyhole lots that are
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
June 13, 1995
Page 12
shown on the north end of this project. Most of the homes would be much larger than that.
There would certainly be homes in excess of the City's standard of 1400 square feet
minimum. But there are some homes anticipated at 1000 square feet, 1100 square feet,
1200 square feet and 1300 square feet, etc.
Johnson: Do you have any numbers on those?
Forney: I do
Johnson: Are the numbers there, oh I see them, excuse me Wayne I see them now.
Forney: As we pointed out in the letter we also increased the number of lots that would
have larger homes. In the original submittal we had 163 units with 1200 square foot size
lots and larger and we now have 213 units out of the 450 so almost half of the units in the
entire project would be at least 1200 square feet and larger. Now, it is a little bit of a
struggle here because Meridian has in your R-4 zone a minimum of 1400 square feet
house size. In your ordinance excuse me in your Comprehensive Plan it talks about in a
planned development having some flexibility in terms of housing standards, both house
size and lot size. Now, policy, it is in the Comprehensive Ptan it is in the housing chapter,
policy 1.18 and this is a policy that has been in effect since 1978 in the City of Meridian,
it was in the 1978 Comprehensive Plan. It talks about allowing 25% variation in housing
standards in a PD, if we apply that policy to this project that would, let's just theoretically
take 1400 square feet as the minimum, if a planned development is granted as we have
applied for, a 25°k flexibility could get down to a 1050 square foot minimum house size.
And you can apply that also to an 8,000 square foot lot a 25°h reduction. So we are asking
for that, in the case here where we have asked for 900 square feet perhaps that is too
small and that is something we would appreciate hearing from citizens and the
Commission. Butrf we evoke that Comprehensive Plan policy that is long standing in this
community and we would ask for that 25°k flexibility and get down to a minimum of 1050
square foot house size. Regarding the change from the R-15 to the L-0, some citizens
had pointed out that may or may not be appropriate. The reason that has occurred is as
we met with City officials it came very clear to us that the recent legislative change putting
a 3% cap on revenue expansion in the city there was an advantage to annexing
commercial and office and industrial properties and a disincentive at times to annex pure
residential projects. So the comment came bads to us, balance the project. Make sure
there is revenue producing income or revenue producing property in your project as well
as residential. Citizens indicated that there was too much residential in the first
application. So that is why and also the comprehensive plan goal number 9 talks about
balancing and different land uses to create the balance between revenue and expenditure.
In the land use it is policy 1.5U and 1.2 gives the City the Planning and Zoning
Commission the authority and directs you to help balance to get those differing land uses
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
June 13, 1995
Page 13
to balance the revenues and expenditures so that is what made us decide and change the
L-0. Also we think it is a pretty good buffer to the mixed planned use development that is
on the north side of the Ridenbaugh canal that abuts this property and it is right next to
Eagle Road which is the Highway District and the State tell us is not scheduled right now
but in the future as development expands in that area would go to a five lane roadway.
1 have some house plans also that 1 want to hand out because the citizens that we talked
to wanted a commitment from Westpark on the types of homes that would be built. Greg
is a developer and he is also a homebuilder, the home building side of his business is
Aspen Homes and Greg has given me some floor plans of homes and square footage
sizes that his company will commit to, to build in this project. Many of them are the types
that are under construction or already built in Sportsman Point right now. One of the
things that City staff commented on was they wanted to see a commitment in terms of the
types of homes that would be constructed and the square footage. So here is that
documentation and I would also like to say that we have read the staff comments and
Westpark Company has no problem at all with any of the comments from the City, city staff
or the agencies with one clarification. And that is that the City asked for a bridge to be
constructed to link this project with Los Alamitos Subdivision. That may be necessary and
I am not saying that we would not do that, we would ask that allow the Highway District
to make that determination and that gets back to a traffic study and 1 would like Pat Dobey
a traffic engineer that is working with Westpark Company, one of our team members to just
briefly address the status of the traffic study and working with the highway district. He will
just take a moment.
Pat Dobey, 777 Hearthstone Drive, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Dobey: I prepared a traffic study in July 1994 for the previous site plan. That study was
reviewed by the Highway District and served as the basis for findings and conditions of
approval. Since that time there have been some changes made to the site plan specifically
the multi-family housing was deleted and some office use has been added. I briefly
reviewed the changes, I attended the technical committee review meeting with ACHD staff
approximately 2 weeks ago and walked through with them what their concerns were and
reviewed the basis of an update to the traffic study to address these changes and
concerns the Highway District has raised. That study is in process, it should be completed
within a week or so to be submitted to the Highway District by this time next week and will
be reviewed at their subsequent meeting. The changes that result from the addition of the
office space primarily affect traffic on Eagle Road. The recommendations of the previous
plan were to widen Eagle Road, at least onto Overland from a 2 lane section to a 3 Lane
section. That was a (End of Tape) I think that is obvious to most people. But in my
opinion with the addition of the third lane the center turn lane the capacity of that improved
Eagle Road will be sufficient to accommodate the change that is being reviewed by this
board tonight. So, I don't think that the conclusions and the recommendations of this
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
June 13, 1995
Page 14
revised study will sign~cantly alter the conclusions of the Highway District. In addition to
that this project will generate in excess of a half a million dollars in highway impact fees.
It could be used to fund improvements and (inaudible) then those improvements will cost.
As I said before the study is in process, it will be completed this time next week. It will be
submitted to the Highway District, the Highway District will then review those
recommendations and findings and incorporate them into their conditions of approval.
Now, since this is a subdivision, ACRD has the right and authority to sign the subdivision
plat, so they have more than adequate leverage to make sure that their concerns are
addressed and I understand that a letter was sent recommending that this item be tabled
until that study, until my revised study is complete. I advise you that 1 don't think the
changes to my study are going to be significant enough to change the conclusions that
were previously reached by the Highway District. I think that delaying action tonight by this
board would serve the development very well or would serve the needs of the community.
I think the Highway district can address those and I think their issues can be resolved. If
you have any questions I would be happy to address them.
Johnson: Any questions of Mr. Dobey? Thank you
Forrey: Just a couple of closing comments, some of the citizens that we talked to and also
in the comments that they have submitted that we have read indicate that this is a rural
area and that we should be sensitive to the rural Iffestyle there and we are. We will
continue to work with any neighbor that says this lot needs to be larger or place a house
here or a berm or a fence or screen, that is not only required in the Comprehensive Plan
but I am committing and indicating that Westpark will do that. But there is one thing that
we all need to understand. Since 1989 this area has been in the Meridian Urban Service
Planning Area boundary. It has been an area where the City has planned utilities, planned
on growth, the Comprehensive Plan states policy 6.4 and 6.8U any property within the
Urban Service Planning Area is where development is supposed to occur. So to take a
rural policy and say let's keep this as farm ground well that is something that maybe
should happen out on Amity Road or Columbia Road or up on Chinden outside the
Meridian Urban Service Planning Area boundary. I know there is some discussion about
expanding that boundary but at least right now this property is within the current
negotiated established Urban Service Planning Area boundary. So we are following
through and extending utilities, counting on the availability of those utilities to develop this
ground but that doesn't mean we are going to ignore what the neighbors want. I believe
it was Mrs. Glick that indicated she wanted larger lots next to her property and more than
happy to consider that. If the Commission says work with Mrs. Glick or double the size of
those lots we will do it. She has a large lot and it would not be fair and I understand that
to take small lots right up next to her property. The spirit of the Comprehensive Plan is
that you work those micro-management issues out but still allow development to proceed.
And we hope that is what happens. I would be happy to answer any questions.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
June 13, 1995
Page 15
Johnson: Thank you Wayne, are there any questions for Mr. Forrey?
Crookston: Would you go back to the green and blue map? As I remember your
statement, the cluster homes would be to the left of the blue marked lots that are on the
right. What are the lots up above those cluster homes. What designation are those?
Forrey: From the south of the entrance into the site up to this top culdesac right here all
of this between these single family homes here and the open space parkway this is the
cluster homes. Every other lot in the project is a single family detached for a single family
detached structure or home. The keyhole lots are around this cuidesac and around this
large loop street near the park and the school site.
Crookston: What is the L-O designation that you have in the southwest (inaudible)
Forrey: The west side of the project along Locust Grove Road there is a, I think it is about
1.7 acres in a triangular shape along the canal and we are requesting Limited Office
zoning to allow a single office building. There would be a berm along Locust Grove Road
shown in green on that transparency. The rest of the project would be R~ planned
development with the exception of the Nixon property of L-O.
Crookston: Thank you
Johnson: Thank you Mr. Forrey we will give you an opportunity to address some
comments and questions the public might have. This is a public hearing, is there anyone
from the public that would like to address the Commission at this time?
Cindy Woodington, 2955 South locust Grove, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Woodington: I have a couple of questions for the developer's representative.. The L-O that
is on Locust Grove there that they have Limited Office that you are going to be putting on
there, that is triangular shaped and if they are going to put a berm between the road and
the actual office to begin with the north side of the property is so narrow that it is wasted
space so probably a 1!5 of the lot will be used for nothing because it is so narrow, it
actually does come to a point. So they have the rest of the lot of there to put the office
building parking and the berm. My question to him is are these people going to come over
and want to park in my garage because there is not going to be room for them to park over
there. Also I had heard that at one point they were going to put a temporary sales office
up there for the subdivision before they built the actual office building. 1 want to make sure
they are not going to put one of those tacky trailer house deal over there that a lot of
developments use for sales offices. My next question is that he has it down to an R-4 but
yet when you put all the figures together, 369 out of the 450 homes are less than 1400
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
June 13, 1995
Page 16
square feet. 1 don't understand how that works to be R-4 if that many of the 450 homes
are under the minimum 1400 square feet for R-4. I think that is it, those are the only
questions that I have for the developer.
Johnson: Thank you Cindy, anyone else that would like to come forward at this time?
Karen Gallagher, ACRD, 318 E. 37th, Garden City, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Gallagher: As the applicant has stated we have not yet received the updated traffic study
for this application. We do have some concerns, some minor concerns that probably won't
affect the layout of the subdivision as Pat Dobey stated. Some of those would be right of
way widths. The access on Locust Grove Road that alignment, we need to discuss that
with the applicant, there may be a shift there. We have a bridge at that location that needs
to be re-constructed and with their access coming in with the angle of the canal at that
location we may tie doubling the size of the bridge. We may want to avoid that. In general
as I said we don't see most of our comments affecting the layout. The southern road that
does come out of the corporate park into the residential next to the cluster development.
We have some concerns there and until we receive the traffic study we are not sure of the
amount of traffic on there and what type of road that will need to be or if the alignment will
need to be maybe altered. But as I stated for the most part we don't see any major
problems here to some technical details to be worked out but until we see the traffic study
I don't have a guarantee that they wouldn't be significant changes. Our preference would
be that it would be tabled until you have received our comments to make sure that there
were not any major changes made so the process would need to be, they would need to
go through P & Z again. Thank you.
Johnson: Thanks Karen, any questions of Karen from the Commission? Anyone else from
the public that has questions that would like to come forward?
John Shipley, 2770 South Locust Grove Road, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Shipley: I have a little question about where the, when she said they need to widen the
bridge right there. There is a weir that we get our irrigation water right about exactly where
they might come in with the new road. That goes north of that property and the people that
are still living there are have to be serviced through that weir because it is the only place
that they can pick it up unless they get with the canal ~mpany and make some other kinds
of arrangements and come underneath the road or something else. So, that becomes a
problem at that comer right there where that one road enters, it is right on my border line
of my property at the comer of Locust Grove and where the canal comes across there. It
is a kind of a hodge podge right there. It works the way it is now but they will have to do
something to get that straight then so that canal water continues to service the other
•
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
June 13, 1995
Page 17
properties which goes on north.
Johnson: Okay, I appreciate the input, sir you had your hand up.
Trevor Roberts, 3895 Girdner Lane, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Roberts: I have 3 questions, alt dealing with Eagle Road and the traffic situation of the
northeastern part of the property. Some people may not know it but there is a rise in the
ground right here, right around the Ridenbaugh Canal. There is going to be some kind of
a traffic problem or a dangerous problem. So, I think that a light is going to be needed
where the L-0 goes into Eagle Road. I didn't hear and I don't see how they are going to
have any access to the school district site so I think it would be worthwhile to get some
comment about how does that connect with the main artery. If that is going to be Eagle
road then that is going to be another traffic problem there. Thank you.
Johnson: Thank you, yes sir.
Jim Allen, 3040 East Victory, was swom by the City Attorney.
Allen: Wayne could you move your map to where you pick up South Eagle? I live about
where it says R-1 so 1 am about 100 feet out of your jurisdiction or your comment area.
My concern is Victory Road, where Victory comes to Eagle Road we've had several bad
accidents there. It was alleviated a little bit when they put in the 4 way stop and flashers
but we still have people that run that stop sign like gangbusters. Another question that 1
would have would be concerning the school area. What type of school and what type,
how much ground do you need for the school that you are proposing. And where are the
kids going to go to school and where are the teachers going to come from. I might have
something after a while.
Johnson: That is fine Mr. Allen, we probably won't be able to address your school, f know
we won't be able to answer the questions on the type of school that would be up the
school district. They do want to site in this area it is my understanding and then they
would proceed forward with (inaudible) architectural design and all that sort of thing. 1
believe they are only looking at this as an elementary, I don't think anyone is here from the
school district that can confirm that though tonight. I don't see anyone here. Anyone else
that would like to come forward?
Rex Young, 2950 East Victory Road, was swom by the City Attorney.
Young: I have lived at 2950 East Victory Road for over 24 years and 1 have watched the
area develop and son on and so forth and 1 have some real concerns about the
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
June 13, 1995
Page 18
subdivision. Now when I received the first information and they were talking about R-8 and
R-15 I said I am not against growth. R-4 would be acceptable of course being a layman
and not being involved in the planning and zoning business R-4 means to me that you can
have one house on each 1/4 acre. Now I see that due to my ignorance apparently that for
instance in my own case where I have a iwo acre lot and a 3200 square foot home that I
can take the back acre of my lot and 1 can subdivide that and I could put seven homes on
that and have my home on the front lot and still be living within the R-4 zoning. I think on
this project I think it would be a good project except that I think we need to stay with the
lot sizes being larger, I think we need to have the homes 1400 square foot or larger. On
this particular project I think there is in the neighborhood of say around 450 plus homes
and over 1 /3 of those will be 1000 square feet or less. f am concerned about the areas that
buffer up against this because based on the 6.8U of the Comprehensive Plan which Mr.
Forrey has indicated that they really don't think applies, there needs to be some kind of
a transitional arrangement there with the density being shifting with the larger lots. In my
case I have 2 acres 1 am not abutted up against the property but I am in the approximate
area of the subdivision. I have a concern about my well, 2 years ago my welt went dry, I
had to drill a new well that went, the old one being in the 60 foot area, to 170 foot. I read
their comments about that they didn't intend to pump the area but as we all know there are
a couple of things that affect the underground water table and one of the things that affects
the underground water table is not re-charging it and another thing that affects it is
pumping. I have a real concern that is an expensive process to have to replace your well.
The land use goal of the Comprehensive Plan indicates that to protect and maintain
residential property values and enhance the quality of life of the residents. 1 think that if
the residential values of my property are going to be preserved 1 think that has something
more than cluster homes that I am going to be looking out my window into that area. As
I said before I am not opposed to development and I am not opposed to R-4. I am not
opposed to 1 /4 acres lots, but when you start playing games with the thing and end up with
a project where over a 1/3 of it is under 1000 square feet then I am opposed to that.
Thank you.
Johnson: Thank you, we have your written testimony too and we appreciate that. Anyone
else?
Bonnie Glick, 2860 East Victory Road, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Glick: The first matter I want to bring to the Commission is I received a call this morning
from Betty Bemtensuelo of the Southwest Ada County Alliance, she gave me a letter that
she wanted me to read to the Commission. I don't know if you have that in your packet.
Johnson: If it is dated June 12 and looks like this we all have it.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
June 13, 1995
Page 19
Glick: Can that be entered into the public record?
Johnson: It already has been.
