Loading...
1995 08-08 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AGENDA TUESDAY, AUGUST 8, 1995 - 7:30 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING HELD JULY 11, 1995: (APPROVED) 1. TABLED JULY 11, 1995: PUBLIC HEARING FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR CENTRAL VALLEY CORPORATE PARK PHASE 5, 8Y RON NAHAS: (PASS ON FAVORABLE RECOMMENDATION) 2. TABLED JULY 11, 1995: ANNEXATION AND ZONING REQUEST FOR PACKARD SUBDIVISION N0.2 BY PNE/EDMONDS CONSTRUCTION: (TABLED UNTIL SEPTEMBER 12, 1995) 3. TABLED JULY 11, 1995: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR PACKARD SUBDIVISION N0.2 BY PNE/EDMONDS CONSTRUCTION: (TABLED UNTIL SEPTEMBER 12, 1995) 4. TABLED JULY 11, 1995: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR HIGHLANDS RANCH SUBDIVISION BY GEM PARK II PARTNERSHIP: (TABLED UNTIL SEPTEMBER 12, 1995) 5. TABLED JULY 11, 1995: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR HIGHLANDS RANCH SUBDIVISION BY GEM PARK II PARTNERSHIP: (TABLED UNTIL SEPTEMBER 12, 1995) 6. TABLED JULY 11, 1995: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR THE LAKE AT CHERRY LANE N0.5 & 6 BY STEINER DEVELOPMENT: (PASS ON FAVORABLE RECOMMENDATION) 7. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A TRAVEL CENTER BY JACKSON FOOD STORES: (APPROVE FINDINGS; PASS ON FAVORABLE RECOMMENDATION) 8. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT A 6,000 SO. FT. MULTI-TENANT RETAIL PAD WITH DRIVE THRU FACILITIES FOR LOT 2-BLOCK 1 OF AVEST PLAZA BY AVEST LIMITED PARTNERSHIP: (APPROVE FINDINGS; RECOMMEND DENIAL) ~. 9. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT A 6,000 SQ. FT. MULTI-TENANT RETAIL PAD WITH DRIVE THRU FACILITIES FOR LOT 5-BLOCK 1 OF AVEST PLAZA BY AVEST UNITED PARTNERSHIP: (APPROVE FINDINGS RECOMMEND APPROVAL) 10. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR AN ACCESSORY USE PERMIT FOR AN OFFICE FOR A SMALL PLUMBING COMPANY BY JAMES WALSH: (DENIED) 11. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR A DAY CARE BY WILLIAM AND CINDY WALGAMOTT: (APPROVE FINDINGS; RECOMMEND APPROVAL) 12. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR A SIDEWALK CAFE BY HARRY'S BAR AND GRILL: (APPROVE FINDINGS; RECOMMEND APPROVAL) 13. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING REQUEST OF 4.54 ACRES TO LIMITED OFFICE FOR TREASURE VALLEY BAPTIST CHURCH BY RICHARD DEMICHELE: (APPROVE FINDINGS; RECOMMEND APPROVAL) 14. PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST FOR A QUICK LUBE SHOP BY JAY BURRUP: (CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW) 15. PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST FOR A NAIL SALON BY GRETCHEN SHERWOOD: (CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE FINDNGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW) 16. PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST FOR A GROUP DAY CARE BY JUDY WILSON: (CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW) 17. PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST FOR A GROUP DAY CARE BY TAMI WOMACK: (APPLICANT WITHDREW REQUEST) 18. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF 2.3 ACRES TO R-40 BY BILLY QUINN: (CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW) 19. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF 40.17 ACRES TO C-G AND L-O BY JIM BALLANTYNE: (CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW) MERIDIAN PLANNING & 7_ONING COMMISSION AGENDA TUESDAY, AUGUST 8, 1995 - 7:30 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING HELD JULY 11, 1995: a~~rivve~L 1. TABLED JULY 11, 1995: PUBLIC HEARING FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR CENTRAL VALLEY CORPORATE PARK PHASE 5, BY RON NAHAS: ~JuSI on ~v~'zubL'e tzco.xn,cKQ~t~b~ {D CZ.c Pih, C•vunc=~ 2. TABLED JULY 11,1995: ANNEXATION AND ZONING REQUEST FOR PACKARD SUBDMSION N0.2 BY PNE/EDMONDS CONSTRUCTION: 3. TABLED JULY 11, 1995: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR PACKARD SUBDIVISION NO.2 BY PNElEDMONDS CONSTRUCTION: rel.'/Q ccn-~,l' ~C~pf- /2 ~ ve,Ju-['rva_.rcl~ed~cd `~--/r 4. TABLED JULY 11, 1995: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR HIGHLANDS RANCH SUBDIVISION BY GEM PARK II PARTNERSHIP: -{~bZe i,~ ~~t~ /z ~ ~~~. 5. TABLED JULY 11, 1995: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR HIGHLANDS RANCH SUBDMSION BY GEM PARK II PARTNERSHIP: 6. TABLED JULY 11, 1995: PREUMINARY~LAT FOR THE LAKE AT CHERRY LANE NO.5 8 6 BY STEINER DEVELOPMENT: ~~a.Jr v-n. ~-xr.v~-Fi~c: l"~' ~~r,~..v..~..<:~Ccth-v-.,r .~a <_'/L. 7. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A TRAVEL CENTER BY JACKSON FOOD STORES: ~/~~~rove, ~~F ~ cIC parr hr~ ~fnvaza.~.Z~ i~Cemr~'-ula~~~ ~ C'/e- S. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT A 6,000 SQ. FT. MULTI-TENANT RETAIL PAD WITH DRIVE THRU FACILITIES FOR LOT 2-BLOCK 1 OF AVEST PLAZA BY AVEST LIMITED PARTNERSHIP: uF7`~ro~e off ~ e~~ /-rcnr~~ytev~ctat~'~ ~ C'/C ~vz d~ir-i<~ 9. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT A 6,000 SQ. FT. MULTI-TENANT RETAIL PAD WITH DRIVE THRU FACILITIES FOR LOT 5-BLOCK 1 OF AVEST PLAZA BY AVEST LIMITED PARTNERSHIP: u~~r~e'e ~/~ ~' C/'G puss rrn- ~r~`uc,~E'z.rr'ccr„r~t~~U"ri~~ ~~ ~/G 10. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR AN ACCESSORY USE PERMIT FOR AN OFFICE FOR A SMALL PLUMBING COMPANY BY JAMES WALSH: u~Pv-~ v~ ~' f ~ ~ c /C w~ ~~ Co rr~ ~ti ~s dewy ~ an~,2a~s~,.lacce.tfory ud~~rr=.,~ ~-e~c~eJf- 11. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR A DAY CARE BY WILLIAM AND CINDY WALGAMOTT: q~ri°ve ~~{ ~~~~ ~'ClII Jh Y~fana„~~n.i{q /rer.J ~rr G~~v/n/s~-e. fv !{vz C'~C 12. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR A SIDEWALK CAFE BY HARRY'S BAR AND GRILL' ~ep~ivs~c "y~"'JP~ ~~ f~~ d ~°r~ ~p~~rov2 ~i(va'ubC'c"-iY%corY~MP.n.aa~bn. ~o C'f~~ 13. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING REQUEST OF 4.54 ACRES TO LIMITED OFFICE FOR TREASURE VALLEY BAPTIST CHURCH BY RICHARD DEMICHELE: a~~~jvve ~~{ ~ ~ /~ a~~ra ve {RV~u~ ~ycomy,.zn d ~~ .~ C/CG 14. PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST FOR A QUICK LUBE SHOP BY JAY BURRUP: v~~~ ~ ffo7ne~ :~~Or~~a-,~ ~~~ ~ ~e~G 15. PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST FOR A NAIL SALON BY GRETCHEN SHERWOOD: ~'~~~ uf~-~.rl, t~p,.~P«.~~ fly b''/i 16. PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST FOR A GROUP DAY CARE BY JUDY WILSON: ~'~lu gffOvnv~ -f~F'rnf,~-7e alt" t e% 17. PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST FOR A GROUP DAY CARE BY TAMI WOMACK: tt~p/,~Z-c n.7 r t' ~u.et s t ~ L/i ~'~~ C!"~-a t„' u~pri~~l~~~z; 18. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF 2.3 ACRES TO R~0 BY BILLY QUINN: ~~,_ ct~lz-~y ~fo~prep~"~ ~~1 ~`C/c 19. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF 40.17 ACRES TO C-G AND L-0 BY JIM BALLANTYNE: CITY OF MERIDIAN ~ IC MEETING SIGN-UP SHEET NAME PHONE NUMBER 'Lem 8~'7- 9.3~ ;ITY OF MERIDIAN MEETING SIGN-Up~HEET ~SY -~ v~ c~ ~~~ Z 2 L MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 8. 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: Ted Hepper, Charlie Rountree, Jim Shearer, Moe Alidjani: OTHERS PRESENT: Will Berg, Wayne Crookston, Gary Smith, Shari Stiles, Wayne Forrey, Chad Jolley, Dale Binning, Mike Weavers, Charles Gongre, Kristina Donner, Ron and Gretchen Sherwood, Helen Sharp, Dale Sharp, Billie Jo Premoe, Mic Dauven, Craig and Roberta Thompson, Judy Wilson, Malcolm MacCoy, R. Stulzman, Steve Bradbury, Mel Burrup, Billy Quinn, James Ballantyne, Raymond Kutch, Karen Gallagher, Doug Danielson: MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING HELD JULY 11, 1995: Johnson: Are there any corrections, additions or deletions to these minutes? Entertain a motion for approval. Alidjani: I move we approve the minutes. Rountree: Second Johnson: We have a motion and a second for approval of the minutes as written, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #1: TABLED JULY 11, 1995: PUBLIC HEARING FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR CENTRAL VALLEY CORPORATE PARK PHASE 5, BY RON NAHAS: Johnson: Have we had the public hearing on this does it remain open, what do the specific minutes indicate? At this time 1 will open the public hearing and invite the applicant or his representative to come fonnrard and address the Commission. Crookston: Mr. Chairman, it was not opened. Charlie Gongre, Roylance and Associates, was sworn by the City Attorney. Gongre: I haven't been to one of these so you will have to instruct me. Do 1 need to review the project? Johnson: If you wish, just capsule form, explain the application. Gongre: This is a preliminary plat for phase 5 of CVCP, we are seeking approval of this. We have no objections to these conditions of approval, there may need to be Garification Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 8, 1995 Page 2 on a couple of items that I would like to address. Johnson: We have your written statement Charlie, is there anything there you would like to highlight or emphasize? I am speaking of your letter dated today. Gongre: On the site speafic comments, page 2, number 3, Eight Mile Lateral is a 48 inch or larger main. It is our understanding that on the Eight Mile Lateral that vme will need to the it and that we plan on requesting a variance and fencing and all of this. On the Nine Mile Creek it is designated woodlands and it is our understanding there is no need to file a variance but we will need to fence it. Johnson: You concur with that Gary that the Nine Mile Lateral also cannot be tiled? Smith: Mr. Chairman, I believe that Nine Mile is considered a drain and vre haven't been tiling the drains. Gongre: We have tried to the it and it was with a 404 permit and vve were not allowed to. Johnson: Why? Smith: We went through this exercise in Los Alamitos similar Corps of Engineers didn't want us tiling that drain. Gongre: That is really all of the comments that I have. Johnson: Are there any questions from the Commission to the applicant? Rountree: On the plat you have a (inaudible) that ident~es a 35 foot common landscape area easement which borders the development in the Interstate, would you explain to me what is intended there? Gongre: The land will be owned by the individual property owners who purchase the property and it will be maintained by the subdivision. I believe that is why it is called a common easement. Rountree: Will the subdivision provide the landscaping? Gongre: That is the way that it has been done on the other phases and 1 have no reason to think it is going to be any different on this. Johnson: Any other questions? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 8, 1995 Page 3 Shearer: I do have a question, since we have already done this main subdivision and this Eight Mile Lateral has been in effect decisions made on how it would be handled is there any need for them to get a variance to do the other phase of the subdivision which is what we are talking about now? As I recall there was a variance before to not file Eight Mile through this. It would seem kind of strange to either file this portion and not the other portion or to have them have to come back for a variance for something that is already basically got a variance for, at least a portion of the subdivision. We can get bogged down enough with paperwork without. Johnson: Well, it is a new plat though is it not? What do you think Shari on that, have you been listening to the question? Stiles: Mr. Chairman, that was the only reason for the comment, this had originally come in as a PUD with no mention of tiling of ditches or anything like that. It is just the fact that it is a new plat that causes the compliance with all the ordinances in effect at the time of this subdivision. I suppose that would be a call the Council can also make since they are the ones that would act on the variance. Johnson: Thank you, any other questions? Thank you very much, this is a public hearing, is there anyone else that would like to address the Commission on this application? Seeing no one then I will close the public hearing at this time. What is your pleasure? Rountree: Mr. Chairman, I move that we pass the preliminary plat for the subject application onto the City Council with a favorable recommendation. Shearer: Second Johnson: It has been moved and seconded that we pass a favorable recommendation onto the City Council regarding the plat, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #2: TABLED JULY 11, 1995: ANNEXATION AND ZONING REQUEST FOR PACKARD SUBDIVISION NO. 2 BY PNE/EDMONDS CONSTRUCTION: Johnson: We have a request from them to defer this until final action and comments from Ada County Highway District are received and we do not have those yet. It is my understanding they meet tomorrow. We should have them for our next meeting. Karen Gallagher says no, that was in your initial correspondence, has something changed since them. