Loading...
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