Glick: My first concern that I want to talk about tonight is that at the last hearing Mr. Forrey
made a point of saying that the developer would like to meet with all of the neighbors,
discuss their plan, come up together with a development plan that would please everyone
and that we could all work with, live with and enjoy. And that would be the way we would
do this process. Unfortunately I keep hearing him talk about speaking to the neighbors but
1 have never been called by the developer to talk about this to give my input. The only
input the developer has for me is my testimony and my letter from the last hearing in
February. My property does abut this development. I would say that I am probably one of
the most impacted residents. So for him to say he is talking to the neighbors and he hasn't
called me is puzzling to me. The letter where Westpark developed their new proposal,
their most recent proposal that you have in front of you I just received 5 days ago. So now
I am asking to respond to you to a new proposal that I haven't had any personal face to
face input on. I feel strongly that we do need to sit down. He has indicated again tonight
that he wants to talk to me work with me on lot sizes next to my property and I do desire
that also. I feel strongly this needs to be tabled until that can be done with all of these
neighbors. I have talked to 6 residents up and down Victory Road who abut this
development and none of them have heard from the developer since the last hearing. So
this new proposal does not have fact to face input from at least those of us on Victory
Road that I know. Secondly, although he has made some I think good adjustments in the
new proposal, for instance in my personal experience he had town houses down by Victory
Road by my property, 1 have 2.2 acres and if you notice down in the very southeasterly
corner where its the culdesac and all the little blue lots going around there. They have
moved the cluster homes up like he said and moved the what he calls larger lots, well they
are larger lots than what was there. I guess 1 would site also the Comprehensive growth
plan for Meridian 6.8U says that transitional densities need to be looked, need to be done,
need to be considered. 1 don't consider even this 6 or 7 houses up next to me 2.2 acres
as an adequate transitional density. I personally feel like if I have 2 acres 1 to 2 acres lots
right next to me abutting me would be more appropriate and more in line with the land use
section which states that if subdivisions abut or approximate to existing rural residential
land uses they provide screening and transitional densities with larger more comparable
lot sizes. Comparable to me is an acreage rwt 6 houses lined up next to me. I also, I think
I stated this in my letter, I do want to talk to the developer about screening. We look right
now at a pine forest on Sally Martin's land right there and it is important I think to and it is
suggestive that they do need to do screening. I think the house sizes bothers me too, all
of us along Victory up there have homes that are 2500 square feet to 3200 square feet and
they are talking about coming in with 1300, 1100, 1000 square feet homes. Again in the
Comprehensive Plan is says that property values are to be maintained. I don't know how
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
June 13, 1995
Page 20
you can maintain property values when you are putting little 1000 square foot homes next
to 2500 to 3200 square foot homes. I think I am like Rex Young I am really concerned
about my well water, I think the Planning and Zoning Administrator suggested in the
findings of fact and conclusions of law last time said that they should be capped. But I
think this dense of a population is going to have an impact on our water. I would like the
Commission to consider that strongly. The schools again, !think we can't overestimate
the impact this will have on our school system. Mary McPherson has closed their
enrollment to all new subdivisions and they have even closed out some existing
subdivisions. I think new people coming into Sportsman Point which they have developed
can't even go to Mary McPherson. So how will we according to the Comprehensive Plan
when they say not that they won't cause additional expense to existing people in the
community, how will we do thatrf we will most probably have to have another bond
election and pay more money out of our pockets for the new residents coming in. Those
are my concerns, thank you.
Johnson: Thank you, we also have your written testimony. Is there someone else?
Herbert Papenfuss, 2680 South Eagle Road, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Papensfuss: Well, as the lady said who just spoke no one approached me either about
this. That was also indicated at the last meeting that we had. Another interesting thing
too and I can't affirm this because I haven't had time to do it but in talking to one of my
neighbors who is a little further away from this project and therefore wouldn't have been
notified he said that he had tried to do some get some rezoning of his area and do some
subdividing and he was told that before a project like this goes to the City planning and
zoning it has to go the Ada County planning and zoning because we are in the County.
If that happened I was never notfed and I should have been noted. It would seem to
me that would be the proper way to go. One reason being that we may in the impact area
but we have no say about what goes on in Meridian, absolutely none. I think there is a
problem there. The second thing is that I see problems with strain on police and fire
services. I know they want to put a fire station there which I admit I object to because it
is kitty comer from where my home is. I would not be appreciative of a siren at 2:00 in the
morning when I am trying to sleep to go put a fire out. Another problem is with the location
of the school and I think they indicated foot paths across the canal. I talked to one of the
elected officials of the Nampa Meridian Irrigation District and he tells me they have not
talked to them about this. He said there would be concerns with putting a foot bridge
across there. He said that 'rf they were going to tie into Meridian sewer and the sewer had
to go under the canal he said that would be a very real concern for them. The idea of using
irrigation water as a secondary source for watering lawns he said was no problem but
these other two would be very serious problems. And apparently they haven't addressed
that yet because he said they have not talked to the district on that. Another thing has
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
June 13, 1995
Page 21
been addressed the traffic being a problem, it goes right by my home. And I can tell you
that it has cost me the valuation of my home. The reason I tell you that definitely is
because I had my home evaluated to get a loan and they specifically took off $5000
because of the traffic going down through there. If we add more traffic they will take more
off. Then if we widen the road if they widen the road and take some of my property I will
be able to reach out my window, my front window and shake hands with the drivers that
are going down the road. But I would be wiling to make a bet that they wouldn't want to
buy my house and so I would have a house sitting right on the road and I know that can
be a reality because I have been in Salt Lake where they widen seven feet and those
homes if you are not careful walking out the door you get hit with a car. I am serious, it is
real Gose. I don't know how they ever got by with that. 1 see that as a part of it. There is
another thing too that has been mentioned and that is the bridge there on the canal on
Eagle Road. That is a blocked in place right there, 1 back out sometimes to go south and
more than once I have had cars come up over that, that I couldn't see at the time 1 backed
out because it is a blind area. You can't see them at all there 1 think that is a concern if
you are going to put office buildings in there. I guess that bothers me too, I can't see how
that is going to benefit my property if there are office buildings there. 1 can tell you if I were
looking for another home I wouldn't be looking for a home that was right next door to some
offices even if they are what they call limited offices. I feel like the lady who just
addressed us that acreage would be better and more in keeping with what we have there.
I think I can even deal with a half acre lots but these pint sized lots that you can walk
across in about 5 steps I just can't see that type of a lot being next to acreage which
surround the whole thing almost all the way around. They are surrounded by acreage.
And then of course another real thing and I realize you can't address that as has been
indicated because there is no one here from the school district but there will need to be
buses for teachers or for students and of course cars for teachers which is going to add
a lot more to the traffic there. As now stands Eagle Road in my opinion is inadequate right
now. Before you even put these in Eagle Road is inadequate for the traffic that is coming
down since they put that freeway entry there. I sat a morning or two in the early morning
around 6:30 to 8:00 and the cars are almost bumper to bumper as it is right now going
down through there. That is all I have to say thank you.
Johnson: Thank you, is there someone else that would like to come forvvard?
Wes Garvin, 2590 South Eagle Road, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Garvin: I will let Mr. Johnson know that this time I removed my hat before I came up. I
would like, before I get started, I would like to remind Mr. Forrey where I reside. If you will
look at the map there on the L-0 I reside exactly across the street from that is my bedroom
window. At the last public hearing I brought that point up that their entrance and exit
would be in my bedroom. Once again they will have that exiting into my bedroom window,
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
June 13, 1995
Page 22
apparently they like to shine lights in on me. I put together some brief information based
on County profiles of Idaho in 1992. Based on 450 homes and 900, approximately 3
weeks ago there was an article in the newspaper that stated for that square mile area they
have .planned 900 homes. Right now in Ada County 1 to 2 person homes is 58.1 °h that
would equate to 261 of those houses would be 1 to 2 people, 37.9°~ would be 3 to 5
people of 170 homes, 3.9% for 19 would have 6 or more people. That equates in 261
houses there would be zero children. In the 170 homes there would be 3 children for a
total of 510, that is age 18 and below. In the 19 homes there will be 4 children which
would be 76, that is a total of 586 children for those houses. For 900 you can double it,
it is 1167 children. Right now we don't have a place to educate those children. We have
right now facing a bond issue coming up and I know you are not the school district but you
impact the school district by what you do impacts all of us. We are looking in the near
future at 586 more children who are not planned for. That is another elementary school,
it is also overcrowded. There is no middle school in our school district that can handle that.
There is no high school unless we bus them to Eagle. Eagle is going to open up less than
capacity. So maybe we can send them all to Eagle High School. That is what we are
looking at right there. Let's look at traffic for a moment. For 450 houses we have really
a minimum of houses in this County 2 car household minimum. The majority of the men
and women that live in that house work. That is 900 automobiles, just talking about the
450. On my side that is going to equate to 285 units, on the east side of Ridenbaugh canal
or 570 acres twice a day going in front of my house. Now there is a gentleman that lives
on Girdner Lane I haven't had the pleasure of meeting him personally yet but I will be that
suggested a traffic light right there. That might be one solution but Ada County, if you
want to know about the safety of that road come ask me. Six weeks ago I was out in front
of my property with an over tumed vehicle, maybe you were fortunate to read my letter that
I sent to the newspaper titled the good, the bad and the ugly are residing in Ada County.
Even with an over turned vehicle in the middle of the road people want to drive past it.
Well 1 am not a hero I was scared to death because people were trying to run over us.
That bridge right there is so unsafe we have 3 to 4 terrible accidents right in front of my
house every year. And that is with the traffic we have right now. That has to be seriously
considered. I agree with Mrs. Glick, whatever Mr. Forrey says about his developer making
an effort to talk to the people around this area, I would like to know who they are. I did talk
to Mr. Johnson, I talked to him after I received his letter in the mail which was last week.
I called him to ask him about what kind of commercial he had envisioned there. He told
me doctor's offices and that was primarily. We are not going to recoup an awful lot of tax
dollars off of doctor's offices out of there. It is just not going to happen, most of the
doctor's, Mrs. Papenfuss here is a nurse for St. AI's and those doctors aren't going to be
looking out here unless St. Luke's moves out there. They are going to be transient, they
are going to stay at their own offices. They are not going to be looking at coming out here.
So what really are they going to look, they have no idea what they want to use that
commercial for. Talking to Mr. Johnson 1 said that, I tried to address my concerns to him
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
June 13, 1995
Page 23
and especially about the berms they want to put up there and everything I will never see
anything west again because they will put high rise mounds of dirt and put trees on them
and I can't see anything now. I really enjoy a beautiful sunset. That is why we bought out
there, 1 was raised in this valley, we have some of those most beautiful in the world. But
his statement to me was that he sold his dairy and moved to Melba, and I could do that.
That might be some people's solutions but I bought where I did because it is a beautiful
area to live in. I am like Mr. Papenfuss, that road gets widened to five lanes I can reach
out and touch the drivers. I've approximately 600 foot of frontage along the road, I will lose
about 30 foot of that, 30 feet deep, 600 feet long. I've got 5 foot pine trees in my yard,
those pine trees would have to come out because the road would have to be right up next
to the trunks. None of this, my main point here gentlemen is what Mr. Forrey is telling you
and how great an idea this is, is not the facts. They have not talked to the people, we have
not been involved in any of this. They don't care about our input. They say they do but
they prove something totally different. We do not need this kind of saturation in our valley,
right now our economic growth is slowing down. You can check with any economist at
BSU and I'm a business major. Our growth is slowing down. We don't have the need, we
don't have a lot of factories coming in here where we are going to be able to supply all of
these thousands of jobs. Actually our infrastructure gentlemen is not going to be able to
handle to the levels that a lot of these developers want today. 1 think I have just about
covered the whole gamete, I do appreciate your time. Thank you.
Johnson: Thank you Wes, someone else had their hand up.
Marvin Hansen, 2460 East Victory Road, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Hansen: May I show where I live on the plot up there? My property border the canal, I am
on this little triangle right through here and the canal is right here. My house is
approximately right in this area (inaudible).
Johnson: How much of that land is yours?
Hansen: Four acres. I have not been contacted by anybody and I haven't spoken to
anybody that has. My concern is the canal there all have eight houses overlooking my
backyard. From my property the canal raises I would say 15 to 20 feet and then the
property on the other side of the canal also raises. So these houses are going to be way
above my house. I would like to request the houses in that are be single dwelling houses
so they raise quite so much. The lots, 8 houses in my backyard that is quite a bit. I haven't
been contacted about that or I wouldn't have approved it at all. The greenbelt path along
the canal that is like opening a freeway through my backyard to people, dogs, bicyces and
if it is along the canal there is noway to put berms in there to block me, trees and shrubs,
everybody is going to be looking down into my backyard. 1 moved out there to have some
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
June 13, 1995
Page 24
privacy. Other concerns I have are like everybody else says l won't go into it, the water,
the roads, the traffic, schools. If this does go through I don't know if it is up to you or the
highway department but I think the speeds limits on these roads should be dropped down
from 50 to 35 or something like that to make them a little safer. Victory Road right now
would say half the cars going down Victory Road (inaudible) on and off but I suggest they
put this in and the water table starts dropping that the developer be financially responsible
for around the area to drill people's wells deeper. Those are my main concerns, thank
you.
Johnson: Mr. Hanson, 1 have written testimony from you and a copy of a letter addressed
to you by the developer, but you said you had never been contacted?
Hansen: I have never been contacted to give my input.
Johnson: But you got the letter right, this letter is addressed to you.
Hansen: I have a letter tike that but nobody has ever contacted me to get my input back
to the developer.
Johnson: Thank you, anyone else?
Mary Creech, 2310 East Victory, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Creech: I live at 2210 East Victory and the proportions aren't right, so I don't know exactly
where I am. But my concern is the Ridenbaugh Canal right of way, you can't have
property off of it and drive up it to get to your property: How are they going to have a
greenbelt along that and what is to keep the kids from falling in the canal. There is so
much concern about the kids in the canal, that is a real fast moving canal and all of those
houses and kids, next they are going to want to cover the canal. The traffic on Victory, I
agree is really fast. My mother lives next door and she is almost afraid to go out and get
the mail or the paper because cars go by so fast. So the traffic is a big concern plus all
the traffic from what they are proposing to put in there. If they widen my road I agree I am
going to tie touching people too. And my house is fairly new I don't want to have to build
another one. I have 6 acres, that is all I have to say thank you.
Johnson: Thank you.
Bill Clark, 479 Main Street, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Clark: I represent James Griffen who owns the 80 acres on the north side of this property
above the L-O area there approximately. It goes all the way out to Overland Road and
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
June 13, 1995
Page 25
fronts on Eagle. I am necessarily opposed to this project but are suffering from a lack of
information. We have not been contacted by the owner there representative until a letter
came in the mail at the end of last week and wasn't able to get attention until yesterday
and the owner is out of town. We would request that kind of consideration. Also, have
some questions again, not necessarily in opposition to the idea of the low office
development there. It appears to be inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan and we
would just like to learn more. That is it thank you.
Johnson: Thank you, is there anyone else that would like to come forward?
Allen: I get to looking at the roadways that are in the project down in the culdesacs is
there room enough to get fire fighting equipment in and out?
Johnson: There would have to be, one of our ordinances requires proper turn around and
access and we do get the input from both law enforcement and the fire department on that.
The City of Meridian has followed those guidelines stringently. We haven't done any
recent developments at all that have impaired the ability for those units to turn around.
They have certainly guidelines that will have to be me in terms of the street width and that
sort of thing. Is there anyone else that would like to come forward before I close the public
hearing?
Nancy Hansen, 2460 East Victory Road, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Hansen: Mostly my concerns have been addressed by everyone. My husband and I
presented them in a letter. We did receive a letter from the developers on June 9th and
have not had a chance to give our input. In the letter he said that he had contacted
neighbors but he hadn't, he hadn't contacted us at least. Also, my husband pointed out
that there are 8 lots that abut our property and Mr. Forrey said that they were willing to
make larger lots on the neighboring lots. If that happens before anything is approved I
would like to look at the size of those and see and not just take this conditional use stuff
at their word. Another thing is they say it is R-4 zoning with conditional use and when you
figure that 369 of the 450 units do not meet the R-4 zoning that is 80% of the homes are
not really Rat, I just don't know why they bother saying R-4. I would much prefer to have
acreage out there. Thank you.