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 8, 1995 Page 4 Gallagher: (Inaudible) Johnson: You are expecting that from? Gallagher: (Inaudible) Johnson: And they are doing it for the developer? So we are waiting for a traffic study as well is that what you are saying? Gallagher: (Inaudible) Johnson: So you are not even going to bring it on your agenda for tomorrow as originally anticipated. Gallagher: Correct Johnson: Do you have any time frame for that since we meet once a month (inaudible) to our September meeting which 1 believe is September 12, (inaudible). tCaren would you come up to the microphone please? Gallagher: We are waiting for additional information that we have requested in the traffic study concerning some abutting streets and the traffic numbers that are currently being handled in what can be accommodated to phase this development in. We have notified the applicant and Dobey engineering of this and are simply waiting for them to get information back. That was at least last week if not 2 weeks ago that we notified them that we needed additional information. It would be difficult for me to give you a time frame since 1 don't know what their schedule is. Johnson: Thank you very much, I would suggest at this point that we table it again to a date certain. We do have (inaudible). Shearer: I move we table this until the next regular meeting. Johnson: Which is September 12. Rountree: Second Johnson: We have a motion and a second to table item #2 until September 12 meeting, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 8, 1995 Page 5 ITEM #3: TABLED JULY 11, 1995: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR PACKARD SUBDIVISION N0. 2 BY PNE/EDMONDS CONSTRUCTION: Johnson: This is the same thing. Alidjani: I make a motion we table that item until September 12. Shearer: Second Johnson: It is moved and seconded that we also table item #3 which is a preliminary plat for Packard Subdivision No. 2 until September 12, 1995, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #4: TABLED JULY 11, 1995: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR HIGHLANDS RANCH SUBDIVISION BY GEM PARK II PARTNERSHIP: Johnson: Is the applicant or his representative here and would they like to address the Commission? Forrey: Thank you Mr. Chairman, my name is Wayne Forrey and 1 represent Greg Johnson and Westpark Company and Gem Park II Partnership. The Planning and Zoning Commission prepared findings of fact and conclusions of taw which were adopted at your last Johnson: Excuse me, does he have to be sworn? Crookston: 1 am just looking for that Mr. Chairman. No, he does not have to be swum. Forrey: In those findings of fact and conclusions of taw you asked that the annexation request be forwarded onto City Council and that the Council would make a determination whether or not the project could be annexed and if so then it would come back to the Planning and Zoning Commission for some decision on the preliminary plat and Conditional Use Permit. We are before the Meridian City Council on August 15th. We haven't been there yet, so I ~nrould ask that you continue to table both of these items on tonight's agenda so we have the neighborhood meetings which are scheduled this week and the City Council meeting scheduled next week and then we would like to come back to the Planning and Zoning Commission. Johnson: Thank you Mr. Forrey, anyone have any questions or comments regarding that, if not we will entertain a motion. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 8, 1995 Page 6 Shearer: I move we table this until September 12 regular meeting. Hepper: Second Johnson: It is moved and seconded wa table this item until September 12, 1995, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #5: TABLED JULY 11, 1995: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR HIGHLANDS RANCH SUBDIVISION BY GEM PARK II PARTNERSHIP: Rountree: Mr. Chairman, I move that Item #5 be tabled until our next regularly scheduled meeting September 12. Hepper: Second Johnson: Moved and seconded that we also table item #5 the Conditional use permit for Highlands Ranch Subdivision by Gem Park II Partnership, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #6: TABLED JULY 11, 1995: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR THE LAKE AT CHERRY LANE NO. 5 AND 8 BY STEINER DEVELOPMENT: Johnson: At this time I will invite the applicant of his representative to come forward and address the Commission on this application. Bradbury: Thank you Mr. Chairman, my name is Steve Bradbury, I am an attorney with offices at 300 North 6th Street in Boise representing Steiner Development. 1 have been back and forth so many times on this project t have to confess that I am not absolutely certain what it is we are going to do #onight. I guess there have been a couple of things submitted to the Commission including a Letter from Shari Stiles where she I guess provides her opinion and perhaps we have gotten to where we finally need to be and this thing could probably go on to the City Council. I think you have got a colored map, something like this which shows the proposed open spaces in the R-15 proposed R-15 zone areas as well as a revised preliminary plat for this orange section that was proposed R-15 and at the last go around agreed to change to an R-8. I guess unless you have any particular questions about either of those or whether the applicants intentions are, I am not sure what more I can tell. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 8, 1995 Page 7 Johnson: That is fine, thank you, are there any questions? Bradbury: As long as 1 am standing here and I hate to sit down without checking out as many things as I can. There is a question that has arisen as a result of the findings of fact and conclusions of law which you folks adopted at your last meeting. !t arises under this paragraph Q in the contusions where the Commission has indicated that it would approve the annexation and proposed rezone only on the condition that the proposed R-15 lots that abut previously zoned R11 lands meet all of the R~ dimensional requirements. That is that those be 8,000 square foot lots and that they all be single family detached dwellings, as 1 understood it the R~4 requirements. When we were here last I know we talked about that and indicated a willingness to work with to try to lessen some of the potential conflicts and my recollection of that last meeting was that we talked about the idea of eliminating the multi-family dwelling on that one corner lot and agreeing to abide by all of the R~ set backs and have all of the lots along that stretch I am talking about, these lots down here on the southerly portion of the R-15 zone all be single family detached dwellings, but we don't recall in conversations with Mr. Campbell he doesn't recall that we talked about raising those lots to an 8,000 square foot minimum and my question to you is since we are going to City Councl next week with respect to this issue is if that is truly the intent of the Commission and if so fine we will address it at City Council. ~n the other hand ff it wasn't really the intent of the Commission to require all of those lots to go to 8,000 square foot minimum I guess we would like to ask that the Commission consider revising that particular inclusion so that when we do get to City Council it is clear to City Council what you folks had in mind. Do you have any idea what it is 1 just said? Johnson: I think we do, in other words you don't have a problem with anything except square footage? (Inaudible) Bradbury: We can deal with the setbacks and we can deaf with the single family detached issues but the 8,000 square foot minimum is the one that really creates a problem for those lots. What we intend is to just provide smaller lots for senior citizens who may not have the ability to maintain the larger lots. It would kind of cut against what the intention for that portion of the project is. Johnson: Wayne Crookston, do you recall why the findings came out exactly that way? Crookston: Mr. Chairman., 1 don't specifically recall now, I would have to go back and look at my notes. I can do that with Mr. Bradbury. Bradbury: That would be fine, I can just say that, if that is something we said we didn't mean to say it and in retrospect perhaps it was just not as tear as it might have been what we hope the Commission vwuld approve. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 8, 1995 Page 8 Johnson: We will review that and that is about all we can tell you at this time. Wayne can get you the specific wording that we had in the minutes with respect to that. Bradbury: I appreciate that, thank you very much. Johnson: Thank you, Any other questions or comments from the Commission? Rountree: Mr. Chairman, 1 move that we pass a favorable recommendation on the preliminary plat for Cherry Lane at the Lakes No. 5 and 6 to the City Council. Hepper: Second Johnson: It has been moved and seconded that we pass a favorable recommendation on the preliminary plat for the Lake at Cherry Lane No. 5 and 6 onto the City Council, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #7: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A TRAVEL CENTER BY JACKSON FOOD STORES: Johnson: Are there any comments or any discussion regarding the findings of fact as prepared by the City Attorney. We need a motion for approval of the findings of fact. Rountree: Mr. Chairman, I move that the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission adopts and approves the findings of fact and Conclusions. Alidjani: Second Johnson: It is moved and seconded we adopt and approve the findings of fact as written, this is a roll call vote. ROLL CALL VOTE: Hepper -Yea, Rountree -Yea, Shearer -Yea, Alidjani -Yea MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Johnson: Is there any decision or recommendation you wish to pass on to the City Council? Rountree: Mr. Chairman, I would move that the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission recommends to the City Council that they approve the conditional use permit request. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 8, 1995 Page 9 Shearer: Second Johnson: Moved and seconded we pass a favorable recommendation on for approval for the City Council for the conditional use permit, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #8: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT A 6,000 S0. FT. MULTI-TENANT RETAIL PAD WITH DRIVE THRU FACILITIES FOR LOT 2 -BLOCK 1 OF AVEST PLAZA BY AVEST LIMITED PARTNERSHIP: Johnson: Are there any comments, any changes you wish to present regarding the findings of fact as prepared by the City Attorney? Shearer: Mr. Chairman, I move that the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts and approves these findings of fact and conclusions of law. Alidjani: Second Johnson: It is moved and seconded (inaudible) and conclusions as written, roll call vote. ROLL CALL VOTE: Hepper -Yea, Rountree -Yea, Shearer -Yea, Alidjani -Yea MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Johnson: Recommendation #o the City Council? Shearer: Mr. Chairman, I move the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommend to the City Council of the City of Meridian that they deny the conditional use permit requested by the applicant for the property described in the application. Rountree: Second Johnson: It has been moved and seconded that we request of the City Council to deny the application, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #9: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT A 6,000 SQ. FT. MULTI-TENANT RETAIL PAD Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 8, 1995 Page 10 WITH DRIVE THRU FACILITIES FOR LOT 5 -BLOCK 1 OF AVEST PLAZA BY AVEST LIMITED PARTNERSHIP: Johnson: Any discussion regarding these findings of fact as prepared? Shearer: Mr. Chairman, I move the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts and approves these findings of fact and conclusions, Hepper: Second Johnson: Moved and seconded that we adopt the findings of fact as prepared, roll call vote. ROLL CALL VOTE: Alidjani -Yea, Shearer -Yea, Rountree -Yea, Hepper -Yea MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Johnson: Any recommendation to the City Council? Shearer: Mr. Chairman, 1 move the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommend to the City Council of the City of Meridian that they approve the conditional use permit requested by the applicant on the property described in the application. Rountree: Second Johnson: We have a motion and a second for approval, favorable approval to the City Council, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #10: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR AN ACCESSORY USE PERMIT FOR AN OFFICE FOR A SMALL PLUMBING COMPANY $Y JAMES WALSH: Johnson: Is there any discussion regarding these findings of fact? Rountree: Page 8, item 17, it appears as if there is something left off. I don't know what that would be, it doesn't make any sense. Crookston: May I make a suggestion, between the vuords "no" and "testimony' insert public. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 8, 1995 Page 11 Johnson: Would that solve your problem Mr. Rountree? Rountree: WeII, it makes sense but I believe there was testimony. Johnson: We had quite a bit as I recall. We have both sides of that. Crookston: Strike the word "no". Johnson: How about deleting item #17. Crookston: You can do that too. Johnson: What is your pleasure? Crookston: Mr. Chairman, 1 move that the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission adopts these findings of Fact and Conclusions with the deletion of item #17 page 8. Johnson: Could I add to that one editorial before you get your second and that is the same page #4, there is, the fourth sentence, I believe business is supposed to be plural there. Crookston: That is correct. Johnson: That is just an editorial change. Rountree: With that editorial change. Shearer: Second Johnson: We have a motion and a second to adopt the findings of fact and conclusions of law as prepared with the two corrections stated, roll call vote. ROLL CALL VOTE: Rountree -Yea, Shearer -Yea, Hepper -Yea, Alidjani -Yea, MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Rountree: Mr. Chairman, I move that the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby decides that the plumbing business which has been operated from this home and for which the application proposed to obtain an accessory use permit is not an accessory use permit and that the application for an accessory use permit be denied. Alidjani: Second Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 8, 1995 Page 12 Johnson: It is moved and seconded that we pass a recommendation onto the City Council to deny the Accessory Use Permit. Crookston: Mr. Chairman, this is not a recommendation, this is your decision. Johnson: Thank you for the correction, as a Commission that we have decided that the accessory use permit is to be denied. That is one of those few areas that we have some authority and 1 keep forgetting that. All those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #11: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR A DAY CARE BY WILLIAM AND CINDY WALGAMOTT: Johnson: Any discussion regarding the findings of fact that have been prepared? We need a motion then. Hepper: Mr. Chairman, I move the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts and approves these findings of fact. Rountree: Second Johnson: Its been moved and seconded I guess there is some discussion, Mr. Smith? Stiles: Excuse me Mr. Chairman and Commissioners, on page 4 there is also on item 11 that there was no public testimony given. Johnson: Is that the same error is that what you are saying? Stiles: Yes Crookston: There was no public testimony. Stiles: Isn't the applicant's testimony considered public or not? Crookston: I don't consider it public testimony because it is by the applicant, it certainly is testimony by a person from the public, but it is the applicant. So I don't consider it being exterior from the application. Stiles: Okay, never mind, go ahead sorry. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 8, 1995 Page 13 Johnson: We have a motion and a second to approve of the findings of fact as presented for item #11, roll call vote. ROLL CALL VOTE: Hepper -Yea, Rountree -Yea, Shearer -Yea, Alidjani -Yea MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Hepper: Mr. Chairman, I move the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council of the City of Meridian that they approve the conditional use permit requested by the applicant for the property described in the application with the conditions set forth in the findings of fact and conclusions of law or similar conditions as found justified and appropriate by the City Council. And that the property be required to meet the water and sewer requirements, fire and life safety codes and other ordinances of the City of Meridian. The conditional use should be subject to review upon notice to the applicant by the City. Rountree: Second Johnson: We have a motion and a second to pass on the recommendation as stated by Commissioner Hepper, all those in favor'? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #12: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR A SIDEWALK CAFE BY HARRY'S BAR AND GRILL: Johnson: Is there any discussion regarding these findings of fact? Rountree: Mr. Chairman, I move the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission adopts and approves the findings of fact and conclusions as revised. Shearer: Second Johnson: It is moved and seconded that we approve the findings of fact as prepared by the City Attorney, those indicated as being revised, roll call vote. ROLL CALL VOTE: Hepper -Yea, Rountree -Yea, Shearer -Yea, Alidjani -Yea MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Johnson: Recommendation to the City Council? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 8, 1995 Page 14 Rountree: Mr. Chairman, I move that the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission recommends to the City Council that they grant the conditional use permit requested by the applicant. Alidjani: Second Johnson: Moved and seconded that we approve the statement as written in the findings of fact and recommendation for the City Council, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #13: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING REQUEST OF 4.54 ACRES TO LIMITED OFFICE FOR TREASURE VALLEY BAPTIST CHURCH BY RICHARD DEMICHELE: Johnson: Any question regarding these, any discussion regarding these findings of fact already prepared by the City Attomey? Hopper: Mr. Chairman, I move the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts and approves these findings of fact. Rountree: Second Johnson: Moved and seconded we approve the findings of fact as prepared by the City Attomey, roll call vote. ROLL CALL VOTE: Alidjani -Yea, Shearer -Yea, Rountree -Yea, Hepper -Yea MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Hopper: 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 in the conclusions for the property described in the application with the conditions set forth on the findings of fad and contusions of law that the applicant be specifically required to the all ditches, canals and waterways as a condition of annexation. And that the applicant meet all of the ordinances of the City of Meridian and the conditions of these findings and conclusions. Rountree: Second Johnson: A motion and a second to pass the recommendation on as read by Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 8, 1995 Page 15 Commissioner Hepper, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #14: PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A QUICK LURE SHOP BY JAY BURRUP: Johnson: I will now open the public hearing and invite the representative of the applicant or the applicant himself to address the Commission at this time. Mel Burrup, was sworn by the City Attorney. Burrup: This property, which perhaps most of you are familiar with, was originally designed and operated, built for a quids lobe shop. On the east end also was a drive thru car wash. When my son bought this building about 8 1/2 years ago he changed it to a retail operation by putting a floor over the present pits and so on so that there is a wooden floor in there now. A lot of the (inaudible) original operation and so on. On the east end the, it has been (inaudible) changing this he will be able to get a fair return on his investment with not (inaudible) to a quick tube becuase a lot of the facilities are already in. He takes the floor up, the traffic pattern is already there or exits and entrance. The drive thru doors the big rolling doors are still in place. His present operation the seat cover business would then function in the east part of the building which is 53 feet long, about 17 foot wide and 11 foot high. This would not entail (inaudible) the doors are there. It would allow him to (inaudible) to get a fair return on this investment. He is not getting, and we feel this certainly would not have any negative effects in any manner on the area, on the traffic or on the public. We urge your approval of this. Thank you, can I answer any questions you might have? Johnson: Thank you, are there any questions of Mr. Burrup? Rountree: I have a couple, how many employees would be there at any one time? Burrup: We would probably have 5 employees operating. Rountree: Now it previously operated as a tube shop (inaudible) with storage tanks or anything? Burrup: There were some storage tanks in front from the other operation for oil, (inaudible) they were taken out about 4 or 5 months ago. My son had those taken out and the property is not dean as far as v/e know (inaudible) the asphalt has to be replaced, we are waiting for that to settle in front there. There is about 25 by 30 feet of gravel that was re-filled and Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 8, 1995 Page 16 is not settling. So before long he will have that asphalted and (inaudible) there is not contamination to my knowledge from that property. Rountree: My recollection of the property is that there is some. or maybe just one trailer possibly an old inoperable vehicle and some other clutter around the building. Could we anticipate that the building would be cleaned up and the grounds be cleaned up? Burrup: Yes, we are in the process of that right now. There is a trailer back there and a pick up truck and (inaudible) that is an antique so to speak or a classic. He is fixing to have that refurbished and that will be moved. Access then can go completely around the building in fact you can go around the building now. Hepper: Would both the bays where the garage doors are, would both of those be used for the quick tube? Burrup: Yes Hepper: Would there be any public seating facilities or an office or a lounge? Burrup: Yes, there is place there for that and this will be a lavatory facilities and so on for men and women. And there is place for them to sit while they are having their work done. Hepper: And that would be separate from the Burrup: Yes Alidjani: In the comments of ACRD they indicating you are sharing the easement or the driveway of the property west of you, and at the present time there is a fence out there. Burrup: No, I think there is a mistake on that, there is no fence. The easement is about 40 foot across there and they have access to go into the bank and across Albertson's where we come into his place, there is no fence. Alidjani: There is no fence? Burrup: Pardon me, there is a fence that runs north east and west on the property but that is in back of the, ten feet in back of the property line. It is right an the grass to keep them from going across the grass. Alidjani: (Inaudible) behind the building. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 8, 1995 Page 17 Burrup: That is all being processed now, all being moved. Alidjani: (Inaudible) in there, is that fireplace going to be used in the wintertime? Burrup: No, and it wasn't for some time after (inaudible) found out he couldn't use it. Johnson: Anything further? Thank you Mr. Burrup, this is a public hearing, is there anyone else that would like to come forward and address the Commission at this time? Seeing no one then I will close the public hearing. We need findings of fact prepared on this. Rountree: So moved Alidjani: Second Johnson: Moved and seconded that we have the City Attorney prepare findings of facts on the conditional use permit request for a quick lobe shop by Jay Burrup, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #15: PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST FOR A NAIL SALON BY GRETCHEN SHERWOOD: Johnson: I will now open the public hearing and invite the applicant or representative to address the Commission. (End of Tape) Gretchen Sherwood,. was sworn by the City Attorney. Sherwood: 1 have changed a room in my home within the spec cations of the Idaho Board of Cosmetology to have a salon for just one nail technician, me. It is going to be a part time salon. I don't know what other questions you may have. Johnson: Okay, thank you very much, any questions of Gretchen? Rountree: How many customers would you anticipate in a day, just average? Sherwood: 1 would anticipate between 15 to 20 a week. In one of the memos that I received, the sewer and water asked if there would be any changes by having this. There shouldn't be, the clients would just be washing their hands once and most of the time they Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 8, 1995 Page 18 don't use the restroom but there is access to a restroom, so there shouldn't be a change. Johnson: You indicated, I believe you indicated part-time, do you have any idea of your hours, your business hours? Sherwood: No, I will just leave that up to the clients, what is convenient for them. Johnson: There was a statement made by staff regarding and you probably read that, the operating hours should not impact the neighborhood, so in other words late at night or early in the morning. Would you anticipate that being a problem. Sherwood: Early in the morning, I have a few clients already, I just left a salon called Fingerprints in Soise and they are business women they would come, my last appointment probably would be 5:30 starting at 5:30 and it takes usually about an hour after that. Johnson: Thank you, anyone else have any questions? Thank you, this is a public hearing is there anyone that would like to address the Commission on this application? Seeing no one then I will close the public hearing at this time. We need a motion for findings of fact. Alidjani: Mr. Chairman, 1 make a motion we ask the City Attorney to draw findings of fact. Shearer: Second Johnson: We have a motion and a second to have the City Attorney prepare findings of fact on the conditional use permit request for a nail salon by Gretchen Sherwood, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #16: PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST FOR A GROUP DAY CARE BY JUDY WILSON: Johnson: At this time 1 will open the public hearing and invite the applicant or her representative to address the Commission. Judy Wilson, 1239 Elm Court, was sworn by the Ciry Attorney. Wilson: I am Judy Wilson and I would like to obtain a Conditional Use Permit for my home to do day care. I didn't know if any of you would have any questions. I think that the facilities that we have would be appropriate to watch children. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 8, 1995 Page 19 Johnson: Are there any questions of the applicant by the Commissioners? Rountree: Have you seen the letter from Shari Stiles, do you have any problems or concerns she made? Wilson: No, I picked up that information Friday, I don't have any concerns about any of that. I had spoken to as many of my neighbors that I caught at home with the schedules coming and going and had them sign a petition. I found that no one around the neighborhood had any concerns whatsoever. Hepper: Will the garage be used as part of the day care facility? Wilson: No Hepper: Is the backyard fenced? Wilson: Yes, the backyard has a new fence actually, it is fenced all the way around with locked secure gates. Hepper: Do you have a swimming pool or anything in the backyard? Wilson: No, there is a swing set back there that they can play on. Rountree: With your fence did you apply for and receive a building permit from the City of Meridian? Wilson: No, we just replaced the fence that was there. Rountree: The fence does not meet the City ordinance requirements and that might mean that you have to come before the City for a variance, setback for a fence that type is 20 feet and your is back of curb. So that is something that would probably be addressed in the conditional use permit. Wilson: Well if somebody would just instruct me on what to do and where to go. We just took dawn the boards that were there and put up new posts and new boards. Rountree: I understand. Johnson: Any other questions? Mr. Crookston? Crookston: Since 1 am not familiar with your property, how are you going to work the drop Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 8, 1995 Page 20 off and pick up, how does that relate to the street? Wilson: We have in our driveway we have 3 slots for cars to pull in my driveway and leave. I would assume when people are coming and going everybody if I had 12 openings (inaudible) same time. Crookston: What kind of gates do you have on this fence now? Wilson: They are just out of the wooden slats with the latches on the top and bottom locks. Crookston: Can children open them? Wilson: No Crookston: What ages are you planning on taking care of? Wilson: Infants through 12 years or however old. Johnson: Any age then? Wilson: Yes Crookston: Do you understand that you have to bring, how old is this home? Wilson: About 15 years. Crookston: You would have to meet the, all of the City ordinances relating to plumbing codes, electrical codes, things of that nature. Are you prepared to do that? Wilson: Yes I understand that we need to bring that up to code. So if I could find out what, if somebody could guide me on what to do, what needed to be done we would take care of it. Hepper: One of the plats here shows a dog run and a dog kennel. How many dogs have you got? Wilson: We have three sharpeis that we send part of the time off to Casper, Wyoming to show. Hepper: Are they vicious? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 8, 1995 Page 21 Wilson: No, they are not vicious at all, they have been around children. Johnson: Any other questions? Thank you Judy, this is a public hearing, is there anyone else that would like to make comments regarding this application? Seeing no one then 1 will close the public hearing at this time. Request for a conditional use permit it would require findings of fact. Shearer: Mr. Chairman, I move we have the attorney prepare findings of fact and conclusions of law. Rountree: Second Johnson: It is moved and seconded we have the City Attorney prepare findings of fact and conclusions of lawfar the conditional use permit for a group day care by Judy Wilson, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #17: PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST FOR A GROUP DAY CARE BY TAMt WOMACK: Johnson: She has in writing requested to withdraw the application as it is contrary to covenants in her subdivision. ITEM #18: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF 2.3 ACRES TO R-40 BY BILLY QUINN: Johnson: I will now open the public hearing and request the applicant or his representative to address the Commission at this time. Billy Quinn, 2310 North Meridian, was sworn by the City Attorney. Quinn: I am requesting that, I live on 2.3 acres on Meridian Road between Ustick and Cherry lane. I am getting rapidly surrounded by the City of Meridian. I would like to get annexed myself just to go with the flow. I have a small house on 2.3 acres and I would like to split it off. I am allowed a one time lot split and being annexed will be able to affect that. Johnson: Thank you, are there questions from the Commission to the applicant? Rountree: There is a statement in the letter from Shari Stiles talking about the variety of uses proposed on this piece of property. Would you explain your intent? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 8, 1995 Page 22 Quinn: Sure, right now in order to be practical I've got about 9,000 square feet mapped out to (inaudible) and that way I would be able to have the rest of the ground without any financial encumbrances. At this point I am not ready to develop any further than that. It is in a kind of what seems to be a (inaudible) into Meridian. The use is in the Comprehensive Plan (inaudible) planned for four plexes and it seemed like a good idea to use the (inaudible) so at the time which I can better accommodate (inaudible) some kind of density than 1 per acre, but not as dense as apartments would probably (inaudible) possibly with, there have been possibilities mentioned, possibly some office front with townhouse office attached. I am not sure, it would sort of depend on what the surrounding area (inaudible) go up. Crookston: You have apparently on the application R-40 do you intend to develop to that zone? That is 40 units per acre. Quinn: Correct, the Comprehensive Plan accommodates that in fact calls for that density and zoning. Once we get (inaudible) parking and access and setbacks and everything (inaudible) be able to accommodate 40 units per acre. (Inaudible) the appropriate request, I am just complying to your comprehensive plan. (Inaudible) Crookston: I don't recall that the plan calls for R-40 Quinn: Well it calls for planned unit development, it is an orange designation (inaudible). Hepper: So with 2.3 acres at 40 units per acre you have a possible concept plan but are you saying that could change. You could go as high as maybe 90 or 100 units if you so decided or if you had somebody Quinn: (Inaudible) I don't see how that could be possible considering the size and shape and area and it would certainly not be anything that I would be aiming for. Hepper: There are 24 units on the possible concept, which would be about 10 units per acre, why are we going with an R~0 instead of an R-15? Do you know off hand, was that a recommendation by one of the City staff members? Quinn: In my discussions with the City planner that is what we arrived at as being a reasonable request. I didn't see any conflict between requesting R-40 and the intent of the comprehensive plan. I guess if the (inaudible) overstepping the bounds of density compared to my neighbors and the surrounding zoning I might have moderated it a tittle bit. I am surrounded by some pretty dense zoning. In the order of being able to comply. Johnson: I am going to interject something there, a question to Shari Stiles. Do you recall Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 8, 1995 Page 23 that conversation regarding the densities, I don't think we have anything in excess of R-15 in that area. Stiles: Mr. Chairman and Commissioners, the applicant asked that 1 help him with his application and I tried to as best I could with not knowing really what he wanted. His main purpose was to get annexed, zoned and he can get hooked up to sewer and water and it would split his lot. With the things that he proposed for either a tri-plex, or multi-family also with his single family dwelling that he intends to remain there for a while, at least from my understanding and also offices. All of those uses really fell under the R-40 without having to go for a variance that we ran into with the Sciscoe's that went on for months and months because they wanted to have this little office and then it ended up they had to have a variance to live in the home that was already there as a single family residence. That was the only suggestion I gave him. 1 am sure that if there is something some other zone that you feel if more appropriate that would accommodate his needs I am sure he would be open to that. But the R-40, he has R-40 to the north of him, he has commercial, general commercial to the south of him, I don't feel it is an inappropriate zone for the property as long as the R-4 properties across Meridian Road are buffered appropriately also. Hepper: Shari, where is the R-40 that is north of this property? Alidjani: (Inaudible) James Court Stiles: It was the Jerry Wolfe property he had rezoned R-40. Hepper: Is that the little triangle right next to Fothergill? Smith: Yes, it is on the south side of the Jackson Drain, correct. Hepper. 1 guess the problem 1 have with the R~0 is Tike that particular piece if that is R-40 we have probably got stipulations in there of different requirements and stuff that we are not aware of right now we just know it has been zoned R-40. It kind of sets a precedent for the area and I don't know that R-40 is really what this piece of property needs. I think an R-15 would be more appropriate and perhaps maybe some variances or something. But just at an R-40 on that lane I think we are going to end up with a whole bunch of other pieces of property wanting to come in at R-40 down through that lane there not being aware of any stipulations or whatever that may have been placed on this piece. I am just wondering if we are looking at the right zoning designation. Quinn: It is zoned commercial immediately to the south and they are putting up multi-family multi-multis immediately to that. So I am kind of right smack in the middle of that transitional zone. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 8, 1995 Page 24 Stiles: Commissioner Hepper, another reason for the R-40 was the requirement in the R-15 that they be adjacent to a park or an open space corridor, it is really unlikely with the size of this piece of property and the roadway improvements that are going to be needed that would be possible. Hepper: The R-40 doesn't have that requirement? Stiles: No it doesn't. Johnson: Any more questions or comments? Thank you very much, this is a public hearing is there someone else that would like to come before the Commission at this time on this application? Seeing no one then I will close the public at this time. Rountree: Mr. Chairman, I would like to have Shari Stiles put together a graphic showing what the zoning is in this area (inaudible) is not real specific as to what the zoning changes have been. So we can have a look and see what is happening there. I know what is in the Comp Plan but there are some changes that have been made in specific changes to R-40 etc. Stiles: Are you talking about the specific zoning that exists there now? Rountree: Correct, in the vicinity of this request. Stiles: R-4 is directly to the west across Meridian Road. Directly to the north is R-40, along the entire length of this property and beyond. Directly to the south is C-G for the entire length of the property and beyond. 1 believe there is a single family residence to the east of you and then there is the meat p18nt or Meridian Meat is further east still in the county. There is also another single family residence further east and there is a 40 acre undeveloped property that will likely develop some time in the future as a subdivision. Also, just to the south of this property and across Meridian Road has been approved limited office zoning with a church and a day care approved for that site. Rountree: (Inaudible) Stiles: Yes, it is a single family home at this time but they intend to develop a commercial use. Johnson: Will that work or do you want to see a graphic of some sort. Rountree: That is better than seeing it. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 8, 1995 Page 25 Johnson: What is your pleasure at this point, the public hearing has been closed. Shearer: If this was to come in as an R-40 would a PUD be required? Stiles: Commissioner Shearer yes it would be and I believe a planned unit development, a general planned residential development R-40 is the only residential zone where it is allowed as a conditional use. It is not even permitted or allowed as a conditional use in any of the residential zones. Rountree: Mr. Chairman, I move that we have findings of fact prepared on this item. Shearer: Second Johnson: It has been moved and seconded we have the City Attorney prepare findings of fact and conclusions of law on the request for annexation and zoning of 2:3 acres by Billy Quinn, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #19: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF 40.17 ACRES TO C-G AND L-O BY JIM BALLANTYNE: Johnson: At this time I will open the public hearing and invite the applicant or his representative to address the Commission. Wayne Forrey, 52 East Franklin Road, was sworn by the City Attorney. Forrey: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, I am here tonight representing Jim Ballantyne who is one of six principles who own the property that we are asking for annexation. Jim has been around the valley a long time, developed property in Meridian and Boise and he is a good developer. He wants to get this property annexed into the City and proceed with some potential development. Some interest has been expressed recently in two types of business on the property. I would like to, I have an overhead two transparencies that I would like to show you. Could 1 set up the projector? This is a view of the vicinity around the property just about 40 acres of bare ground right now. The blue area and the green area are the parcels that we are requesting annexation. The olive colored area that says Norm Fuller is owned by Norm Fuller and Jim Ballantyne owns a green strip of property out to Meridian Road between the Norm Fuller property. So the project or the property has access on the north to Franklin Road and access an the east to Meridian Road. The area in blue is anticipated Limited Office and that is our annexation request. The area in light green is commercial general C-G. The storage property on Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 8, 1995 Page 26 Franklin Road owned by Stubblefield development is shown up there in the northwest comer. Hinckles and McCoy is right next door there where it shows R1 still in the county. The veterinary clinic, the Farmers Club and Centennial Motors and the Universal Wood Products are all in the C-G zone just like the storage along Franklin. Then you have the rose trailer court there in the corner and just south of that is Hope Arms. Then you have Norm Fuller's property and then the Meridian Rental Center property is on the south side of the Ballantyne property. Of interest here is the subdivision, Franklin Square subdivision which is you see here on the left side of the map and those folks in a prior annexation and zoning request expressed some pretty good ideas on how this property should or should not develop. I want to summarize that for you. The Commission and citizens may recall that about a year ago a fellow approached Jim Ballantyne and his partners, this fellow was named Troy Green and he wanted to develop I believe a mobile home park and that went through the public hearing process and it was recommended denial and no action was taken ultimately on that. Jim and I sat down and reviewed that file and we teamed some lessons from going through that. First of all that citizens and City officials definitely wanted property tax base on that property. Secondly there was concern about school attendance so we took that into consideration. Protecting local property values, a lot of folks on the Troy Green project felt that mobile home park would devalue their property. And then there was concem about whatever developed there should have good landscape buffers right next to that subdivision. So, here is our response from teaming from what happened about a year ago. I wasn't involved with the Troy Green project, but going through this with Jim, here is an approach we think would be good for the community, good for the people there in Franklin Square subdivision. In our application we stated that any development that would occur there should be done under a conditional use permit process. We are requesting that be the case whether it is in the office or in the C-G zone. That would give maximum citizen involvement and that is what citizens requested and they exercised that during the Troy Green project. We anticipate that the office and commercial uses are there because citizens and City officials indicated they wanted some tax base there. That would also help the school district, not hurt the schools but help and help the City. Limited Office is there because citizens were concerned about the interface right next to their subdivision, what would develop. We think office would be a good transition. In that conditional use process it could be an office campus there could be good setbacks, good landscaping, it could be even single story. You don't have the evening type traffic, we hope that would be good neighbor to that subdivision and I think it could be. The C-G uses are there for the commercial development that is generally in that part of Franklin and Meridian Road. I think it blends in well. The last point here we would expect that there be a development agreement fully approved and negotiated before any processing of any conditional use permits on the property. Jim has two business interests in the property, nothing specific. We are hoping this could be annexed with these stipulations so that when that property or a portion of it is sold then a specific development request comes before the City as a conditional use. Neighbors are involved and I think we get good development Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 8, 1995 Page 27 that way. I would be happy to answer any questions. Johnson: Thank you Wayne, any questions from the Commission. Rountree: What is the R-14 County zoning equate to? Forney: I think it has changed, that is an old county zone. I don't think they have that any more and I don't know, it might have been 14 units per acre. I do know, does the Planning director know? It is fairly dense, I failed to mention one thing, Jim and I reviewed the staff report and agree totally with everything that is in your information packet with no objection. They are fine. Alidjani: Any specific use you have in mind Wayne? Forney: I am not aware of any, but Jim has been as of today I think he even had a request. Jim are you aware of the speck use, just that there is a business that wants to purchase I think 6 acres for a business use. I don't know if it is retail or office or what type of business. There is another party that is expressing an interest in buying a portion of it up along Franklin Road they want the frontage along Franklin Road but I don't know what kind of business it is. Johnson: Have you reviewed the letter from ACHD dated August 3? Forney: Yes Johnson: Do you have any questions or concerns or disagreements with any of those suggestions? Forney: None Johnson: That center green there going out through the Norm Fuller property, that is not an easement that is actually deeded? Forney: I noted in the ACRD report it said easement but it is my understanding that is deeded property, do you know Jim? (Inaudible) James Ballantyne, 10250 Whispering Cliffs, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Ballantyne: Norm Fuller sold us the property where the 4 is to the north of the lateral. At Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 8, 1995 Page 28 that point in time Norm and on my deed from Norman Fuller it gives that exclusive easement through Norm Fuller's property. It does not, the way I read it although I am no attorney, I read it as an easement rather than fee simple title. Then we purchased the green just to the south where the C-G 22.9, from Glen Hudson and Norm Fuller I understand had sold that to Glen Hudson wfth the same easement and then of course Glen Hudson on my deed from Glen Hudson and Northwest Nazarene College states that same easement. So I have two deeds that sites that easement. Alidjani: Mr. Ballantyne, how many feet is that easement? Ballantyne: Fifty feet Crookston: As the owner of the easement have they or it consented to the annexation? Ballantyne: Yes, all of my partners have agreed to the proceedings that we are going through. Crookston: Well maybe I am confused Jim but as I understand it you are talking about the strip that runs from Meridian Road to the west, that is the 50 feet that you are talking about. Ballantyne: It is in light green, between Norm and Fuller on the map. Crookston: That is an easement ground? Ballantyne: It is to my understanding, I think I gave Shari, didn't I give you a deed? I gave the deed to Ada County, ACRD. Crookston: If it is an easement though has the owner of the land granted permission to have you have that property annexed? Ballantyne: No, I haven't asked him. He is the same one that gave me the easement, he is the same one that I bought the property to. It is a very specific easement, it is not a general just a 50 foot easement, it is given a meets and bounds. Crookston: But there is an owner of that land that is apparently not one of the six people that {inaudible). Ballantyne: Are you telling me that he has to be a party to our Crookston: Because he owns the land, he has to consent to the annexation and zoning. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 8, 1995 Page 29 Ballantyne: Well, is Norm here tonight? I wasn't aware of that condition. Shearer: Well, they don't need to annex that anyway just use it for a drive won't they? Crookston: It would have to be annexed to be able to be used for a drive. He would have to consent to it to be used for a drive. (Inaudible) Ballantyne: I would think he has already accepted the fact that it is going to be used for a drive, why else would it be Crookston: That certainly may be Jim but as far as the City is concerned we need to have the owners consent to be annexed. It doesn't make any sense not to annex it if it is going to be used for development purposes for the property to the west of it. Ballantyne: 1 have no objection to them giving you a request that be annexed also. Johnson: Did you have anything further Mr. Forrey? Forrey: No, just to answer any questions? Johnson: Any more questions? Rountree: You talked about a buffer in one of your issues, what do you have conceptually? Forrey: I would like to hear from the residents in Franklin Square. We have been making some phone calls, Janelle in my office, and one of the people that Janelle spoke to asked that the possibility that they could actually buy some ground from Jim Ballantyne directly behind their home so they could have a permanent buffer. That I think really is unnecessary that is a lot to ask a property owner to buy ground so they can have a buffer. I think that could be a requirement on the development when it comes in under conditional use. I think the neighbors could give some input on that, how wide, what type of development, the landscaping that type of thing and it could be addressed in the development agreement or the conditional uses that would ultimately come before the Commission. I don't have any specifics. Alidjani: Wayne, you did mention you are going to have a buffer zone on a residential area where Pennwood is and Hanover and those culdesacs, is that correct? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 8, 1995 Page 30 Forrey: Yes, Alidjani: I just wanted to make sure I understood you correctly, how about the side of the Hope Arms residential area? Forrey: There needs to be a buffer there as well because some of the Hope Arms buildings are pretty Gose to the property line, you would know with Sanitary Service. If that is zoned commercial that whatever develops there has got to buffer itseff from the adjacent residential. I think that is another area where that conditional use has to be pretty tightly controlled to make sure that is buffered right there. And also at the comer of the mobile home park as well. Johnson: Okay, this is a public hearing, is there someone that would like to address the Commission from the audience? Mike Weavers, 550 Lynhurst, was sworn by the City Attomey. Weavers: Members of the Planning and Zoning Commission we do have some concerns regarding the light office zoning. One I would like to find out what the current zoning is with the County and what an R14 is. Two, some of our concems are Barrett Street and Pennwood Street, would those streets continue all the way through, currently they are a dead end to the property. We would like to know if that is going to remain a dead end or if it will turn into a culdesac or it is will be a through street. Some of the other concerns that I have are probably a little premature. I would like to see a layout of roadwork through the office area. Whether roads will be directly behind the houses with a buffer zone, I would like to see what type of a buffer zone will be available whether a chain link fence, a wooden fence, a grass buffer, concrete barrier, those are my concerns and I would just like to (inaudible). I also have a -etter from my neighbor who lives in plot #20 and I present that to the Commission. Thank you. Johnson: We already have this letter so you may have this back. Anyone else from the audience that would like to testify? Raymond Kutch, 625 Hanover Court, was sworn by the City Attomey. (End of Tape) Kutch: I have just a couple of questions I am not for sure whether they will be answered or have already been and 1 missed them. One of the questions you guys asked was what they propose on the L-O, my question is how can you annex if you don't know what is going to be put there. Like you said you don't know if they are going to be single story, two Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 8, 1995 Page 31 story, three story, how big they are, what they are made of that kind of stuff. Also, I don't know if the C-G is going to allow access through to the L-O is that something that is normally going