Johnson: Thank you, Mr. Harris.
Gordon Harris, 2825 South Eagle Road, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Hams: I don't have any major concerns with the few of the things that have been brought
up here tonight might be a concern. We are in favor of the project as a whole and we do
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
June 13, 1995
Page 26
like the limited office next to us rather than the homes. It would give us more open space
on the north side of our property.
Johnson: Where is your property Mr. Harris if you could show us, or tell us if you can?
Harris: We are right where the fire station, my drive come out right where the fire station
is going to be. I hope the fireman doesn't tum on his alarm until he goes down the road
a bit.
Johnson: I can pretty well assure that he will. Anyone else that would like to come
forvvard?
Lydia Aguere, 2620 South Locust Grove, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Aguere: I just want to voice some concerns for the record. 1 feel like this density is too
dense, when they talk about cluster homes I feel like that is aptly named. When you look
at that whole area you are looking at Los Alamitos, you are looking at Salmon Rapids, you
are looking at the Sportsman Point. When you look at Sportsman Point and the way they
are selling they are not really selling that quickly right now, I think we need to be
concemed about that density just because the market right now has softened a bit. I feel
like that is dense, I have concerns about water. I have a well as do a lot of the people that
are rural out there and that concerns me quite a bit as it does those folks. I am concerned
about property values, when you look at some of these houses and 900 square foot homes
that diminishes the property values for those homes that area 2400 square feet such as
mine or better or even less than that. That is a concern to me. Also, when you look at
some of these homes one third of these homes are going to be under 1000 square feet,
it is very small. When you look at that whole area and the demographic of that whole area
those are very small homes compared to what that demographic is in that area. Those are
my concerns.
Johnson: Thanks Lydia, anyone else have anything new to add? Wayne would you like
to address some of the comments now, you are not obligated to.
Forrey: Thank you Mr. Chairman, I took some notes, I wrote down some questions and
I will try to answer them the best I can. Mrs. Woodington asked a question about the use
of the triangular L-O property on Locust Grove. The office would be small, the parking lot
would be probably small because it is a very awkward size piece of ground but it would
meet City standards. However, it would be built to meet the L-Q standards and if it has a
site limitation then it would be a small development. Greg wants to build himself an office
there and if there is room in it for a tenant or another business I am sure he would want
that to happen. It is not going to be a trailer for a sales office, it would be Westpark
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
June 13, 1995
Page 27
Company's office and from that he would do the selling of the project. Mr. Roberts talked
about traffic to the school. There is a pedestrian bridge and we have met with Nampa
Meridian Irrigation District, as a matter of fact with their engineers and their maintenance
people. They tell us it is not a problem to have a pedestrian bridge to the school. The
question he did ask though was I think oriented more to auto traffic than pedestrian traffic.
We are not proposing a car bridge over to the school site. That I think needs to be
determined by the highway district. Pat Dobey spoke about completing that traffic study,
if the highway district says there is enough of an impact to the school or to Eagle Road
that we want a bridge then we have to live with that requirement. So my answer to Mr.
Roberts would be let's work with the highway district and find out. Mr. Allen questioned
the schools, at this point, the Meridian school district does not have an impact'fee to help
pay for schools. But the one thing they do is they ask developers to donate ground through
the city. So through this process we are donating a school a portion of a school site. Now
the Sundance Subdivision and I think Salmon Rapids, Marty Goldsmith's project in that
area, those 2 subdivisions plus this proposed subdivision would contribute somewhere
between 3 to 4 to 5 acres a piece. The school district says they would like to have a 17
acre site for a combination elementary school and a city park. Between these 3 projects
that I mentioned we are getting very close to that 17 acres. The concept has been that
when the I think if the Gr'rffen property comes in for development there is another piece of
that puzzle that gets solved. So we have worked with the school district and this is the
area they say they want the school site and they are happy with this donation. The
vehicular access though is coming through Sundance Subdivision and not anticipated
through here, would be pedestrian only at this point. Mrs. Glick deserves a big apology
and all of the neighbors. I think Greg did make an attempt to meet with the neighbors but
it didn't get done. I think that is probably why the letter went out. Let me apologize on
behalf of Westpark Company and myself. I think I dropped the ball as well. The best thing
we can do is send another letter, set some times and get some appointments and let's
meet with anyone that wants to and we will do that. We will get a letter back to everyone
and in terms of Mrs. Glick's request absolutely let's put it in the public record. Let's
increase the size of those lots next to the Glick property. I don't know how large at this
point we wouldn't want rural acreage, this is in the Urban Service Planning area, maybe
they could be double that size, 16000 to 18000 square foot almost half acre size lots.
Maybe that would be palpable. We will work that out. Mr. Papenfuss mentioned the
Nampa Meridian Irrigation District, I don't know who he spoke to but we talked to their
people in charge of land development. We are working on the pathway design and
approval for that and also the bridge to the school. Mr. Garvin is correct and we will adjust
the entrance in the L-0 and that is just shown in a preliminary plat configuration. Again that
gets back to the traffic study whether or not there would ever be a signal. And everyone
is correct about the bridge both on Victory Road and on Eagle Road. They are humps
there, there are some blind spots and that is going to be a real issue down the road to
have to develop and keep that traffic safety. But that road can certainly be adjusted so that
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
June 13, 1995
Page 28
he doesn't have to live with a nuisance like that. He also talked about the schools and
I think the L-O helps the schools in that it generates more tax revenue for the City and it
does decrease the number of school children that would be in the project. Mrs. Creech
talked about greenbelt safety, the Ada County pathway plan addresses safety, Nampa
Meridian Irrigation District has a standard that the pathway will be designed too, it includes
a chain link fence between a path and the canal. That will be constructed as part of the
project. Bill Clark indicated a concern over the L-O, I would like to point out that the
property that is client owns on the north side of the L-O the Nixon property is anticipated
as mixed development. We think the L-O there would be a compatible use next to the L-O,
we have asked for the type of development they anticipate and they have never come back
and indicated what they plan. So, at this point we think the need to balance the land use,
this is a good alternative. Mr. Allen's comment about the capability of fire department we
would all the culdesacs would be built to city standard and highway district standards. I
hope that answers most of the questions.
Johnson: I appreciate that Wayne, I appreciate you acknowledging the fact that the one,
there are several common threads but the one that is near the top as far as sensitivity goes
is the lack of contact with the neighbors. I think a project of this size certainly would
warrant that. Any questions of Mr. Forrey? Thank you Wayne
(Inaudible)
Johnson: Any question have to be addressed to the Commission. ff you have an additional
question that you want on the public record now is the time to do it because I am about
ready to wind it up. Do you have another question that wasn't raised?
(Inaudible)
Papenfuss: The person I talked to at Nampa Meridian Irrigation District was Mr. Wyke
who's is an elected official. He also called one of the other elected officials. My
understanding is that anything that goes through has to get their approval not the
engineers approval. So if they have talked to the engineers have said fine the people that
really count haven't said fine because they don't even know about it because I talked to
him personally he is a personal friend of mine and I asked him if this had been none and
he said not to my knowledge. He is active on the board, so I just want to clarify that.
Johnson: Their agency has been contacted, one of the things we do with an application
is we have a check list of agencies that we are obligated to contact. In this specific case
in the irrigation district with jurisdiction in this PUD and this planned development would
have been contacted by letter and we invite their comments. They usually send it back on
the same form letter form. So someone there has been contacted, maybe not about the
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
June 13, 1995
Page 29
specifics that you are talking about. They have been contacted about the project and how
it will impact them. They get copies of the application.
Papenfuss: Maybe the top people haven't been contacted and they are the ones that
count.
Johnson: The fellow that normally responds is Bill Henson, I don't know who did in this
case I would have to look at the record, it is Mr. Henson it is right here and he just says,
this is kind of a standard answer you have to understand, it says,"Nampa Meridian
Irrigation District has no comment on this request." Signed Bill Henson, Assistant Water
Superintendent, Nampa Meridian Irrigation District. This is pretty much what we normally
get unless there is something that they can see readily that is going to impact their district
like moving a ditch or something like that. That is a pretty standard comment.
Papenfuss: Well that is the reason 1 was concerned because he said there would be some
concerns.
Johnson: Sure, I understand where you are coming from. Anything further before I close
the public hearing?
Aguere: My question is what are the average prices of the homes for example when you
are talking about the 69 units that were half were going to be 900 square feet what is the
average price of those?
Johnson: Is that your only question?
Aguere: Yes
Johnson: I don't know if the application gives us a range, did anybody pick up on that?
Wayne do you have an answer?
(Inaudible)
Johnson: That is a standard question on the application (inaudible) we will look and see
if that was answered. Usually we just get an range on something like that.
(Inaudible)
Johnson: There is not a specific answer, market driven to PD approach which is probably
a way of saying there is going to be such a wide range it is probably not meaningful to type
down. Not a very good answer but it is the only one we got.
Meridian Planning 8~ Zoning Commission
June 13, 1995
Page 30
Dobey: Mr. Chairman my name is Pat Dobey I spoke earlier, there were several traffic
questions raised and I might be able to provide some information on those. The first
question was concerning the need for a signal at the project entrance on Eag-e Road. In
my earlier analysis I concluded that a signal wasn't warranted. Although the addition of
office space may change that. Generally signals are required where high volumes of left
tuming Vaffic exists. There would be traffic that is northbound on Eagle Road tuming left
into the project. Because of the demographics of the community it is unlikely that you
would get a significant amount of traffic going that way. So I doubt if a signal would be
needed. The second issue though with the bridge across the Ridenbaugh Canal into the
school. If you constructed a road across the Ridenbaugh to that school in my opinion what
you would do is divert the traffic, the flow of traffic from Orientation to Eagle Road to an
orientation through the Sundance Subdivision. Right now most of these lots are within
walking distance of the school and parents may take their children up to that upper loop
and drop them off there so they can watch them go to school. If you give them a road
connection they will drive over there and it would load all of the traffic through the
Sundance Subdivision. The next question or concern that was raised was the safety at
the Eagle RoadNictory Road intersection. The highway district has installed all way stop
control and installed a beacon at that intersection which is about the extent of the safety
improvements that they do. Also, they commissioned a traffic safety study of all of the
arterial roads on this system recently. I know that a recommendation of that study was to
reduce the speed limit primarily on Eagle Road and the high speed limit was also
mentioned as a concem on Victory Road. I am not sure the action that the Highway
District will take but in my opinion the speed limits are much too high on both of those
roads and it would be in the public's safety to lower them. That ends my comments.
Johnson: I appreciate that thank you. Would you have anything to add at this time Karen?
Thank you, I will close the public hearing at this time. Any discussion, what would you like
to do gentlemen?
Rountree: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion that we have findings of fact and conclusions
prepared on this application.
Shearer: Second
Johnson: We have a motion for the City Attorney to prepare findings of fact and
conclusions of law on the application for Highlands Ranch Subdivision, all those in favor?
Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Johnson: The next 2 items go with the same application, I would like to take those at this
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
June 13, 1995
Page 31
time, these are both public hearings. All the comments taken at the last public hearing will
be incorporated in this. These will be treated together so it wouldn't be necessary to give
the same comments over and over.
ITEM #12: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR
HIGHLANDS RANCH SUBDIVISION BY GEM PARK II PARTNERSHIP:
Johnson: I will now open the public hearing, are there any further comments you wish to
make Mr. Forrey?
Wayne Forrey, 52 East Franklin Road, was sworn by the City Attomey.
Forrey: No further comments from Westpark Company, prior comments would be included
in the testimony for items 12 and 13 I believe on your agenda.
Johnson: Correct, thanks. Is there anyone from the public that would like to provide us
with some additional input? This is a public hearing. For the record we will incorporate
all of your previous testimony into item #12 and 13 as well. Seeing no one then I will
close this public hearing. This is a preliminary plat.
Rountree: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion that we table action on this item until we have
findings of fact.
Shearer: Second
Johnson: We have a motion to table this until the findings of fact and conclusions come
in on item #11, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #13: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT RESIDENTIAL FOR HIGHLANDS RANCH SUBDIVISION BY
GEM PARK II PARTNERSHIP:
Johnson: I will now open the public hearing, do you have any additional comments Mr.
Forrey?
Wayne Forrey, 52 East Franklin Road, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Forrey: No further comments Mr. Chairman.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
June 13, 1995
Page 32
Johnson: Fine, we will incorporate your previous testimony. Is there anyone else that
would like to say something about the conditional use permit request?
Bonnie Glick, 2860 East Victory Road, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Glick: I guess my question is the conditional use permit the developer is applying for R-4
with a conditional use permit. I guess I just would like the Commission to clarify for me is
that what gives him then the capability to sort of shift and adjust and actually end up with
where he has housing more than R-4 technically?
Johnson: Yes and no, I will have Wayne Crookston our City Attorney comment on the
conditional use why it is necessary and is in accordance with the application, is that what
you would like?
Glick: Yes
Johnson: In other words why do we do we have it.
Glick: And how does that impact us in terms of I guess if he is applying with a plat and a
conditional use permit then what we see is what we get, is that correct. Or does the
conditional use permit allow them to come in then and sort of shift and change as they
desire once they start developing?
Johnson: Well, it does a couple of things, one it gives the Ciry Council and the City people
more authority or leeway or input as things develop if it is on a conditional use because
everything is conditioned on meeting certain requirements. I would still like Wayne or
Shari to tell you why it is necessary in the sense so you will understand why we have 3
items that are all relative here. It is confusing.
Glick: Are they going to explain that to us now?
Johnson: I hope so, either one of you want to handle that?
Crookston: Under a planned development the ordinances of the Gity of Meridian allow
different sized lots within one residential development. It structures can vary in many
ways. Many times they are done just to have a smaller street frontage, sometimes they
are done to allow zero lot line development so they don't have to meet the city's setback
requirements. Many times they are done to allow more density, commercial developments
do them frequently so that some of the requirements of the city's ordinances can be varied
but a speck plan has to be presented to the City for the entire development to allow that
to be done in that fashion.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
June 13, 1995
Page 33
Johnson: Any comments you would like to add to that Shari?
Stiles: I guess the only comment I would make to add to that is the conditional use permit
is to be a detailed plan of the development. It is not simply just an overall variance from
every ordinance we have. If they want certain setbacks things like that they need to detail
that. The ordinance actually requires that a conditional use permit for a planned
development would have drawings of the architectural style and the building design. The
building materials and colors; landscaping, screening, garbage areas, parking, everything.
To show a planned development and typically we have considerably more detail then just
another copy of the preliminary plat to serve as a conditional use permit. That is the
reason that people will apply for a planned development so they have a little flexibility and
can make their wishes known and say this is our plan and this is really what we want to
do. A conditional use permit also once you submit that conditional use permit is pretty
specific and is something that needs to be adhered to as it is approved.
Johnson: It kind of works both ways to sum it up it gives the developer more flexibility it
also gives the City more control as things progress. That is the best I've got for you right
now. Anybody else? I will close this public hearing then. What action would you like to
take on the conditional use permit request?
Rountree: Mr. Chairman, I will make a motion that we table this item until we have
annexation and zoning findings of fact prepared.
Hepper: Second
Johnson: We have a motion and a second for tabling this item until findings of fact and.
conclusions of law have been received, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
TEN MINUTE BREAK
ITEM #9: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF 4.5
ACRES TO C-G BY JACKSON FOOD STORES:
Johnson: We are re-opening this hearing, do we need to go through that again?
Crookston: No
Johnson: If you would like to come forward Mr. Binning we can continue where we left off,
we are re-opening the public hearing at this time.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
June 13, 1995
Page 34
Johnson: Where we left this was that we paused to give you an opportunity to review the
comments made by the City and now we would like to see what your reaction is to those
suggestions.
Binning: Thank you Mr. Chairman, we are favorable toward all of the comments and
departments.
Johnson: There aren't any there you would have a problem with?