to happen? Johnson: Okay, did you have any other questions? Kutch: The buffer, a lot of the owners would like to be able to get to their backyards and the buffer would be the big area there. He asked if the streets are going to be through or not, whether they are going to be culdesacs or continue to be dead ends or maybe make the loop and come round so people can still get into their backyards. He said that one of the people he talked to on the phone suggested that possibly it would be allowed to buy and I emphasize they asked to be allowed to buy. He suggested they not be required, the person wasn't asking it to be required that they buy, they were asking if it be okay. That is something else that I would be curious about because I would probably be interested in that myself. Johnson: Is your home right up against there? Kutch: Yes sir, it sure is. Johnson: What lot number are you there? Kutch: Lot #33 on Hanover court. Johnson: Thank you Kutch: That is about all of the questions I have right now. Johnson: We will try to get comments before you leave this evening on your questions. Is there anyone else from the public that would like to come forward? Karen would you like to comment on this application? Regarding the streets. Karen Gallagher, ACHD, was sworn by the City Attorney. Gallagher: This is an application for annexation, we don't have any site specific proposal in front of us. In general we have, staff has discussed what kind of roadway netwrork would work through here. First would be the connection to Franklin Road and that would align with I believe it is a lumber store across the way. The second would be what is coming from Franklin Road. The easement at this point in time we aren't sure how that is going to align or the offset with Gem Street and the approved accesses for the office developments that have been approved south of Gem Street in that location. Those details have not Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 8, 1995 Page 32 been looked at in detail at this point. Other than that we are, there are certain proposals that are being discussed at this point that would take into consideration the extension of Corporate Drive through the parcel to the south here through the rental center approximately in this location here (inaudible) We have talked to some of their developers and their applicants and they are in the works of getting something done there. If that road or when that road is before us and does become a reality we would be looking for a connection from the extension of Corporate to this development. So, stub streets would be a part of that. Other than that the only other comment I could make at this point is that as far as the connection on the residential to the office proposal those are usually good compatible land uses. We support connections between residential and abutting and possibly even the commercial further to the east without making those residents go out onto Franklin Road to come in. Those connections are supported when they are not encouraging people to come through on the residential streets and in this case if there were a strong street connection to the north to Franklin and another one out to Meridian we wouldn't see a problem with cut through traffic and believe that those connections could work to the benefits of both properties. Until vue see a specific proposals and those land uses it is hard for us to make those determinations on how that is going to work out. Johnson: Thank you, are you personally familiar with the county zoning R14? Gallagher: I worked at the county before I worked with Ada County Highway District and that was a highly dense 14 if not above that zone, 14 units to the acre. Rountree: Which probably would allow duplexes, or tri-plexes or four plexes. Gallagher: Right, easily. Alidjani: I have a question, what is the percentage is it 50/50 or 20/80 that Barrett Street and also the next one was Pennwood to continue on in your view in the near future? (Inaudible) one way or another, but if you would give a percentage is it a 50/50 yes or no? Gallagher: I would say at least 50/50, those connections as I said usually work #o a benefit that the residents could access if they need to either the office of the commercial. As long as there isn't a cut through adding more commercial traffic to the residential just providing a convenient connection it would definitely be a 50/50 if not higher chance that those roads would be continued. There is a possibility depending on the development that comes in that those could be culdesaced and leave them as residential, but as I said staff has been supportive of those connections, indirect connections I guess would be a better way to put that. Johnson: Thank you Karen, is there anyone else that would like to comment? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 8, 1995 Page 33 Sharlene Danielson, 489 Kearney Place, was swum by the City Attorney. Danielson: I live at the comer of Kearney and Pennwood, they opened up the other subdivision and it was just built over there. The traffic there is awful, people do not stop at the comer, they come to the stop sign and they don't stop. If you open it up through Pennwood up to this new place it is going to be awful. There are kids running around something is going to happen, there is going to be an accident. I am surprised there hasn't been one already. Barrett is a dead end street anyway, it doesn't open it does not cross into the other culdesacs, ours does. It is awful out there (inaudible) look at the stop sign and nobody stops coming or going into the subdivision or turning. It is going to be awful and 1 think they are going to want to cut through so it will be easy access to Meridian Road, that is all. Johnson: Thank you, is there anyone else? Doug Danielson, 489 Kearney Place, was sworn by the City Attorney. Danielson: I would just like to add to the comments that were just made that at this point the development to the west of Franklin Square Subdivision I believe there is quite a bit of the development out there that it is not convenient for them to use Pennwood and Southwest 7th to get to Franklin Road. I believe a lot of that development west of us it is more convenient either to use Linder or to use Southwest 12th. Alidjani: Excuse me you are referring to Mallard Landing and Pennwood? Danielson: I don't know the names of it but they are newer developments to the west of Franklin Square, I don't know the names of the subdivisions. It is my feeling at this point that if Pennwood were connected straight through to Meridian Road that would make Pennwood very possibly easy access to Meridian Road without having to worry about getting on Franklin at all for not only all of the residents to the west of this that presently use Pennwood and Southwest 7th but all of the other residents west of us who presently use Lynwood or Southwest 12th including those residents that live in the subdivision across that creek on the map out towards the freeway towards Linder. I would expect Pennwood to be a very convenient street for all of those residents to be using. 1 would like to reiterate that when the stop sign was put in on Southwest 7th at Pennwood we felt that was a very desirable action. We were pleased to see that happen because we felt that living very near that comer an accident was going to happen. I would also like to mention that as my wife just stated my unofficial poll done by myself sitting in my front yard in my lawn chair getting terribly aggravated at local traffic tells me that 9 out of 10 cars including police officers who patrol the area do not come to a complete stop at that stop sign. One out of ten stops, three out of ten ease through the stop sign and six out of ten just flat out Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 8, 1995 Page 34 run it. Pennwood Street hasn't in recent months appeared to have a 25 mile an hour speed limit either. The local police seem to be ineffective in patrolling or taking any action to curb any of this activity. That is all I would like to say thank you. Johnson: Is there anyone else that would like to address the Commission at this time? Would Mr. Forrey like to comment on those comments made since you (inaudible) 1 don't think you got what you were looking for in terms of buffering. I know that is going to be an important issue. Forrey: 1 would then rely on the comprehensive plan and the Planning Director. Shari suggested a 35 foot setback on Franklin Road and Meridian Road. Perhaps that is a starting point, 35 feet setback landscape along the back on the west edge of the L-O and next to Franklin Square Subdivision and the gentleman that talked about purchasing property. That is correct, I hope it would never be a requirement that people would have to buy property for buffer but, Jim Ballantyne is in the business of selling and developing property, that is very possible that people could purchase. I don't think it would be necessary if we had a good setback there and maybe 35 feet with perhaps maybe a creative kind of easement that would give the people that back up to this property a way to access their backyards somehow. That is something that maybe could be worked out on each development proposal. As far as the business uses here there really is no demand to use the local streets, Pennwood or Barrett. The attraction is Meridian and Franklin and the two business interests that Jim is looking at right now are offers to get access to both of those arterials. So, I think it is entirely possible to have either no connection and culdesac those streets or a very indirect way as an outlet and a convenience to the subdivision. But it would not necessarily be a convenience or necessary for the office or commercial development. So any connection there would be fairly secondary not primary at all in the development concept. Johnson: Any other questions from Wayne while he is on the podium? Thanks Wayne, one last chance is there anyone else that would like to add to the testimony? Mr. Ballantyne Ballantyne: There has been some reticence on what are we planning on putting in there and how can you make decisions when you don't know what kind of offices are going to be there, what kind of buildings and the traffic network. All of these issues 1 think or the people that expressed that fear, are subject to conditional use hearings. So they are doubly protected, every new development that is put in there, every new building, office building or commercial is subject to conditional use permits. So they have a double shot at it. At that point in time they should bring their protest or their suggestions to the table. I feel that the conditional use permit process completely is protective of the people involved, thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 8, 1995 Page 35 Johnson: Yes, that is an important I appreciate you bringing that up. We probably could have done that on our own to clarify that a little bit, but thank you. If no one else has any comments then on this application I will close the public hearing at this time. Shearer: Mr. Chairman I move we have the Attorney prepare findings of fact and conclusions of law. Rountree: Second Johnson: It has been moved and seconded that we have the City Attomey prepare findings of fact and conclusions of law on the application by Mr. Jim Ballantyne, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Johnson: Does anyone have anything else they would like to bring before the Commission while we are here? We need one more motion then. Shearer: Mr. Chairman, I move we adjourn. Rountree: Second Johnson: It is moved and seconded we adjourn, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:20 P.M. {TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) APPROVED: I SO ,CHAIRMAN ATTEST: W LLIAM G. BERG, JR., CI CL RK ~ ORIG~i~v~i~ BEFORE THE MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JUDY WILSON CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR GROUP DAY CARE 1239 ELM COURT MERIDIAN, IDAHO FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The above entitled matter having come on for public hearing August 8, 1995, at the hour of 7:30 o' clock p.m., the Petitioner, Judy Wilson, appearing in person, the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Meridian having duly considered the evidence and the matter makes the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. That a notice of a public hearing on the Conditional Use Permit was published for two (2) consecutive weeks prior to the said public hearing scheduled for August 8, 1995, the first publication of which was fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing; that the matter was duly considered at the August B, 1995, hearing; that the public was given full opportunity to express comments and submit evidence; and that copies of all notices were available to newspaper, radio and television stations; 2. That this property is located within the City of Meridian and the Applicant is the owner of the property; that the property is currently zoned R-8 Residential; that in the ZONING SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Paqe 1 WILSON USE CONTROL, Section 11-2-409 A., Residential, Group Child Care Home is listed as a conditional use in the R-8 District and therefore the R-8 District requires a conditional use permit for the operation of a Group Child Care Home. 3. That the R-8, Residential District is described in the Zoning Ordinance, 11-2-408 B. 4 as follows: (R-81 Medium Density Residential District: The purpose of the (R-8) Districts is to permit the establishment of single and two (2) family dwellings at a density not exceeding eight (8) dwelling unite per acre. This district delineates those areas where such development has or is likely to occur in accord with the Comprehensive Plan of the City and is also designed to permit the conversion of large homes into two (2) family dwellings in well-established neighborhoods of comparable land use. Connection to the Municipal Water and Sewer systems of the City of Meridian is required. 