Binning: None
Johnson: Are there any further questions of the applicant?
Rountree: You indicated you will just be looking at food and fuel service, no car wash or
anything of that nature?
Binning: No sir, there is nothing planned of that nature, there are no plans for a car wash,
it is a convenience store and gasoline sales. We call it a travel center because it is a little
bit larger than the store that would be over on Fairview and because of its proximity to the
Interstate it is what the Texaco Brand calls those facilities is travel centers.
Johnson: Any further comments from the Commissioners? This is a public hearing, is
there someone that would like to come forward and address the Commission?
Steve Benson, 875 South Allen, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Benson: My parents are concerned primarily with this property Jackson property coming
in and devaluing the price of their home there. I feel it would present more traffic
problems, Eagle Road has enough traffic problems as it is. We feel that a convenience
store, gas station thing is needed in the area but not there. We feel that St. Luke's being
across the street it would be better to have other types of business other than a
convenience store, gas station. That is it.
Johnson: Thank you Mr. Benson, is there anyone else that has any comments for the
Commission on this application?
Randy Warden, 621 Allen Street, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Warden: I guess I am pretty naive about what takes place as far as all of this is
concerned. When a person buys into the subdivision we have covenants that state there
is no commercial type things that is to go on there. We have rules and regulations to
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
June 13, 1995
Page 35
abide by and I was wondering, how can someone supersede that is that just something
that is unwritten that wasn't written in our deed and I guess I don't understand the whole
thing.
Johnson: That is a very good question and a lot of people have that same question, Mr.
Crookston will be glad to explain to you how that can happen. He has the degree I don't.
Crookston: The covenants apply to the property 'rf it was in a subdivision and the
covenants were initially adopted unless they have been modified since their adaption they
are still enforced. The covenants however do not restrict a governmental entity from
dealing with an application that may or may not be in violation of the covenants. The
covenants probably indicate that they can be enforced by any property owner within the
subdivision of if you have one a homeowners association they may even say someone
else can do it. The covenants are not binding on the city or the county or any
governmental entity. They are binding only upon the property owners within the
subdivision to be enforced by them if that is their desire.
Warden: I have a couple, I am pretty much against that because my property faces theirs
and my house looks right across over into theirs. I looked at the portion that was going to
be used and there is an unused portion that is across from me and if the whole thing is
zoned commercial too, 1 was pretty concerned about what was going to be placed in that
unused portion that is right directly across the street from my house. I have concerns
about if there is going to be a light there coming into the access of Magic View. Does this
open the door to other types of, splitting our properties or making subdivisions into the rest
of the existing subdivision meaning splitting up, I have 5.5 acres, splitting that up. I think
that pretty much covers it.
Johnson: We will see if we can get you an answer before we close the hearing here.
Hepper: Are most of the lots in that subdivision, is that a 5 acre subdivision?
Warden: I think most of them are.
Johnson: Is there anyone else that would like to offer something?
Richard Moore, 3050 Magic View Drive, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Moore: We were questioned just a shake ago on the covenants of the subdivision. I
happen to be the first one in the subdivision, I am lot 2 of Magic View Subdivision. Those
covenants did expire in 1993, this is why I bought out there in the first place. My intent,
we were originally platted for a lot subdivision. My intent was in 1993 to go ahead and
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
June 13, 1995
Page 36
subdivide then. Things have changed a I~ttle bit so that isn't going to happen. Personally,
I will be right across from Jackson's but I will be very happy about it to see the whole thing
go commercial myseff. The covenants have expired totally now.
Johnson: Is there anyone else? I will close the public hearing at this time, except I better
leave it open and ask Mr. Binning if you have any comments, additional comments since
we received that testimony. Anything you would like to comment on Wayne or Shari?
Randy brought up a couple of things and I just was hoping one of you might comment on
his question regarding whether that opens the door for further development. I believe is
the way he phrased. The covenants have expired, I don't know how covenants expire and
if they do that is perhaps a valid question.
Crookston: Most covenants indicate that they last for a period of years which can be, I
have seen them anywhere from 20 to 30 years then many of them state that they go on for
additional 10 year increments. Most of them have procedures by which they can be
amended or revoked. The question is to whether or not that opens, allowing this use
whether that opens for any other uses it just depends totally on the covenants and whether
or not they are enforced and whether or not they are still in effect and what the property
owners who own the property want to do with their land. There is no necessary indication
that approval or denial of this application means anything in any other application.
Johnson: Thanks Wayne, any further discussion?
Rountree: One other point was brought up, it would be a question (End of Tape) what is
proposed or what is contemplated for the remainder of the parcel tha# is going to be
annexed or if the application addresses annexation.
Johnson: That is the other part that 1 forgot, I could not remember. Come up and tell us
if you know what is going to happen to that, it is a legitimate question.
Binning: I don't know of any plans for this site. It is a case of a very specific requirements
on the part of Texaco brand for a facility, we have to comply with their design criteria. We
meet that design criteria for this facility utilizing only that portion of the property. So we
don't have any plans for the remainder because it is unneeded for this development. I am
sure that there is a potential there for someday some type of expansion into that area but
for right now there isn't anything in our program for that.
Hepper: What is on the property immediately to the south, it would be Lot 12?
Binning: It is a vacant corn field.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
June 13, 1995
Page 37
Johnson: Okay thank you. At this point then I will close the public hearing.
Shearer: Mr. Chairman, I move we have the attorney prepare findings of fact and
conclusions of law.
Rountree: Second
Johnson: It is moved and seconded we have the City attorney prepare findings of fact and
conclusions of law on the annexation and zoning request for Jackson Food Stores, all
those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #10: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A
TRAVEL CENTER BY JACKSON FOOD STORES:
Johnson: I will now open the public hearing, is there any additional comments that you
have Mr. Binning? No additional comments at this time, anyone from the public that would
like to ask questions on this? Or have a thought or a comment? Seeing no one then I will
close the public hearing. I guess I have one question, I am just a little confused, is there
any difference between 9 and 10 since travel center is only mentioned in number 10 or is
that just the way we made up the agenda. Is there any difference between what you are
doing and a travel center, this just happens to be called a travel center because you are
located near the interstate. So we are not getting into something different, it is still a
convenience store. I just wanted a clarification on that for the record. I have closed the
public hearing, is there any discussion here? What would you like to do with it? Would
anybody like to do anything with it?
Shearer: I move we have the attorney prepare findings for item #10.
Crookston: We normally don't do findings until you have acted on the annexation
Johnson: You can make any motion you want. You want to alter or withdraw your motion
or continue, what do you want to do? You have the floor Mr. Shearer.
Shearer: Well, there isn't an awful lot of opposition to this. It seems kind of ridiculous to
drag it out for 60 days, we will have to have findings eventually won't we?
Johnson: Yes, and so there is no second it dies for the lack of a second. Anyone else
have any motions?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
June 13, 1995
Page 38
Hepper: Mr. Chairman, I move we table the request for a conditional use permit until our
next regularly scheduled meeting.
Rountree: Second
Johnson: We have a motion and a second to table the request for a conditional use permit
for Jackson Food Stores until our next regularly scheduled meeting on July 11th, all those
in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
(Inaudible)
Johnson: It isn't except for, if you were here earlier and you heard Wayne explaining why
it requires a conditional use permit, it is basically because it is a variance from, but it is a
subdivision. Go ahead Wayne.
Crookston: The initial hearing was for the annexation and zoning, that is a separate issue
from the conditional use to allow this specific use. They are 2 applications, one is just
bringing the property to become a part of the city and give it a zone. The conditional use
is to authorize the use of the property for the travel center.
(Inaudible)
Crookston: No, they haven't favored anything at this juncture.
Johnson: What we are doing is instructing the City Attorney to look at from a legal
standpoint, this is required by law to see that it fits within our ordinances and we have the
authority to annex it and to zone and to approve the condi#ional use permit. When that
information comes back to us in written form, we had a couple tonight on the agenda one
for Winston Moore then we take action on those findings of fact which incorporates all of
the testimony, the negatives and why we are able to do if we want to do it. Then we pass
it to the City Council, the City Council again has to have another public hearing and they
make the final decision as to whether it is approved or not.
(Inaudible)
Johnson: You will have another opportunity at the City Council, you will also be re-noticed
and you will be apprised of when that meeting is. The other thing you can do since there
is some hesitancy about public speaking you can put your comments in writing, we get a
lot of those and get those into the City as soon as possible so they can be circulated to the
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
June 13, 1995
Page 39
City Council members. You will be re-noticed of that public hearing. The normal process
on something like this is well at least 120 days usually to get something through. Where
we are at right now is the first step.
(Inaudible)
Johnson: The obligation is to notify people as I understand and Wayne can correct me,
is to notify people within 300 feet of the property.
(Inaudible)
Johnson: Then you have to go find the notice even though it has fallen down. The one
thing you can do and I know most people don't do this but all public hearings are noticed
in the Valley News Times, in the paper.
ITEM #14: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF 22.24
ACRES TO R~4 FOR LOS ALAMITOS NO. 3 BY FARWEST DEVELOPERS:
Johnson: I will now open the public hearing and invite the applicant or representative to
come forward.
Marty Goldsmith, 4550 West State, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Goldsmith: Members of the Council I am here representing Los Alamitos subdivision for
a preliminary plat and annexation and would care to answer any questions that you guys
have at this time.
Johnson: Any questions of Mr. Goldsmith?
Rountree: Have you seen the comments from the planning director and the City Engineer
and ACHD?
Goldsmith: Yes I have, I have reviewed them all and there is nothing in there that we
disagree with or won't be complying with. We have had a tech review with ACHD, they
have minimal changes. They are in agreement with our overall street lineups and want
some temporary culdesacs in place and correspondence with the development Sundance
to line up the streets and we feel it is not going to shift any lots in a major fashion.
Hepper: Marty what is your minimum square footage on the lots and on the houses?
Goldsmith: We are applying R-4 zone which is 1400 square foot minimum.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
June 13, 1995
Page 40
Hepper: Were the previous phases of Los Alamitos No. 1 and No. 2 were they also 1400
square feet?
Goldsmith: Number 1 is the only one that has a final plat, it is just about to be recorded
and it is a 1500. There was no, the development agreement is also at 1500 for phase 1 it
was just at the Council's recommendations that we did that. It wasn't a promise or anything
like that.
Johnson: Anyone else have any questions?
Crookston: I do, you made no representation that it was going to be 1500 in the prior let's
say Los Alamitos No. 1?
Goldsmith: At the public record 1 did not make any indications that I was going to be
putting 1500 square foot homes in phases 1 or 2. I agreed to it because it was mentioned
to me that might be desirable at this point. I would be requesting 1400 square foot homes
as it is market driven.
Crookston: Your request for, the written request for application on the plat you don't
consider that part of the record?
Goldsmith: Which plat?
Crookston: I believe it is number 1.
Goldsmith: Number 1 we are putting in 1500 square foot homes.
Crookston: That was stated on your plat request was it not?
Goldsmith: I am not sure about that Wayne. I don't recall if it was 1400 or 1800.
Crookston: I don't recall 1800 but I do definitely recall 1500 as being on the request for the
plat, as being the minimum subdivision house sizes. I consider that as being part of the
record.
Goldsmith: I would agree with you and if that is what I applied for I appreciate you granting
that.
Johnson: Mr. Hepper any questions?
Hepper: Well I just wanted to make a comment that to date as far as I am aware that all
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
June 13, 1995
Page 41
of the lots in the subdivisions south of the freeway and east of Meridian Kuna Highway
have been restricted to 1500 square feet. I think in Salmon Rapids there was a variance
request for some lots that bordered on Locust Grove to be 1400 square feet. I believe that
was granted for some of those lots that back up to Locust Grove. But all of the interior lots
in that area have been held to 1500 square foot minimum I believe.
Johnson: Do you recall if that has been at the request of the Ciry Council or a general
agreement like Marty says?
Hepper: I think it has been at the request of Planning and Zoning and the City Council.
As far as I am aware all the developers have agreed to that because of the time (inaudible)
houses of that size. So I guess it is up to Marty to determine whetherhe thinks the market
will continue like that or whether he wants to go for something. less than what everyone
else out there has been doing.
Johnson: Well, his application is for 1400 right, that is what we deal with right now. Any
other questions of Mr. Goldsmith? Thanks Marty, this is a public hearing anyone that
would like to come and address this?
Karen Gallagher, ACRD, 318 E. 37th, Garden City, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Gallagher: Mr. Chairman and members of the Commission as the applicant stated we
have not yet finished a review of Los Alamitos No. 3. There are 2 items that we are
discussing at this point that I would like to draw your attention to. The first one is we hope
is just a minor detail is aligning with the stub street that has been approved to Sundance
to the north. The other issue is probably a little more complicated and involves the stub
street to the east which is currently tagged as the school site. I understand there is some
negotiations going on to swap some of the property to create a site that is more buildable.
I don't believe this part or this triangle that that stub street extends into is a part that is to
be swapped that is yet to be determined possibly this Friday in a joint meeting with Shari
Stiles and Dan Mabe of Meridian schools. The concern here is that as I understand it
your staff is recommending that Highlands Ranch be required to put public road/bridge
over the Ridenbaugh canal at this location that would align with this stub street. We have
discussed this stub orthe bridge at Ada County at a staff level and are not convinced that
no, let me back up. We are supportive of the stub street or a bridge however this location
could cause us some concern for iwo reasons. One of which would be the stub would
connect and Pat Dobey made reference to this earlier, it would come across for a short
distance east-west and then it would connect directly to the Sundance Subdivision to the
north that is a straight street that connects straight through to Overland. It has slight bends
in it but otherwise it is a straight shot for anybody to cut through traffic. In that sense this
stub street in this location and alignment with Highlands does concern us. Possibly to the
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
June 13, 1995
Page 42
north to the other property that Mr. Clark was representing would be another option if you
are in support of a bridge over the Ridenbaugh Canal. Our second concern would be
Johnson: For the record tell us why it concerns you, I know why but tell us why?
Gallagher: The bridge?
Johnson: No the connection, with no bends.
Gallagher: For cut through traffic, it would encourage traffic beyond what has already
been planned for on that road for the width. It is a residential collector to a certain point
from Overland Road to a certain point south, I don't know what cross street that is at this
point. It is labeled as a residential collector. South of that to the school the numbers
dropped low enough that it was allowed to be a standard local street. If this connection
were made the bridge connection and then the fairly easy connection straight to Overland
Road the numbers would be higher than expected and definitely could cause us some
problems in the future.
Johnson: And no obvious traffic calming is that what you are trying to say, it will become
a speedway more or less?
Gallagher: Correct, even though we have chokers going in at some of those intersections
it would encourage traffic to go that direction rather than out the other ways. As I said we
are in support of a bridge crossing but this location causes us some concern. The other
one would be financially if a bridge crossing is approved that cost is split between both
developers which is fine for Highlands Ranch, but the other side being the school 1 am not
quite sure they would be supportive of putting up that money. I don't believe the Highway
District, we would take over maintenance but we aren't interested in fronting the money
for half of a bridge at this point. So, at this point staffs comments have been to withdraw
or to move that stub street bads and get into a culdesac txat I understand that conflicts with
some of the staffs recommendations for a bridge crossing. Thank you.
Johnson: Thank you Karen, anyone else like to address the Commission on this
application? Do you have any comments Shari Stiles regarding Karen's comments? Since
she mentioned staff and you are staff.
Stiles: Mr. Chairman and Commissioners, my concern is that there is no vehicle access
between the 2 sections of the properties and also none to the school. It would be nice to
think that all of those children that live in that subdivision are going to be walking but that
is not going to be the case. I would hope that there is some way that, 1 don't know the
status of the collector, it can be mitigated through other ways or some design changes but
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
June 13, 1995
Page 43
to have no access if the Highlands Ranch development were improved as its currently
shown I am concemed that the only way those people are going to get to the schools is
to come out on Victory Road, Eagle Road and have to go all the way around through
Sundance anyway. So, I don't really see the point in not allowing any interneighborhood
vehicle access.
Johnson: Have you had any meetings or discussions with the school district with regard
to (inaudible) perhaps them sharing in the cost of the bridge?
Stiles: We did not talk about the cost of the bridge being shared by the school district but.
I talked to Dan Mabe today and he does support having a bridge across the Ridenbaugh.
Johnson: Thank you, anyone else have any comments? Seeing no one then 1 will close
the public hearing. I am sorry I didn't see your hand, I will re-open the public hearing.
Lydia Aguere, 2620 South Locust Grove, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Aguerre: I have some issues that I wanted some answers to. Number 1 with Los Alamitos
going in I approve the R-4, if the house sizes are going to be 1500 square feet, that makes
some sense for that area. The thing I am concerned about is water, where is the water
coming from. Having a well and having other people that are rural with wells I am
concerned about the water. Are they using surface water or pressurized wells. So that is
one of the concerns that t have. The other concern that I have is once again the question
that I want to ask is the average price of homes, if I could get the average price of homes
there as my property abuts that. That is a concern to me or a question I would like
answered.
Johnson: On the average price you are dealing with something that changes daily,. did you
put anything on your application in terms of a range?
(Inaudible)
Johnson: $130,000 is what the applicant said.
Aguerre: And the application is dated when?
Johnson: We received it May 22nd.
Aguerre: And as far as water is that something that can be answered here?
Johnson: Not spe~cally, our ordinance requires that anyone that is annexed has to hook
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
June 13, 1995
Page 44
up to city services. The other part of our ordinance requires pressurized irrigation.
Aguerre: Where is that pressurized irrigation located?
Johnson: It normally comes from surface water, it has been an area of contention and I
haven't sit in on any of those meetings recently. I know Shari probably has and it is
probably best she comment on that. We have some ongoing systems. There are definitely
two schools of thought on pressurized irrigation but it is part of our ordinance. The city at
this point is prepared to provide the water. It is being done in various ways. We are
drilling new wells which are over 700 feet in depth all the new well we have put in. We
have put in temporary lift stations and that sort of thing. If you would comment on the
pressurized irrigation and where we stand on that.
Stiles: Mr. Chairman and Commissioners the ordinance requiring pressurized irrigation
at this time does not require that surface water be used. We do allow existing wells to be
used for irrigation only that all other wells would need to be capped. I know Boise city is
just changed their ordinance so they do require the use of the surface water and I think
that it is probably something that the commissioners and the council are going to need to
look at if they are going to allow a shallow well to be dug or to require the surtace water
use. -f they have water rights will serve the property they should use those rights to
landscape, but at this point we do not specifically have a requirement that their
pressurized irrigation system be off of the irrigation water.
Aguerre: Those are my questions and concerns.
Hepper: I have another comment to make on that, the Department of Water Resources
won't let the developers tap into the aquifer that is between 100 and 200 feet because that
is kind of reserve to domestic use. They have to either have a shall well that is less than
100 feet or go down below 200 feet for the pressurized irrigation system. So that
somewhat protects that aqu'rfer that most domestic wells are in. Some are higher and some
are lower but the majority of them are in that range and that is an attempt to try and protect
that range.
John Shipley, 2770 South Locust Grove, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Shipley: The pressurized irrigation question came up December 1993, some of you
council members were here at that time, Mr. Forrey was on the council at that time. Mr.
Goldsmith was a little perturbed about pressurized irrigation system, he said
Johnson: He was part of a long list.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
June 13, 1995
Page 45
Shipley: He said, why are you making me do this? The conversation had to do with
surtace water pressurized irrigation. I live across the street from the well that has been
remodeled. Water resources tells me that well can provide up to 23 acres worth of water
for subdivisions. The well is about 300 foot from my property from my well. It is about 70
foot from an existing surface water canal. The well has been remodeled last winter some
time from a approximately 3 inch pipe to a pipe that is much larger, much larger pump.
Water resources says .48 cubic foot per second could be out of that well only. That is the
limit. At the present time they are watering the Salmon Rapids Subdivision and when it
gets going they will really be watering. They went under the street into section 19, from
section 19 they went into Section 20 and they have hooked it up to Los Alamitos. At the
time this well was remodeled Mr. Goldsmith had not even filed on the well. The filing was
Faye McDermott who had been dead for 7 or 8 years. Her husband Jeny McDermott,
there are 2 wells on that property. They water 23 acres of corn or alfalfa with that well.
During the summer time occasionally the well would cough and pump a little bit when they
run the well for a long period of time. I want to know if I can get some compensation or if
somebody will drill my well deeper if it goes down the tubes because they are watering lots
and lots of laws and subdivisions out of a well that was re-modeled and at the time they
told them to use surface water and it was in this meeting they told them that. There are
other people in this meeting that heard the same conversation. Mr. Crookston and 1 had
lengthy conversations over the phone and he sent me the public hearing tapes which have
a blank spot at the end where the conversation occurred. As much is said that he don't
remember that. Mr. Gary Smith was to check in on it last February, I went with him and he
never did get back with me on the situation until I called him and then he couldn't
remember that I really called him and talked to him about it. He at that time said he would
go out and check the well. Water resources, Mr. Tuthill the head of water resources says
he sent me the specifications of how much water could come out of that well and I have
all of that here in this little thing along with everybody in those sections that have a well.
1 want to know what you guys are going to do about it since it was said in the meeting that
he was to use surface water.
Johnson: Well, we wouldn't be able to answer that question here.
Shipley: Well the well is already in right?
Johnson: You tell me the well is in (inaudible) you are asking if you can be compensated
if your well goes dry I guess is your question.
Shipley: I am just trying to protect myself.
Johnson: Those are legal things that have to be worked out and resolved and this body
isn't, wouldn't be able to answer that nor do they want to attempt to answer that. If you are
•
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
June 13, 1995
Page 46
having a problem with.
Shipley: I am not having a problem.
C~
Johnson: You mentioned some things that are a little disturbing like blank tapes and
things like that and when you start doing that then I would suggest to you that you do thing
in writing and document items so you don't have that problem.
Shipley: Well the tape just quit but there are people here that remember that.
Johnson: But apparently the staff doesn't. So 1 am just trying to give you a suggestion
here because I guess I didn't like the implication that maybe things were purposely being
ignored.
Shipley: Was that an implication?
Johnson: That is they way I read it and maybe I read it wrong because it is late. We can't
resolve that at this meeting about your well. We don't have the where with all or the
capacity or the knowledge to do that.
Shipley: That is the first problem I've got. There is another problem which is far again
away from this problem is all the trash that blows out of #hat subdivision and collects
against fence lines there.
Johnson: You are talking new construction or existing homes?
Shipley: Brand new homes that are being built and there is a 1!4 of a pick up truck that is
stacked out there in front of the street right now.
Johnson: That seems to be a problem with a lot of subdivisions is keeping the trash down
when they are being first constructed.
Shipley: I don't think that I or anybody else in the neighborhood should have to be the
police for those people that are doing that stuff. That is another problem.
Johnson: Well, Will Berg gets the calls occasionally on that very problem with new
development in particular. The developer is responsible to see that is taken care of. You
get wind storms etc. and you know how it goes.
Shipley: I know but it has been 7 or 8 days since the last wind storm that come from that
direction and the stuff is still there and it hasn't been picked up and we needed to irrigate
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
June 13, 1995
Page 47
so it took a 112 hour to clean the ditches.
Johnson: What subdivision is that coming from?
Shipley: Salmon Rapids, you go over and talk to the workmen over there and they say
four letter words at you. We want to have good neighbors.
Johnson: You are trying to report those things we have a compliance officer.
Shipley: Anybody building a subdivision has got to be a good neighbor too. The fact that
that well was altered and he didn't even file and water resources didn't even know. I
would like to find out how much water that well is pulling.
Johnson: I think that has to be addressed by the City Engineer and the engineering
department.
Shipley: Well, I already talked to Gary Smith about it and he never did anything about it.
Johnson: Okay, I appreciate it, anyone else have anything before Mr. Goldsmith
responds?
Goldsmith: Thank you Mr. Chairman, I would like to see if 1 can help there with some
issues because it is our intention to provide good compliance with the city and also act as
a neighbor in this hand in hand development. We have provided for perimeter fencing
nearly the whole section there. That should account for the trash Gean up, there is one
small piece in there that we can sure put a temporary fence up on it. It is all this area that
has been blowing through, it is the first time we have heard about it. We do want to help
out here. So we can get a fence put in there until which time the developer would continue
on further down Locust Grove carrying a permanent fence. Two fences just don't quite
come together there and Mr. Shipley is right there in the comer. So I really have a good
plan here on how to take care of that for hirn. And in regards to the pressurized irrigation
that Lydia brought up the intention for us is to serve 1/2 of the Los Alamitos Subdivision
and 1/2 of Salmon Rapids subdivision Phases 1 and 2. This is a preliminary plan but we
have done all of our calculations on it and everything. These calculations have been
submitted to Gary Smith and to the department of water resources. The well is in our name
there is no refurbishing of the well. We do have irrigation rights and we are encouraged
by Meridian city to go down whatever avenues needed to to get pressurized irrigation put
into subdivision that had little to know water rights. We are not exceeding the amount of
acres that has been given to this well. There is 22, 23 acres of water rights and when you
do your calculations and subtract out sidewalks and such that is how you would come up
with the amount of lots that this is to serve. There is a flow meter on the well and once
Meridian Planning 8 Zoning Commission
June 13, 1995
Page 48
again the well has a new pump on it. The casing is the same and that flow meter should
be accessible to anyone that wants to look at it. So I have done some work for Gary Smith
in this area and have provided him with a letter from the water resources board that
clarifies our water rights and also to-ks about the potential of the transfer across the
sectional line and said that they said alright they didn't have a problem with it at least for
housing. Also, in clarification of the price on the homes I believe that $100,000 if we are
going to pick a number that we need to be held to $100,000 instead of $130,000 would be
the number that we need to be paying attention to for the 1400 square foot homes.
Johnson: Any questions of Mr. Goldsmith? Anybody else before I close the public
hearing?
Aguerre: I just have a question, we are talking about phase 3 of Los Alamitos is that
correct?
Johnson: Yes this is phase 3.
Aguerre: Average price of homes on phase 1 and 2?
Johnson: I don't have that because it is not on the agenda tonight, do you recall?
(Inaudible)
Johnson: About $100,000 on those too.
Aguerre: My question concerns, I guess in phase 1 I think I attended a public hearing
where we talked about the average price of home and I asked the very same question and
I think the price of homes was different. How does that vary, why does that vary I guess?
Johnson: Well, it is at best an educated guess. We tend more to look at square footage
than price of home because you can build a 1200 square foot house that might sell for
more than a 1400 square foot house depending on what you put in it. So, I think the
common denominator or the most common denominator is square footage. The trim and
what you put in it adds to the value. It is not just a matter of square footage times a cost
guide because that cost guide will vary many degrees and differences depending on how
it is built and what is put in it. So, I guess I would ask you a question, why is that important
to you? Why is it important to you that it is $100,000 instead of $130,000 or $125,000 or
$110,000?
Aguerre: I guess my property value, my concern is and probably the concern of other
people that live there you can have a smaller home that is a nicer home and your property
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
June 13, 1995
Page 49
value is really based on those homes that surround you. That is the reason for my
questions.
Johnson: That is one of the criteria it is not the only criteria but is one that they take into
consideration when they do appraisals. Does anybody have any more knowledge on that.
Tim is a builder and Tim is kind of our in house expert on that and Tim always talks in
terms of square footage.
Hepper: On the first 2 phases 1 and 2 there was a 1500 square foot minimum. Typically
a 1500 square foot house would run about maybe $115,000 or $110,000 that would be
your minimum. He is proposing 1400 square feet in this phase 3 which would be maybe
around $105,000 I would guess for a minimum.
Aguerre: So what I am hearing then is these homes are going to be a little below the
average home as far as quality?
Hepper: The footage would be a little bit less in this phase than they are in the first 2
phases. The minimum footage would be 100 square feet less than it would be in the first
2 phases. So therefore the total value of the house would be down just a little bit.
Johnson: Does anyone else have anything? I will close the public hearing at this time.
We are still on 14 as I recall, annexation and zoning.
Shearer: Mr. Chairman, I move we have the attorney prepare findings of fact and
conclusions of law.
Rountree: Second
Johnson: We have a motion and a second to have the City Attorney prepare findings of
fact and conclusions of law on item #14, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #15: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR LOS
ALAMITOS NO. 3 BY FARWEST DEVELOPERS:
Johnson: At this time I will open the public hearing, do you have any additional comments
Mr. Goldsmith?
Marty Goldsmith, 4550 West State, Boise, was sworn by the City Attomey.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
June 13, 1995
Page 50
Goldsmith: I have no additional comments at this time.
Johnson: Does anyone have any questions?
Rountree: There seems to be some discussion going on about some stub streets or some
connections within neighborhoods. 1 assume that will be resolved I guess more guidance
than a question. (End of Tape) Any revisions or mod'rfications to the preliminary plat we
have here this evening be incorporated so we can have an opportunity to review the
resolve of the street systems and that sort of thing. With the idea that we probably aren't
going to be able to take action on the preliminary plat until we have annexation and zoning
completed. Just a comment.
Goldsmith: The requirements from ACHD have been taken into acxount, we find them very
minimal. The lot count will not go up and they are minor. What we are seeing is just
getting a couple together at one time the street to Sundance was lined up I have no doubt
it was real close. We are talking about some temporary culdesacs and some degrees of
streets changing. I find that everything is going to work right there.
Johnson: Anyone else have any comments on this application? Mr. Forrey
Wayne Forrey, 52 East Franklin Road, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Forrey: I am representing Greg Johnson the owner of Westpark Development Company
who is purchasing property 1 think directly south and to the east of this project, but I
haven't seen a vicinity map and 'rf we have a vicinity map I would like to see how the bridge
might and see what the discussion is. I stated earlier that Westpark Company will follow
whatever the highway district recommends if it is a bridge so be it and "rf not a foot bridge
or whatever the highway district wants to do in that neighborhood.
Johnson: You can have mine if you want it. Is there enough vicinity there for you?
Fon'ey: Yes, I guess I would ask the question of Shari Stiles, is it Cignet Drive that is the
potential bridge?
Stiles: I don't know if that is the approved name, but and I am not saying that would be the
ideal location there but the topography is quite a bit steep in that area and it would be
desirable to have some connection. The fire department also is requesting a connection
of some type between the 2 subdivisions.
Forrey: We agree with what staff said on the Highlands Ranch,rf it is determined that there
needs to be a vehicular connection then let's work it out. No problem.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
June 13, 1995
Page 51
Johnson: Thank you, you can keep that map. Anyone else?
Karen Gallagher, ACHD, 318 E. 37th Street, Garden City, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Gallagher: Just a clarification, at this point staff has not recommended or we are not
recommending that a bridge be built as part of Highlands. If the traffic study came out that
the numbers needed it we would support that. It doesn't seem as though that is going to
be the case from the information we have gotten at this point. So I just want to clarify that
it is not up to ACHD barring whatever comes out of the traffic study. Staff is not requiring
it at this point the bridge connection. That if the bridge were to be required that it would
come from this body and the Council.
Johnson: Thanks Karen, anybody else? I will close the public hearing at this time. Action
on the preliminary plat or no action what would you like to do?
Rountree: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion that we table action on the preliminary plat until
we have acted on the annexation and zoning application.
Shearer: Second
Johnson: Moved and seconded we table this item until we receive the results of item #14,
all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #16: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF 23.27
ACRES TO R-4 FOR SALMON RAPIDS NO. 3 BY FARWEST DEVELOPERS:
Johnson: 1 will now open the public hearing and invite the developer to address the
Commission.
Marty Goldsmith, 4550 West State, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Goldsmith: No comments at this time but would answer any questions you guys have.
Johnson: Any questions of the developer from the Commissioners?
Hepper: Is this an R-4 also?
Goldsmith: Yes it is.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
June 13, 1995
Page 52
Hepper: And what is the square footage of the houses in this phase?
Goldsmith: 1400 square foot.
Hepper: And this is phase No. 3. what was the square footage of No. 1 and No. 2?
Goldsmith: No. 1 was 1400 square foot and 1500 square foot where the houses bounded
Meridian Greens within 500 feet.