4. Conditional Use Permit is defined in the Zoning Ordinance as follows: "Permit allowing an exception to the uses authorized by this Ordinance in a zoning district." 5. That the property is located in NORTH GATE SUBDIVISION #3, Block 6, Lot 20, an R-8 single-family residential subdivision. 6. That the intention of the Applicant is to operate a day care for children, infants through 12 years or older, between six (6) and twelve (12) children; that the hours will be from 7:00 a.m. until 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. 7. The Applicant testified that she started a petition in the neighborhood soliciting neighbors approval of the application and obtained signatures; that the garage will not be used as part of the facility; that the backyard has been recently fenced with a FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 2 WILSON wooden slat fence; that the gates are made of the slats with latches on the top and bottom locks; that the driveway has three (3) car slots to pull in to drop children off, backing out to leave; that the home is approximately fifteen (15) years old and the Applicant understands that the house will need to be brought up to date with all City ordinances relating to plumbing codes, electrial codes, and things of that nature; that the Applicant has three (3) sharpeis show doge that are in Wyoming part time for dog shows; that the animals are gentle, not vicious, and love to be around children. 8. The Assistant to the City Engineer, Bruce Freckelton, submitted comments which are incorporated herein as if set forth in full herein; that assessment fees may be charged to cover any additional impact the sewer and water services may have on the new proposed use; that the Applicant will be required to enter into a Re-Assessment Agreement at that time. 9. The Planning and Zoning Director, Shari Stiles, submitted comments which are incorporated herein as if set forth in full; that the Applicant is to limit children to no more than 12; the total number of children cared for during the day, and not the number of children at the facility at any one time, is determinative; that Applicant should also instruct parents dropping off children to turn around in the driveway and avoid using the cul-de-sac as a turnaround to minimize impact of additional homes; that signage/advertising should not be permitted; that all fire and FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 3 WILSON life safety codes shall be .complied with; that the Applicant shall secure and maintain a child care license from the Idaho Department of Health & Welfare, acquire a certificate of occupancy, and furnish evidence of both to the City of Meridian; that this permit may be reviewed annually. 10. Central District Health Department, Meridian Fire Department and Meridian City Police Department submitted comments and they are hereby incorporated herein. 11. That there was comment and discussion between the Applicant and Commissioner Rountree regarding the fence not meeting the City ordinance requirements; that the Applicant might have to apply for a variance for a setback on the fence; that the Applicant stated at the hearing that whatever was necessary she was willing to take care of it. 12. That there was no other testimony given at the hearing. CONCLUSIONS 1. That all the procedural requirements of the Local Planning Act and of the Ordinances of the City of Meridian have been met including the mailing of notice to owners of property within 300 feet of the external boundaries of the Applicant's property. 2. That the City of Meridian has authority to grant conditional uses pursuant to 67-6512, Idaho Code, and, pursuant to 11-2-418 of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 4 WILSON Meridian. 3. That the City has the authority to take judicial notice of its own ordinances and proceedings, other governmental. statues and ordinances, and of actual conditions existing within the City and state. 4. That the City of Meridian has authority to place conditions on a conditional use permit and the use of the property pursuant to 67-6512, Idaho Code, and pursuant to that section conditions minimizing the adverse impact on other development, controlling the duration of development, assuring the development is maintained properly, and on-site or off-site facilities, may be attached to the permit; that 11-2-418 (D) authorizes the City to prescribe a set time period for which a conditional use may be in existence. 5. That section 11-2-418 d. states as follows: "In approving any Conditional Use, the Commission and Council may prescribe appropriate conditions, bonds, and safeguards in conformity with this Ordinance. Violations of such conditions, bonds or safeguards, when made a part of the terms under which the Conditional Use is granted, shall be deemed a violation of the Ordinance and grounds to revoke the Conditional Use. The Commission and Council may prescribe a set time period for which a Conditional Use may be in existence." 6. That the City has judged this Application for a zoning amendment upon the basis of guidelines contained in Section 11-2- 416 of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian and upon the basis of the Local Planning Act of 1975, Title 67 Chapter 65, Idaho Code, the Comprehensive Plan of the City of FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 5 WILSON Meridian, and the record submitted to it and the things of which it may take judicial notice. 7. That 11-2-418(C) of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian sets forth the standards under which the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council shall review applications for Conditional Use Permits; that upon a review of those requirements and a review of the facts presented and the conditions of .the area and assuming that the above conditions or similar ones thereto would be attached to the conditional use, the Planning and Zoning Commission concludes as follows: a. The use, would in fact, constitute a conditional use and a conditional use permit would be required by ordinance. b. The use would be harmonious with and in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan but the Zoning Ordinance requires a conditional use permit to allow the use. c. The use is designed and constructed to be harmonious in appearance with the character of the general vicinity; that if the conditions set forth herein are complied with the use should be operated and maintained to be harmonious with the intended character of the general vicinity and should not change the essential character of the area. d. That the use would not be hazardous nor should it be disturbing to existing or future neighboring uses if the conditions are met; that traffic will increase, but due to the drop-off and pick-up being off of the street it should not be a problem. e. The property has sewer and water service .already connected. 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. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 6 WILSON g. If the conditions involve a use, activity, conditions of operation person, property or the excessive production of glare or odors. are met, the use should not process, material, equipment or that would be detrimental to general welfare by reason of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, h. That sufficient parking for the proposed use will be required to meet the requirements of the City ordinance. i. The development and uses will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural or scenic feature of major importance. 8. That since conditions may be placed upon the granting of a conditional use permit to minimize adverse impact on other development, it is recommended by the Planning and Zoning Commission that the following conditions of granting the conditional use be required, to wit: a) The hours of operation shall be restricted, as stated by the Applicant, from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. b) The children, if outside, be maintained in the fenced area, as required below. c) That the Applicant shall meet the State of Idaho requirements for staff to children ratio. d) That there shall be fencing, gates, and locks for the outside play area such no children can leave the property without an adult unlocking and opening the gate to let the child or children out of the play area; no children shall be allowed outside of the play area or the home without an adult being present; the fence shall be maintained in good repair and the children, when outside, shall stay in the fenced area and the children shall not be allowed outside of the fenced area or the home, except for drop-off and pick-up times, but an adult shall be with them at all times if the child or children are waiting to be picked up. e) That the Applicant shall hold and maintain a State of Idaho Day Care License for a Day Care Center. f) That the conditional use should not be restricted to a FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 7 WILSON period of authorization but may be reviewed annually upon notice to the applicant for violation of any of the conditions as has been done in other day care conditional uses and other conditional use applications. g) That the conditional use, pursuant to the Zoning Ordinance, shall not be transferable to another owner of the property or to another property. h) That the Applicant must meet the requirements of the Central District Health Department and the State of Idaho Department of Health and Welfare. i) That the Applicant shall meet the requirements of the City Engineer's office, including the re-assessment agreement, Planning Director, and other governmental agencies submitting comments. 9. That there shall be no more than twelve (12) children cared for at the home throughout the day; that this number of children is arrived at from the total number of children at the facility and not the number of children at the facility at one time. 10. That the Applicant apply for a setback variance regarding the newly installed fence. 11. That the above conditions are concluded to be reasonable and the Applicant shall meet those conditions. 12. That it is recommended that if the Applicant meets the conditions stated above that the conditional use permit be granted to the Applicant. APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts and approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 8 WILSON ROLL CALL COMMISSIONER HEPPER COMMISSIONER ROUNTREE COMMISSIONER SHEARER COMMISSIONER ALIDJANI CHAIRMAN JOHNSON (TIE BREAKER) DECISION AND VOTED VOTED VOTED~~,e~- (~,C~ VOTED X"`~ ~~ VOTED The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council of the City of Meridian that they approve the Conditional Use Permit requested by the Applicant for the property described in the application with the conditions set forth in the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law or similar conditions as found justified and appropriate by the City Council and that the property be required to meet the water and sewer requirements, the fire and life safety codes, Uniform Fire Code and other Ordinances of the City of Meridian. The conditional use should be subject to review upon notice to the Applicant by the City. MOTION: APPROVED: DISAPPROVED: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 9 WILSON ~ ~ ORIGif~~,~~ BEFORE THH MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZOHIHO COMMISSION CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT POR NAIL SALON 203 E. ADA STRBET MERIDIAN. IDARO FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS The above entitled matter having come on for public hearing August 8, 1995, at the hour of 7:30 o'clock p.m., the Petitioner appearing in person, the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Meridian having duly considered the evidence and the matter makes the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. That a notice of a public hearing on the Conditional Use Permit was published for two (2) consecutive weeks prior to the public hearing scheduled for August 8, 1995, the first publication of which was fifteen (15 ) days prior to .said hearing; that the matter was duly considered at the August 8, 1995, hearing; that the public was given full opportunity to express comments and submit evidence; and that copies of all notices were available to newspaper, radio and television stations; 2. That this property is located within the City of Meridian and the Applicant is the owner of the property; the property is described in the application which description is incorporated herein. 3. That the property is zoned Old Town, which requires a FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - SHERWOOD PAGE 1 conditional use permit for the operation of a nail salon which the application requests. 