Hepper: Not just necessarily those lots that border Meridian Greens but within 500 feet
of that?
Goldsmith: Yes sir within 500 feet of Meridian Greens the homes needed to be 1500
square feet which we sure stick by that.
Hepper: And then the balance is 1400 square feet that was in phase 1 ?
Goldsmith: Yes that is correct.
Hepper: And then what is it in phase 2?
Goldsmith: Phase 2 is going to be 1400, I am just not sure about that. It is coming up for
a hearing. I know for sure we are going to do 1500 square foot within 500 feet of Meridian
Greens. So I don't have a problem with that. I would like to continue the 1400 square foot
where applicable. The homes in there in the phase 1 are averaging 120 or 125
approximately it is not like we are all going lower end in there but there are some around
hundred and some up to $150,000 the spreads are moving around and we could sure use
some support in this area at this time. We have donated some land to the school district
and that donation in the corner of Los Alamitos was supposed to be for both subdivisions
and we have met with Dan Mabe recently and his concerns were addressed by us putting
in a pedestrian access to the school site. If he has other concerns like vehicle access we
don't have a problem meeting his recommendations. We are trying to work around what
his needs are.
Johnson: Anyone else? Thanks Marty, anyone from the public like to comment on this
application? Seeing no one then I will close this public hearing. This will require findings
of fact.
Hepper: Mr. Chairman, I move we have the City Attorney prepare findings of fact on this
project.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
June 13, 1995
Page 53
Rountree: Second
Johnson: Moved and seconded we have the City Attorney prepare findings of fact and
conclusions of law, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #17: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR SALMON
RAPIDS N0. 3 BY FARWEST DEVELOPERS:
Johnson: I will now open this public hearing any additional comments Mr. developer?
Marty Goldsmith, 4550 West State, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Goldsmith: I have no additional comments at this time.
Johnson: Anyone else like to comment on this? I will close the public hearing at this time.
This is a preliminary plat and the motion is?
Rountree: I move to table until our next regularly scheduled meeting.
Shearer: Second
Johnson: We have a motion and a second to table this to our next regularly scheduled
meeting which is July 11, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Johnson: Are there any other motions?
Rountree: Mr. Chairman I move we adjourn.
Shearer: Second
Johnson: We do have an added item there that just says Michael Preston's application
which I think he was under the impression would be on tonight's agenda will be on our
special meeting that begins at 6:30, June 22 which is a Thursday. Did you want to say
anything about it? You still have a motion on the floor don't you.
Stiles: Mr. Chairman and Commissioners he was upset that he wasn't on the agenda
tonight. When I indicated to him that there would probably be new findings he was even
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
June 13, 1995
Page 54
more upset.
Johnson: He called me after he talked to you and he kind of resigned himself to that. He
did ask if there was anyway legally that we could speed things up but I am not too sure we
can with all the hoops we have to jump through. I was going to talk to Wayne about that,
that is what I left a note for you about. I don't know how we could do it legally, do you
have some suggestions. Apparently there was some mis-communication and he thought
he would be on tonight's agenda and he didn't get put on.
Crookston: I would have to look back and see exactly what we did on the public hearing
as to how we tabled it.
Johnson: It was also revised in the interim. It has been an ongoing thing.
Rountree: We tabled it for more information.
Johnson: All those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:59 P.M.
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
APPROVED:
~, ~
JI JOH S N, CHAIRMAN
ATTEST:
WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., I CLERK
ASPEN HOMES
" THE LABRADOR
29M b.R
~ce~~e~C ~-/3-95
" THE SL'ND.9NCE "
NOOK
''' f"
MMILY ROOM
).
F
~~; NIiCHEN
LLr-n~v
I _
DIMING ROOM
I'
Lrv WG ROOM I .~
I=
-~_,
r
YST. BEDROOM
Iti :iJ
BwTH
BEDROOY
II`~.100
BEDflOOY
10, b6
GARAGE
20 ~ 22
r------1
I I
I
:ASPEN HOMES IIYC.
~~30 5~ FT
Z
BATH
BEDROOM
I. ~, I`.
I b3L s.c.
5•r
~ ~
ASPEN HOMES
" THE RETRIEVER " 1635 sa F*.
R°
3
MST. BEDROOM
~r.lj~
BEDROOM
fAMIIY ROOM
IcC. i6C
BATH
BEDROOM
IGC. i ?
GARAGE
~~r2~
r----- ----~
i
i
i ~
I
DIMING ROOM
'j.5~ I~
LIVING--BqROOM
I~~Ic
S.F.
ASPEN KOMES INC.
1440 SQ FT
" THE OIi~YHEE "
4 S•F.
ASPEN KOMES INC.
1304 sa FT
i'~ s.F.
the "PALISADE"
ASPEN HOMES
6
~;. _,T: •
. ,..I,~ ~ ~~ ;r..
~h
" THE HERITAGE "
BATH 1
' .I BEDROOM
== i 9~ I IC c
r.
I KITCHEN
~- DINING gOOM
MST. BEDROOM ~
IG~.I IC
I ATN
- O
~- 1
1'
unu>~
O~ ~, eeogoou
- 10~.10~
~~, i5~
HYING flOOM ENTR
GARAGE
r--- ---~
I ~
I I
I _- I l s-~
ASPEN HOMES INC.
12OI SQ FT
" THE PROSPECTOR "
BATH
DIHIIrG ROOM
• MST. BEDROOM
PomILY NOOM '-'•5`
-~ KIIOrtN
'
~~ _ ~
~~
~~~
" ~_ _
v Ellll'JCM
,
• UTILIiv
1 ~ IIVING ROOM
I^ t.
GARAGE
BEQROOM
I ~
I IDD a.F.
e~
t
'- - ~ DINING ROOM
MBT. BEDROOM
BATN'
.~-j _~..nv ra....
~~, ~ -1
_ -..
'\ .Jig. '__
KIICNFM"
r-
i
BEDpooM ~ - - ~"'
_~- ~ ~ ~.__i ~;. _._!1 ~/rte--J._.FFF
BEDROOM
Iv^-~.ICp
GApIFGE
r -~
1
/OOD a.F.
9
"THE TRAPPER " ~ - -I
"THE PATRIOT "
I ~ ' V DINING ROOM
GARAGE \
LIVIMG ROOM IV1`ICI~P~ _
/1 ~ LJl__I
BEDROOM ~(r'BEDROOM
996 SQ F`T
g9Gs~
fAMIIY ROOM
BEDROOM
BEDROOM
OPTIONAL 996 50 FT 9A~ ART
ASPEN HOMES 1
~R~C~a~!:~.1_
BEFORE TBE PLANNING AND ZONINO COMMISSION
LANGLY ASSOCIATES, INC.
ANNE%ATION AND ZONING AND CONDITIONAL USE
NE CORKER OF I-84 ARD EAGLB ROAD
SOUTH iPEST QUARTER OF SSCTIOR 16, TOIiNSNIP 3 NORTH,
RANGE 1 EAST BOISS MBRIDIAN ADA COUNTY STATE OF IDABO
MERIDIAN. IDAHO
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAN
The above entitled annexation and zoning application having
come on for consideration on May 9, 1995, and June 13, 1995, at the
Meridian City Hall, 33 East Idaho Street, Meridian, Idaho, at the
hour of 7:30 o'clock p.m., the Petitioner appearing on May 9, 1995
and June 13, 1995, through Russell C. Keithly, the Planning and
Zoning Commission having heard and taken oral and written
testimony, and having duly considered the matter, the Planning and
Zoning Commission makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
A. That notice of public hearing on the annexation and
zoning was published for two (2) consecutive weeks prior to the
public hearing scheduled for May 9, 1995, the first publication of
which was fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing; the matter was
tabled to June 13, 1995, and at the June 13, 1995, meeting
additional comments were received and the Commission moved to have
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law prepared for the July 11,
1995, meeting; at the July 11, 1995, meeting the matter was tabled
again because the Ada County Highway District Commissioners would
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - LANGLY PAGE - 1
not be acting on the matter until the end of August, 1995; the ACRD
comments were finally received on August 24, 1995, and the matter
having been duly considered at the May 9, 1995 and June 13, 1995,
hearings and the public having been given full opportunity to
express comments and submit evidence; and copies of all notices
being available to newspaper, radio and television stations, the
Planning and Zoning Commission hereby takes action on the Findings
of Fact and Conclusions of Law.
B. That the property included in the application for
annexation and zoning is described in the application, and by this
reference is incorporated herein; that the property is
approximately 73.5 acres in size.
C. That the property is presently zoned by Ada County as R-T
(Rural Transition); that the Application requests that the property
be zoned General Retail and Service Commercial (C-G) and has
requested a conditional use permit to allow retailers; that the
Applicant has stated in its Application that it is proposed that a
retail center of approximately 700,000 square feet be developed on
this site; that the type of center proposed is called a "Power
Center"; that Attachment 4 to the Application is a generic
description of a Power Center; the Applicant listed the categories
of tenants anticipated to be located in the center in Attachment 5;
the Application is incorporated herein as if set forth in full.
D. Adjacent to this development is the I-84 Interstate
freeway and major arterials of Eagle and Overland Roads; that to
the north, across the freeway, is the proposed St. Luke's Medical
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - LANOLY PAGE - 2
campus; that to the east and abutting the subject property are
large lot single family residences; to the south is land used
agriculturally; and to the west is land used for an interstate on
and off ramp.
E. That the property is adjacent and abutting to the present
City limits.
F. That Langly Associates, Inc., is the Applicant; that the
owners have consented to the application and have requested this
annexation, zoning and conditional use and the application is not
at the request of the City of Meridian.
G. That the owners are the Doris Rathleen Oliason Family
Trust, Virginia Jennison, Trustee, Rackham L.L.C., a limited
liability company, and Dolores M. Hartman, who have granted
permission for the annexation and zoning request.
H. That the Applicant's annexation and zoning application
stated that the present use of the land is agricultural; there is
one single family home on the west side of the property, the
Rackham residence. An approximately 400 lineal feet entry road is
proposed to cross the eastern most portion of an acreage that has
one single family home, the Delores Hartman residence.
I. That the proposed use is for a commercial retail center,
called POWER CENTER; that the Applicant lists the following as a
characteristic that make it desirable to be zoned C-G:
"The property is located at one of the most prominent
intersections in the area." I-84 at Eagle Road, and Eagle
Road/Highway 55.
J. That Russell Keithly, the Applicant's representative,
FINDINOS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAN - LAN(3LY PAOE - 3
s ~
testified that Overland Road would be five lanes at their property;
that there would be separate buildings for deliveries; that the
larger tenants would be in the eastern portion of the project; that
there would be an architectural committee and guidelines; that the
Meridian codes would be exceeded; that there would be a two to four
foot berm with a four to six foot fence; that there would be as
much buffering as they could put in; that there would be a wall so
that there would be no view of Interstate 84; that the entry road
would be 400 feet long with a three to four foot berm plus a rock
wall; that the wall along Interstate 84 would be at least six feet
high; the highest building would be 30 feet, except for parapet
walls; he showed pictures of the concept of the buildings; there
would be metal siding, an agrarian theme, roofs and masonry would
have varied colors; that this was a mixed/planned use development
area which had a priority for development in the comprehensive
plan; that traffic projections were submitted to the Ada County
Highway District; that traffic would be from a four mile radius,
but they will pull from a large trade area; that Overland would be
five lanes, but not to meet their schedule; their intersection
would be signalized; that there would be no access to the site from
Eagle Road; that they would put in what the Meridian Fire
Department wanted and would pave if required; that they had no
concerns with the Meridian staff comments; that construction would
be started by spring; that there would be stores by Christmas of
1996; that they have no tenants now but they would be lined out
before construction commenced; that it was likely that there would
FINDINC33 OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - LAN(iLY PA(iS - 4
be no firm commitments and no names would be released until
annexation and zoning were completed and commitments signed.
He specifically stated, in part, that moat of their property
is designated mixed planned use development area, that there is a
great variety that is allowed and we believe what we are doing is
probably the least impactful and economically most beneficial to
the community.
K. There were several property owners in the immediate area
who testified at the May 9, 1995, hearing about the Application;
the testimony can be summarized as follows:
1. Robert Cox testified that he was a fifteen year
resident; that he lived in Jewell Subdivision; that
there was insufficient infrastructure in Ada
county; that Five Mile Creek cuts the property;
that emergency service was inadequate; traffic was
too high; that sidewalks should be required; that
reduced speed limits were needed; power lines were
inadequate; sewage could be a problem; private well
and septic systems should be protected; that the
lands drains to Jewell Subdivision; that lighting
is a problem; that police and fire were
insufficient to handle the development; that the
coats for infrastructure would be prohibitive; that
he had negative connotation of the property; that
the southwest or southeast quarters of Overland and
Eagle would be a much better location; that this
parcel should be City park instead.
2. Jim Rogers testified that he represented about 40
residents on the Rolling Hill/Jade/Onyx/Topaz area;
that a petition and written statement were
presented to the Commission; that the neighbors who
signed the petition are united in their opposition
to Langly Associates, an out of state developer;
that the negative aspects of this kind of
development is vandalism, gangs, mall rats, bomb
threats; that this will certainly place an
additional workload on the Meridian City Police as
well as other emergency response groups; that the
objective stated in the Comprehensive Plan of the
preservation of the Meridian Old Town Business
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAFi - LANGLY PAGE - 5
District will be only devastating to this existing
infrastructure; that the massive impact of traffic,
light, noise and air pollution; that the suggested
buffer is not of significant distance and the
residents believe there to be a better place where
this development can be located.
3. Karen Gallagher, of the Ada County Highway
District, testified that the District had just
received the traffic study from the Applicant on
May 5, 1995 and requested the Commission to table
it until the Commission's next regularly scheduled
meeting, June 13, 1995. At the June 13, 1995,
hearing, Ms. Gallagher stated that the District had
not acted on this application, that it was tabled
in order to accommodate people from the public who
would like to speak but she did have staff
recommendation update.
4. David Lewis testified that he is in support of the
I-84 Power Center; that the Center will produce
commerce for the City of Meridian and offered his
written testimony to be included in the record,
which is incorporated herein as if set forth in
full.
5. Katherine Mooney testified that she represented Mr.
Griffen, owner of the southwest corner of Eagle
Road and Overland Road, consisting of 80 acres, and
offered Mr. Griffen's written support of this
development,which is incorporated herein as if set
forth in full.
6. That Pam Haynes testified that this development
borders her property which was purchased 11 years
ago and believes this annexation will have a
definite impact on her and the developer is only
out for a profit.
7. Cameron McGough testified that the section of
Overland Road between Locust Grove and Cloverdale,
those two (2) miles, are not in the 5 year plan;
that the draft of the Ada County Highway District's
transportation study needs to be thoroughly looked
at and at this time accesses are inadequate and
obvious spin off will occur.
8. Virginia Jennison, trustee of Doris Kathleen
Oliason Family Trust, owner of the North 1/2 of the
SW 1/4 of Section 16, testified as to the history
surrounding the land/farm her parents had started
FINDINOS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAtt - LAN(;LY PAOE - 6
on in 1919 and that she is in support of this
development and believes it will help the tax base
in Meridian and do a lot for the community.
9. Kenneth Higgs testified to being in favor of the
Center; that the taxes raised by this Power Center
will help the City.
10. Bob Mitchell, former general manager of the Boise
Town Square Mall testified in support of the
proposed development; that this broadens the tax
base; that he suggested that by the creative use of
landscaping as in the Town Square Mall, that the
impact to the residents in this area will not be as
bad as they think.
11. Randy Schindel and Kimberly Reller testified
regarding the crime issue that comes to a facility
of this size; that although they are in favor of
seeing growth, with growth comes crime; that Ms.
Keller testified that one entrance won't handle the
traffic.
12. Jim Ballantyne testified that development is
certainly coming and sympathizes with those
residents who see their lives impacted by this
development; that a wise decision needs to be made
regarding the traffic patterns and the least impact
possible on the community.
13. Richard and Barbara Lavender, land owners at
Overland and Eagle Road, Fred and Molly Nakaji,
residents of Wilton, California, and Christopher
Repus, a resident of Elk Grove, California, but a
former resident of Boise and a current land owner
in Meridian, submitted written testimony in favor
of this project, which is incorporated herein as if
set forth in full.
L. That the Meridian Police Department, Meridian City
Engineer, Ada County Highway District, Central District Health
Department, the Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District and the Idaho
State Transportation Department submitted comments; that those
comments are incorporated herein by this reference as if set forth
in full.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - LANGLY PAGE - 7
M. That the comments of the Ada County Righway District,
have been incorporated herein as if set forth in full, but the
Facts and Findings included the following:
1. From the Facts and Findings, general Information, it
is stated in paragraph d. that the site's exposure to
the interstate highway makes it highly desireable for the
type of land use being proposed, however the site's
single point of connection to the arterial system causes
severe problems of traffic dispersal. it would be much
better if the project were to be located on a site that
has direct access to two (or More) arterials instead of
one. In paragraph G. it is state that this project is
forecast to cause 13,145 tripe per day on Overland Road
east from the Eagle Road intersection and 13,217 trips
per day west of Eagle Road. Although the traffic volumes
are within maximum desirable thresholds on the roadways,
the inordinate number of turning movements at the site
driveway and the Overland/Eagle intersection require
special intersection design
2. The report stated several alternative actions, which
included alternative G. and I. Alternative G. was to
accept the project with the regular impact revenue that
will be collected, recommending to the City of Meridian
that the developer be required to construct the site
related improvements to Overland Road and to the
Overland/Eagle intersection, including the additional
lane on each leg of the intersection. this action will
replace the lost unused capacity at the intersection,
but will make no provision for other growth in the area.
An alternative to this option would be to establish
the four square mile area a separate impact fee benefit
zone and commit all of the impact fee revenue from the
new zone to construct arterial improvements only within
the zone as development projects in the balance of the
Meridian area, since it would take revenue that currently
go to the construction of those projects.
And alternative I. was to require the developers of
all property in the impact area (and District wide) to
replace a pro-rata share of the them available unused
capacity of all intersections and roadways. The unused
capacity would be quantified including a reserve for
background District wide traffic and adjusted downward as
each property in the effected area is developed, so there
would be no unused capacity in the system when the area.
is 100 percent developed.
FINDINOS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - LANOLY PAOE - 8
3. The ACBD staff recommended that a combination of G.
and I. be adopted for this and future applications in the
area. Accept the development(s), requiring the developers
to make whatever improvements to the system are necessary
to mitigate their site related impacts, and replace any
unused capacity in the system that their development uses
up. Use regular impact fee revenue to make needed
capacity improvements as fnnds are available and the
commission budgets funds for the improvements. This will
result in the public having to cope with deficient levels
of service in some cases until revenue is available to
make the required improvements.
4. The report included Site Specific Requirements that
included the following:
a. The access road shall have three southbound traffic
lanes and two northbound traffic lanes. The
existing (southbound) lanes shall include two left
turn lanes, and one right turn lane.
b. Dedicate 54-feet of right-of-way from the
centerline of Overland Road. the owner will not be
compensated for this additional right-of-way.
c. None of the above roadway improvements described
above will be eligible for impact fee offset or
reimbursement.
N. The Assistant City Engineer, Bruce Freckleton, commented
that an annexation perimeter legal description for the proposed
site be submitted and shall include all portions of the adjacent
Public Rights-of Way contiguous to the Corporate City Limits; that
one half (1/2) of all other adjacent right-of-way shall be included
in the perimeter legal description; that any existing irrigation or
drainage ditches crossing the property to be included in this
project, shall be tiled per City Ordinance; that any existing
domestic wells and/or septic systems shall be removed from their
domestic service except for purposes such as landscape irrigation,
per City Ordinance; that off-street parking shall be provided
and/or as detailed in site-specific requirements per City
Ordinance; that paving and striping, lighting, and signage shall be
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - LANGLY PAGE - 9
in accordance with City Ordinances; that a drainage plan designed
by a licensed architect or engineer is required and shall be
submitted for all off-street parking areas; determine the seasonal
high groundwater elevation, and submit a profile of the subsurface
soil conditions as prepared by a soil scientist; that water service
to this development is contingent upon positive results from a
hydraulic analysis by computer model; that a 100' x 100' well site
shall be donated to the City of Meridian at the proposed site and
shall meet all the criteria of the State of Idaho Department of
Water Resources and the City of Meridian; that the Applicant will
be required to construct 12 inch diameter water mains from the
City's current points of terminus in Overland Road and Eagle Road
to and through the proposed site creating a "loop" crucial to the
water serviceability of this site; that sewer service will be via
the Five Mile Trunk Sewer main currently under construction for the
St. Luke's West Medical Center and that Applicant will be
responsible to construct any lateral lines from the point of St.
Luke's serviceability to and through the proposed site and that
assessment fees for water and sewer service shall be determined
during the building plan review process; that "Late Comers" fees
will also be charged against this parcel to help reimburse the
installation.
O. That the Idaho Transportation Department commented that
the developer be aware that no access will be permitted to I-84 or
Eagle Road, both of which are full control access.
P. That the property included in the annexation and coning
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - LANGLY PAGE - 10
application is within the Area of Impact of the City of Meridian.
Q. That the parcel of ground requested to be annexed is
presently included within the Meridian Urban Service Planning Area
(U.S.P.A.) as the Urban Service Planning Area is defined in the
Meridian Comprehensive Plan.
R. That the property can be physically serviced with City
water and sewer, if applicant extends the lines.
S. That Meridian has, and is, experiencing a population
increase; that there are pressures on land previously used for
agricultural uses to be developed into residential subdivision lots
and other uses.
T. That the following pertinent statements are made in the
Meridian Comprehensive Plan and are specifically applicable to this
Application:
1. Under ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY CENTERS at page 17
Retail, commercial and office development are
frequent partners within Commercial Activity
Centers. In order to support residential and
industrial developments, areas should be set aside
as Commercial Activity Centers and their
development carefully guided.
Various commercial activity centers are
designated on the generalized land use map.
Planning policies pertaining to commercial activity
centers are presented in the land use chapter of
the plan.
MIXED-PLANNED USE DEVELOPMENT AREAS at page 17
Mixed use is a planning category which refers to
the coordinated development of several major uses
as part of a single project, such as specialty
retail/commercial, variable density residential,
offices, motels, industrial, service, commercial,
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - LANGLY PAGE - 11
and public and semi-public uses. Certain areas
have been designated for mixed-planned uses. The
development of mixed and planned compatible land
uses should be carefully guided through specific
project plans, in accordance with the mixed-use
policies contained in the Land Use chapter of the
Plan.
Economic Development Goal Statement
Policies, Page 18
1.1 The City of Meridian shall make every effort
to create a positive atmosphere which
encourages industrial and commercial
enterprises to locate in Meridian.
1.2 It is the policy of the City of Meridian to
set aside areas where commercial and
industrial interests and activities are to
dominate.
1.3 The character, site improvements and type of
new commercial or industrial developments
should be harmonized with the natural
environment and respect the unique needs and
features of each area.
1.6 It is the policy of the City of Meridian to
support shopping facilities which are
effectively integrated into new or existing
residential areas, and plan for new shopping
centers as growth and development warrant.
(Emphasis added.)
2. Under LAND USE
EXISTING CONDITioNS, Page 21
Commercial and retail areas are established along
major arterials, and include small commercial
center and individual businesses. Uses include
retail, wholesale, service, office, and limited
manufacturing.
Area of Impact, Page 22
Comprehensive Plan Map
The proposed future land use delineations for the
impact area are shown on the Comprehensive Plan Map
- Generalised Laad Uaea, The land use element
is based upon these objectives:
1. Mixed-planned uses along the i-84 corridor,
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - LANGLY PAGE - 12
which are attractive and compatible with high-
volume traffic corridors. (Emphasis added.)
COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY CENTERS, Page 25
In all cases, the locations of Commercial Activity
Centers should be guided by performance and
developments standards. These standards consider,
among other aspects:
1. Traffic Volume and Type
2. Trip Generation
3. Impacts on Arterial Street System
4. Proximity to Other Commercial Development
5. Impacts on Neighborhood Residential Areas
6. Accessibility of Site
7. Parking Demands
8. Pedestrian Circulation
9. Available Utility Systems
10. Aesthetics (Design Considerations)
11. Use Impacts Upon Other Adjacent Uses
12. Internal Circulation Design
13. Drainage
COMMERCIAL POLICIES, Page 26
4.6U Community shopping centers will be
encouraged to locate at arterial intersections
and near high-traffic intensity areas.
(Emphasis added.)
MIXED-PLANNED USE DEVELOPMENT, Page 27
Franklin, Overland/I-84 Mixed Use Policies
5.8 Development in these areas should be based oa
functional plans and proposals in order to
ensure that the proposed uses conform to the
Comprehensive Plaa policies and are compatible
with the surrounding neighborhoods.
5.9 The integrity and identity of any adjoining
residential neighborhood should be preserved
through the use of buffering techniques,
including screen plantings, open space and
other landscaping techniques.
5.10 Development should be conducted under Planned
Unit Development procedures and as conditional
uses, especially when two or more differing
uses are proposed.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - LANOLY PAOB - 13
•
C~
5.11 The character, site improvements, and type of
development should be harmonised with
previously-developed land is the area, and
where located adjacent to or near any existing
residence or residential area, shall be
harmonized with residential uses, and all
reasonable efforts shall be made to reduce the
environmental impact on residential areas,
including noise and traffic reduction.
5.13 Clustering of uses and controlled access
points along arterials and collector streets
will be required.
5.14U Because these areas era near I-84, Franklin
and Overland Roads, high-quality visual
appearance is essential. All development
proposals is this area will be subject to
development review guidelines and conditional
use permitting procedures.
5.15U The mixed-use area in the vicinity of the
Overland Road/Franklin Road/ Eagle Road/I-84
interchange is a priority development area.
(Emphasis added.)
Rural Areas, page 29
Land covered by this policy section has
characteristics which generally allow for
agricultural and rural residential activity due to
the ~ existence of irrigation systems, soil
characteristics and relative freedom from
conflicting urban land uses. Where community
growth creates pressure for new development, it
must be recognized that agricultural land can no
longer economically continue to be identified or
used as agricultural land to the exclusion of
orderly city growth and development."
3. Under TRANSPORTATioN, Page 43
Existing Conditions
a. Eagle Road, North of Overland, is listed
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - LANGLY PAGE - 14
as a principal arterial
b. Overland Road, East of Linder, is listed
as a Minor arterial.
4. Under COMMUNITY DESIGN, at Page 70
Community Identification Goal Statement
Create visual quality and functional identity
for the City of Meridian and its surrounding
environment.
Policies
1.1 All commercial and industrial
developments should be reviewed by the City
for adequate site planning.
1.3 Open space areas within all .development
should be encouraged.
1.4 Major entrances to the City should be
enhanced and emphasized. Unattractive land
uses along these entrances should be screened
from view.
Special Community Design Areas Goal Statement
2.1U Require businesses and government to
install and maintain landscaping.
2.5U Encourage the use of attractive open
space, landscaping, lighting, and street
furniture for the benefit of the public.
Entryway Corridors
Entryway corridors are arterial roadways
entering the community that introduce both visitors
and residents to Meridian. City-designated gateway
arterials include the following streets:
a. I-84 (East and West entrances)
f. Eagle Road (North and South entrances)
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - LANGLY PAGE - 15
g. Overland Road (East and West entrances)
Entryway corridors are a community's front
door. It is acknowledged that the corridor's
trees (or lack thereof), commercial signage, and
site character provide the first, and oftentimes
the most lasting, impression of the entire
community.
Therefore, the entire community and, most
specifically its governing bodies, have the right
and the responsibility to guide the development
and redevelopment that occurs along entryway
corridors.
Entrance Corridors Goal Statement
Promote, encourage, develop and maintain
aesthetically-pleasing entrances to the City of
Meridian.
Policies
4.4U Encourage landscaped setbacks for new
development on entrance corridors. The City shall
require, as a condition of development approval,
landscaping along all entrance corridors.
4uality of Environment Goal Statement
Policies
5.2U Ensure that all new development enhances
rather than detracts from the visual quality of
its surroundings, especially in areas of prominent
visibility.
Neighborhood Identify Goal Policies,
6.4U Limit the conversion of predominantly
residential neighborhoods to nonresidential uses,
and require effective buffers and mitigation
measures through conditional use permits when
appropriate nonresidential uses are proposed.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - LANGLY PAGE - 16
U. That the property is included within an area designated
on the Generalized Land Use Map in the Meridian Comprehensive
Plan as a Mixed/Planned Use Development area and a commercial
designation is just to the southwest of the parcel.
V. That the requested zoning of General Retail and Service
Commercial, (C-G) is defined in the Zoning Ordinance at 11-2-408
B. 11. as follows:
"(C-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.";
that although not requested by Applicant, Regional Shopping
Center Business District is defined in 11-2-408 10. as follows:
"(RSC1 Recional Shoppinc Center Business District - The
purpose of the (RSC) District is to provide for and permit
the establishment of general and retail business uses that
are intended to, and will serve, the entire region of the
Treasure Valley; to permit business uses that would be of a
larger scale than in the Community Business District; to
permit the development of a regional shopping center or mall
with adequate off-street parking facilities and associated
site amenities to serve customers and employees; to prohibit
strip commercial; and encourage the clustering of regional
commercial enterprises. All such districts shall be located
in close proximity to major highway or principal arterial.
streets. All such districts shall be connected to the
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - LANGLY PAGE - 17
~,
Municipal Water and Sewer systems of the City of Meridian."
W. That Section 11-2-409, ZONING SCHEDULE OF'USE CONTROL,
B, Commercial, lists commercial uses allowed in the various
zoning districts of the City; that Shopping Centers, Community,
are not listed as allowed uses in the General Retail and Service
Commercial (C-G) district; that Shopping Centers, Neighborhood,
are not listed as allowed uses in the General Retail and Service
Commercial (C-G) district; that
retail stores, restaurants, and
outdoors, are allowed uses in
commercial developments, are an
and are listed as a conditional
Center district.
individual department stores,
storage facilities, indoors or
the C-G district; that planned
allowed use in the C-G district
use in the Regional Shopping
X. That Planned Development is defined in 11-2-403 B, at
page 20 of the Zoning Ordinance booklet, as follows:
"An area of land which is developed as a single entity for a
number of uses in combination with or exclusive of other
supportive uses. A PD may be entirely residential,
industrial, or commercial or a mixture of compatible uses.
A PD does not necessarily correspond to lot size, bulk,
density, lot coverage required, open space or type of
residential, commercial or industrial uses as established in
any one or more created districts or this Ordinance."
and a Planned General Development is defined as follows:
"A development not otherwise distinguished under Planned
Commercial, Industrial, Residential Developments, or in
which the proposed use of interior and exterior spaces
requires unusual design flexibility to achieve a completely
FINDIN(i8 OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - LAN(~LY PACES - 18
logical and complimentary conjunction of uses and functions.
This PD classification applies to essential public services,
public or private recreation facilities, institutional uses,
community facilities or a PD which includes a mix of
residential, commercial or industrial uses."
and a Planned Commercial Development is defined as follows:
"Any development in which the principal use of land is for
commercial purposes."
Y. That in 1992 the Idaho State Legislature passed
amendments to the Local Planning Act, which in 67-6513 daho
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, and the housing for that population, does
not sufficiently increase the tax base to offset the cost of
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - LANOLY PA08 - 19
providing fire, police, emergency health care, water, sewer,
parks and recreation services; and the City knows that the
increase in population does not provide sufficient tax base to
provide for school services to current and future students; that
the industrial and commercial developments do provide taxes for
providing fire, police, emergency health care, water, sewer,
parks and recreation] services for people that are here, and
which will come here.
Z. That pursuant to the instruction, guidance, and
direction of the Idaho State Legislature, the City may impose
either a development fee or a transfer fee on residential
property, which, if possible, would be retroactive and apply to
all lots in the City, because of the imperilment to the health,
welfare, and safety of the. citizens of the City of Meridian.
AA. That Section 11-9-605 C states as follows:
"Right-of-way for pedestrian walkways in the middle of long
blocks may be required where necessary to obtain convenient
pedestrian circulation to schools, parks or shopping areas;
the pedestrian easement shall be at least ten feet (10')
wide."
AB. That Section 11-9-605 G 1. states as follows:
"Planting strips shall be required to be placed next to
incompatible features such as highways, railroads,
commercial or industrial uses to screen the view from
residential properties. Such screening shall be a minimum
of twenty feet (20') wide, and shall not be a part of the
normal street right of way or utility easement."
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAFi - LANGLY PAGE - 20
AC. That Section 11-9-605 H 2. states as follows:
"Existing natural features which add value to residential
development and enhance the attractiveness of the community
(such as trees, watercourses, historic spots and similar
irreplaceable amenities) shall be preserved in the design of
the subdivision;"
AD. That Section 11-9-605 K states as follows:
"The extent and location of lands designed for linear open
space corridors should be determined by natural features
and, to lesser extent, by man-made features such as utility
easements, transportation rights of way or water rights of
way. Landscaping, screening or lineal open space corridors
may be required for the protection of residential properties
from adjacent arterial streets, waterways, railroad rights
of way or other features. As improved areas (landscaped),
semi-improved areas (a landscaped pathway only), or
unimproved areas (left in a natural state), linear open
space corridors serve:
1. To preserve openness;
2. To interconnect park and open space systems within
rights of way for trails, walkways, bicycle ways;
3. To play a major role in conserving area scenic and
natural value, especially waterways, drainages and
natural habitat;
4. To buffer more intensive adjacent urban land uses;
5. To enhance local identification within the area due to
the internal linkages; and
6. To link residential neighborhoods, park areas and
recreation facilities."
AE. That Section 11-9-605 L states as follows:
"Bicycle and pedestrian pathways shall be encouraged within
new developments as part of the public right of way or as
separate easements so that an alternate transportation
system (which ie distinct and separate from the automobile)
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - LANGLY PAGS - 21
~ s
can be provided throughout the City Urban Service Planning
Area. The Commission and Council shall consider the
Bicvcle-Pedestrian Desian Manual for Ada County (as prepared
by Ada County Highway District) when reviewing bicycle and
pedestrian pathway provisions within developments."
AF. That 11-9-607 A, of the Subdivision Ordinance, states
in part as follows:
"The City's policy is to encourage developers of land
development and construction projects to utilize the
provisions of this Section to achieve the following:
1. A development pattern in accord with the goals,
objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan;
5. A more convenient pattern of commercial, residential
and industrial uses ae well as public services which
support such uses."
AG. That 11-9-607 E, of the Subdivision Ordinance, states
in part as follows:
"A PD shall be allowed only as a Conditional Use in each
district subject to the standards and procedures set forth
in the Section. A PD shall be governed by the regulations
of the district or districts in which said PD is located.
The approval of the Final Development Plan for a PD may
provide for such exceptions from the district regulations
governing use, density, area, bulk, parking, signs, and
other regulations as may be desirable to achieve the
objectives of the proposed PD, provided such exceptions are
consistent with the standards and criteria contained in this
Section."
AH. That 11-9-607 F, of the Subdivision Ordinance, states
in part as follows:
1. Planned Developments - Planned developments shall be
subject to requirements set forth in the Zoning
Ordinance and also subject to all provisions within
this Ordinance.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - LANGLY PAGE - 22
8. Financial Guarantees - The developer shall post
financial guarantees for all approved on-site
improvements if required pursuant to 9-606 C."
AI. As stated above in Paragraph C, the Applicant submitted
materials on the conditional use application for location of
buildings, parking and loading areas, service roads, traffic
access and traffic circulation, open spaces, storm retention
areas, utilities, signs and yards; that such material on the
conditional use is incorporated herein by this reference as if
set forth in full; that the Applicant submitted materials on the
conditional use request but did not specifically address the
conditional use at the public hearing.
AJ. That proper notice was given as required by law and all
procedures before the Planning and Zoning Commission and City
Council were given and followed.
CONCLUSIONS
A. That all the procedural requirements of the Local
Planning Act and of the Ordinances of the City of Meridian have
been met; including the mailing of notice to owners of property
within 300 feet of the external boundaries of the Applicant's
property.
B. That the City of Meridian has authority to annex land
pursuant to 50-222, Idaho Code, and Section 11-2-417 of the
Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian; that
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAN - LANGLY PAGE - 23
exercise of the City's annexation authority is a legislative
function.
C. That the City Council has judged these annexation,
zoning and conditional use applications under Idaho Code, Section
50-222, Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code, Meridian City
Ordinances, Meridian Comprehensive Plan, as amended, and the
record submitted to it and things of which it can take judicial
notice.
D. That all notice and hearing requirements set forth in
Title 67, Chapter•65, Idaho Code, and the Ordinances of the City
of Meridian have been complied with.
E. That the Council may take judicial notice of government
ordinances, and policies, and of actual conditions existing
within the City and State.
F. That the land within the proposed annexation is
contiguous to the present City limits of the City of Meridian,
and the annexation would not be a shoestring annexation.
G. That the annexation application has been initiated by
the Applicant with the consent of the property owners, and is not
upon the initiation of the City of Meridian.
H. That since the annexation and zoning of land is a
legislative function, the City has authority to place conditions
upon the annexation of land. Burt vs. The City of Idaho Falls,
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - LANGLY PAGE - 24
105 Idaho 65, 665 P.D 1075 (1983).
I. That the development of annexed land must meet and
comply with the Ordinances of the City of Meridian and in
particular Section 11-9-616, which pertains to development time
schedules and requirements, and Section 11-9-605 M., which
pertains to the tiling of ditches and waterways.
J. That this Application has been difficult for the
Commission to decide because of opposition to the Applications;
that the Commission understands the objections and sympathizes
with them on an individual basis; that the duty of the
Commission, however, is not to be controlled by the interests of
individual property owners and their concerns; that the duty of
the Commission is to assess the applications on the basis of the
overall good of the City and its citizens; that the Comprehensive
Plan and the Ordinances of the City have measures to try and
insure that adjacent property owners are impacted by development
as little as possible; that it is with this duty and background
that the Commission has undertaken to make these Findings and
Conclusions.
K. That the Applicant's proposed use of the property is in
compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, and therefore the
annexation and zoning Application is in conformance with the
Comprehensive Plan.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - LANGLY PAGE - 25
L. The Applicant has stated and represented that its
intention is to construct and operate a 700,000 square foot
retail shopping center and has stated that the area is designated
in the Comprehensive Plan as a Mixed/Planned Use Development area
which requires planned use development; the Applicant has
requested zoning of General Retail and Service Commercial (C-G),
which does not allow for a community shopping center but does
allow for a commercial planned development; the Applicant has
requested a conditional use for a retail project of 700,000
square feet.
M. That the City adopted the Comprehensive Plan at its
meeting on January 4, 1994, but has not amended the Zoning
Ordinance to reflect the changes made in the Comprehensive Plan;
thus, uses may be called for or allowed in the Comprehensive Plan
but the Zoning Ordinance may not address provisions for the use.
N. That the Comprehensive Plan calls for Mixed/Planned Use
Development at the northeast corner of the intersection of
Overland and Eagle Roads; that a shopping center could be allowed
in the C-G district under a Planned Development procedure; that
the Applicant suggested that it would develop the area of the
property planned for a shopping center under a planned
development procedure, when it applied for a conditional use
permit.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - LANGLY PAGE - 26
O. That it is concluded that the City could annex the
property and zone it C-G but the Applicant could still not
construct a community shopping center, because under 11-2-409 a
community shopping center is not an allowed use; but under C-G
zoning, a Planned Commercial Development is a permitted use,
which would allow the Applicant to develop a 700,000 square foot
commercial center.
P. That it is concluded that since the Applicant has
suggested that it would develop the property as a planned
commercial development and since the Comprehensive Plan, under
LAND USE, Mixed-Use Area at Franklin, Overland/I-84, in 5.140,
states that all development requests will be subject to
development review guidelines and conditional use permit
processing, and the City should have control over any uses that
are to be placed on the land, it is therefore concluded that the
development should be conditioned on being developed as a
Commercial Planned Development, which is allowed in the General
Retail and Service Commercial (C-G) district.
Q. Therefore, it is concluded that since the Applicant has
that it is agreeable to developing the property as a retail
center under a commercial planned development process, the
property should be annexed and zoned General Retail and Service
Commercial (C-G), but only capable of being developed as a
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAi~i - LANGLY PAGB - 27
• i
planned commercial development.
R. That, as a condition of annexation and the zoning of C-
G, the Applicant shall be required to enter into a development
agreement as authorized by 11-2-416 L and 11-2-417 D; that the
development agreement shall address, among other things, the
following:
1. Inclusion into the development, including but not
limited to, the requirements of 11-9-605
a. C, Pedestrian Walkways.
b. G 1, Planting Strips.
c. H, Public Sites and Open Spaces.
d. K, Lineal Open Space Corridors.
e. L, Pedestrian and Bike Path Ways.
f. M, Piping of Ditches
and 11-9-606
a. Bicycle Pathways.
b. Storm drainage.
c. Sidewalks and Pedestrian Walkways.
d. Greenbelt.
e. Pressurized Irrigation.
2. The concerns of the owners of property in Jewell
Subdivision concerning sidewalks, drainages, lighting,
noise, and buffering; that also of concern to the City
is having lights, particularly automobile headlights,
shine into the yards and homes in Jewell Subdivision
and other adjacent homes and measures shall be
undertaken prevent this.
3. Payment by the Applicant, or if required, any assigns,
heirs, executors or personal representatives, of any
impact, development, or transfer fees, adopted by the
City, as agreed to by the Applicant in statements by
its representative during the public hearing.
4. Addressing access linkage, screening, and buffering.
5. An impact fee, or fees, for park, police, and fire
services as determined by the city.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - LANGLY PAGE - 28
difficult to enter into prior to the annexation ordinance being
passed; that it is concluded that the development agreement shall
be entered into prior the final plat being approved and prior to
issuance of any building permits.
T. That it is concluded that the annexing and zoning of
the property is in the best interests of the City of Meridian and
should be enacted.
U. That regarding the conditional use permit request for
retailers, it is concluded that Russell Keithly, a representative
of the Applicant, stated that Applicant desired to develop the
retail center under a commercial planned development; that the
Planning and Zoning Commission concluded that if the Applicant
agreed to develop the all of the property as a commercial planned
development and enter into a development agreement, the property
would then be annexed and the Applicant could pursue the
development; that it is concluded that under a conditional use
and a development agreement, the same controls on the retailers
could be had by the City as under s planned unit development for
the developer.
V. That it is concluded that 11-2-418(C) of the Revised
and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian sets forth the
standards under which the City Council shall review applications
for Conditional Use Permits; that upon a review of those
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - LANGLY PAGE - 30
6. Appropriate berming and landscaping.
7. Submission and approval of any required plats.
8. Submission and approval of individual buildings,
drainage, lighting, parking, and other development
plans under the Planned Development guidelines.
9. Harmonizing and integrating the site improvements with
the existing residential development.
10. Establishing a 35 foot landscaped setback as suggested
under the Comprehensive Plan and landscaping the same.
11. Addressing the comments of the Planning Director.
12. The sewer and water requirements.
13. Agreeing that the Meridian Comprehensive Plan is
applicable to the land and any development.
14. Traffic plans and access into and out of the
development.
15. Meeting the representations made as part of the
application and hearing process.
16. And any other items deemed necessary by the City Staff,
including design review of all development, and
conditional use processing as required under the
Meridian Comprehensive Plan.
S. That Section 11-2-417 D of the Meridian Zoning
Ordinance states that a development agreement should be recorded
in the office of the Ada County Recorder and take effect upon the
adoption of the ordinance annexing and zoning the property, or
prior if agreed to by the owner of the parcel. That it has been
the experience of the City that development agreements are
FINDIN(1SS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - LANOLY PAGfE - 29
requirements and a review of the facts presented and the
conditions of the area, the City Council concludes as follows:
a. The use, would in fact, not constitute a conditional
use as under the Meridian Zoning Ordinance planned
commercial development is a permitted use in the C-G
district, but since the Comprehensive Plan states that
all development requests in the Mixed Use Areas on
Franklin, Overland and I-84 will be subject to
development review and conditional use permit
processing to ensure neighborhood compatibility, the
conditional use application is deemed to be
appropriate, as is the granting of such conditional
use.
b. The use should be harmonious with and in accordance
with the Comprehensive Plan, if the requirements in
these Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are met,
but the Comprehensive Plan 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 as long as
development is undertaken to meet the representations
of the Applicant and those that may be required by the
City under design review.
d. That the use would not be hazardous nor should it be
disturbing to existing or future neighboring uses as
long as development is undertaken to meet the
representations of the Applicant and those that may be
required by the City under design review.
e. The property will have sewer and water service
available if the Applicant extends the lines.
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
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - LANGLY PAGE - 31
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 and the parking ordinance
shall be met including the preparation of a parking
plan and landscaping plan.
i. The development and uses will not result in the
destruction, loss or damage of a natural or scenic
feature of major importance.
W. It is concluded that the conditional use permit should
be granted, but as a condition of the conditional use permit a
development agreement should be entered into regarding the
development of the retail uses and such is hereby made a
condition of the granting of the conditional use permit.
X. That the requirements of the Meridian City Engineer's
office, Meridian Fire Department, Central District Health
Department, and the Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District, shall
be met and addressed in a development agreement.
Y. That Applicant and the City should address the
requirements and policies listed on Page 27 of the Meridian
Comprehensive Plan for the of mixed-planned use development and
all proposed uses shall obtain conditional use permits.
Z. That all ditches, canals, and waterways shall be tiled
as a condition of annexation and if not so tiled, the property
shall be subject to de-annexation.
FINDIN(i3 OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAPi - LANOLY PANE - 32
•
.~
AA. That the Applicant will be required to connect to
Meridian water and sewer and resolve how the water and sewer
mains will serve the land; that the development of the property
shall be subject to and controlled by the Subdivision and
Development Ordinance and the development agreement.
AB. That proper and adequate access to the property is a
problem; that the Ada County Highway District has approved the
development with only one road for ingress and egress; it is
concluded that this one road will allow development, but at least
one more access for ingress and egress would make the development
more acceptable to the City and Applicant should take all
measures to obtain additional access; it is concluded that this
additional access should not be a condition of annexation, but
that all efforts to obtain the access should be undertaken and
performed.
AC. That these conditions shall run with the land and bind
the applicant and its assigns.
AD. With compliance of the conditions contained herein, the
annexation and zoning of General Retail and Service Commercial
(C-G~, and the issuance of a conditional use permit would be in
the best interest of the City of Meridian.
AE. That if these conditions of approval are not met, the
property shall either not be annexed and the conditional use
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - LANGLY PADS - 33
permit shall not be granted or the property shall be de-annexed
and the conditional use permit revoked.
APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
The Meridian City Council hereby adopts and approves these
Findings of Fact and Conclusions.
ROLL CALL
COMMISSIONER HEPPER VOTED
COMMISSIONER ROUNTREE VOTED
COMMISSIONER SHEARER VOTED ~l'7~"
COMMISSIONER ALIDJANI VOTED
CHAIRMAN JOHNSON (TIE BREAKER) VOTED
DBCISION
The Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Meridian
hereby decides that the property set forth in the application
should be approved for annexation, zoning and issuance of a
conditional use permit under the conditions set forth in these
V /
~ ~,,,~qs
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law; that if the Applicant is
not agreeable with these Findings of Fact and Conclusions and is
not agreeable with entering into a development agreement, the
property should not be annexed. There shall be no development or
use, whatsoever, of the property set forth in the Application as
being used for anything other than a Planned Commercial
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - LANOLY PAGE - 34
Development for retail, even if annexed and zoned General Retail
and Service Commercial (C-G), and such is approved by the City of
Meridian prior to commencement of construction.
MOTION:
APPROVED DISAPPROVED:
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - LANGLY PAGE - 35