4. That the Old Town District is described in the Zoning Ordinance, 11-2-408 B. 12. as follows: SOTI Old Town District: The purpose of the (OT) District is to accommodate and encourage further expansion of the historical core of the community; to delineate a centralized activity center and to encourage its renewal, revitalization and growth as the public, and quasi- public, cultural, financial and recreational center of the City. A variety of these uses integrated with general business, medium-high to high density residential, and other related uses is encouraged in an effort to provide the appropriate mix of activities necessary to establish a truly urban City Center. The District shall be served by Municipal Water and Sewer systems of the City of Meridian. Development in this district must give attention to the handling of high volumes of traffic, adequate parking, and pedestrian movement, and provide strip commercial development, and must be approved as a conditional use, unless otherwise permitted. 5. That the use proposed by Applicant is a specifically allowed conditional use in the Zoning Schedule of Use Control, 11- 2-409. 6. That sewer and water is available to the property. 7. That the Applicant is currently operating her nail salon in the home, located at 203 E. Ada Street and requests the conditional use permit; that the part-time salon will occupy a room at the residence and be operated by herself in accordance to Idaho Cosmetology Law and Regulations. 8. That Mrs. Sherwood testified that an average of 15 to 20 customers in a week could be anticipated; that the hours would more or less to left up to the clients; that the last appointment FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - SHERWOOD PAGE 2 i • probably would be at 5:30 and that appointments usually last up to one (1) hour; that there is access to a restroom for the client's use and she would pay any additional sewer, water, or trash fees. 9. That the Meridian Planning and Zoning Administrator submitted comments, stating that off-street parking requirements are one space, paved in accordance with City Ordinance and that hours of operation should not impact adjacent residential properties; that proper State licensing requirements be met, with evidence furnished to the City. 10. That the City Engineer's office submitted comments, stating that the Applicant will be responsible to supply the Public Works Department with information as to the additional impact the new proposed use will have on water and sewer usage and that additional assessment fees may be charged and that the Applicant shall enter into a Re-Assessment Agreement at that time. 11. That Central District Health Department, and Meridian Police Department and Meridian Fire Department submitted comments and they are hereby incorporated herein as if set forth in full. 12. That no other public testimony was given. 13. That proper notice has been given as required by law and all procedures before the Planning and Zoning Commission have been given and followed. 1. That all the procedural requirements of the Local Planning Act and of the Ordinances of the City of Meridian have been met including the mailing of notice to owners of property FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - SHERWOOD PAGE 3 within 300 feet of the external boundaries of the Applicant's property. 2. That the City of Meridian has authority to grant conditional uses pursuant to 67-6512, Idaho Code, and, pursuant to 11-2-418 of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian. 3. That the City of Meridian has authority to place conditions on a conditional use permit and the use of the property pursuant to 67-6512, Idaho Code, and pursuant to 11-2-418 D of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian, Idaho; 4. That 11-2-418 C of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian sets forth the standards under which the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council shall review applications for Conditional Use Permits; that upon a review of those requirements and a review of the facts presented and the conditions of the area, the Planning and Zoning Commission concludes as follows: a. The use, would in fact, constitute a conditional use and a conditional use permit is required by ordinance. b. The use should be harmonious with and in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan but the Zoning Ordinance requires a conditional use permit to allow the use. c. The use apparently would be designed and constructed, to be harmonious in appearance with the intended character of the general vicinity. d. That the use would not be hazardous nor should it be disturbing to existing or future neighboring uses. e. The property has sewer and water service available. f. The use would not create excessive additional FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - SHERWOOD PAGE 4 requirements at public cost for public facilities and services and the use would not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. g. The use would not involve a use, activity, process, material, equipment or conditions of operation that would be detrimental to person, property or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic or noise. h. That sufficient parking for the property and the proposed use is required. i. The development and uses will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural or scenic feature of major importance. 5. That the comments of the City Engineer's office and the Planning and Zoning Administrator must be met and complied with. 6. That all ordinances of the City of Meridian must be met, including but not limited to, the Uniform Building Code, Uniform Fire Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, the Uniform Electrical Code, the Fire and Life Safety Code, all parking and landscaping requirements. APPROVAL OF FIRDINfiS OF FACT ARD CORCLUSIONS The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts and approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions. ROLL CALL HEPPER COMMISSIONER ROUNTREE COMMISSIONER SHEARER COMMISSIONER ALIDJANI CHAIRMAN JOHNSON (TIE BREAKER) VOTED VOTED ~ VOTED p. ~ Sl"i~ VOTED VOTED ~~ /" ~ ~~- `~'~y~ FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - SHERWOOD PAGE 5 DECISION AND The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council of the City of Meridian that they approve the Conditional Use Permit requested by the Applicant for the property described in the application with the conditions set forth in the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. MOTION: APPROVED: DISAPPROVED: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - SHERWOOD PAGE 6 ;~ ~ ORIGIi~AL BEFORE THE MERIDIAN PLARHIHO AND ZOHIHO COMMISSION CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR OUICR LUBE SHOP JAY BURRUP. APPLICANT 200 EAST FAIRVIEi1 AVENUE FINDINOS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS The above entitled matter having come on for public hearing August 8, 1995, at the hour of 7:30 o'clock p.m., the Petitioner's representative, Mel Burrup appearing, the Planning. and Zoning Commission of the City of Meridian having duly considered the evidence and the matter makes the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions: FINDIN(i3 OF FACT 1. That a notice of a public hearing on the Conditional Use Permit was published for two (2) consecutive weeks prior to the public hearing scheduled for Auqust 8, 1995, the first publication of which was fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing; that the matter was duly considered at the August 8, 1995, hearing; that the public was given full opportunity to express comments and submit evidence; and that copies of all notices were available to newspaper, radio and television stations. 2. That this property is located within the City of Meridian and the Applicant is the owner of the property; that the property is described in the application which description is incorporated herein. 3. That the property is zoned (C-C), Community Business FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - BURRUP PAGE 1 District, which requires a conditional use permit for the operation of a quick Tube shop which the application requests. 4. That the Community Business District is described in the Zoning Ordinance, 11-2-408 B. 11. as follows: (C-C) Community Business District: The purpose of the (C- C) District is to permit the establishment of general business uses that are of a larger scale than a neighborhood business, and to encourage the development of modern shopping centers with adequate off-street parking facilities, and associated site amenities to serve area residents and employees; to prohibit strip commercial development and encourage the clustering of commercial enterprises. All such districts shall have direct access to a transportation arterial and collector and be connected to the Municipal Water and Sewer systems of the City of Meridian. 5. That the use proposed by Applicant is a specifically allowed conditional use in the Zoning Schedule of Use Control, 11- 2-409. 6. That the Applicant's representative stated that the property is currently being used as a retail store, selling auto seat covers and related products; that the applicant wants to re- convert the use to what the building and property were originally designed and built for, which is a fast oil change and Tube operation; that approximately eight (8) years ago the applicant installed a wood floor over the west side of the building to operate a retail automobile seat cover business; that the Applicant wants to remove the plywood flooring, install the proper equipment and open a fast oil change and lube operation; that the overhead doors are original and still in place; that very little modification is necessary to operate as it was originally designed FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - BURRUP PAGE 2 7. That sewer and water is connected to the property. 8. That the Applicant, Jay Burrup stated in the Application that the building will not be extensively remodeled as its present outlay is sufficient to serve the needs of the shop he intends to operate; that the use of this property initially was designed, built and laid out specifically for a fast oil change and Tube operation on one side and a drive thru car wash on the other side; that he intends to continue operating the auto seat cover business, which currently is in operation, on the east part of the building; that he agrees to pay any additional fee regarding trash, sewer, or water. 9. That Mel Burrup, the father of the Applicant testified before the Commission that this operation will probably have five (5) employees; that the storage tanks were taken out about four (4) or five (5) months ago; that gravel was put in for filler and when it settles the asphalt will be installed; that to his knowledge there is not any contamination from the property; that the trailer and any inoperable vehicles and clutter around the building and grounds would be cleaned up; that access would be completely around the building; that public seating and lavatory facilities will be available; that there is a fence that runs north, east and west on the property to the back ten (10) feet of the property line to keep people from driving onto the grass. 10. That the Meridian Planning and Zoning Administrator, Shari Stiles, submitted comments and they are incorporated herein as if set forth in full; that all driveway and parking areas are to FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - BURRUP PAGE 3 be paved, landscaped and maintained in accordance with City Ordinance; that remodeling and operation are to comply with all Federal, State and local requirements, with a Certificate of Occupancy to be obtained prior to operation. 11. That the Assistant City Engineer, Bruce Freckleton submitted comments and they are incorporated herein as if set forth in full; that additional fees may be charged for water and sewer usage; that the Applicant will be required to enter into a Re- Assessment Agreement at that time. 12. That the Ada County Highway District (ACRD) submitted site specific requirements; that the existing driveway shall not be changed; that additional direct lot or parcel access to Fairview Avenue is prohibited. 13. That the Central District Health Department, the Meridian Fire Department and the Meridian Police Department submitted comments and they are hereby incorporated herein as if set forth in full. 14. There was no other testimony submitted. 15. That proper notice has been given as required by law and all procedures before the Planning and Zoning Commission have been given and followed. CONCLUBIONS 1. That all the procedural requirements of the Local Planning Act and of the Ordinances of the City of Meridian have been met including the mailing of notice to owners of property within 300 feet of the external boundaries of the Applicant's FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - BURRUP PAGE 4 property. 2. That the City of Meridian has authority to grant conditional uses pursuant to 67-6512, Idaho Code, and, pursuant to 11-2-418 of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian. 3. That the City of Meridian has authority to place conditions on a conditional use permit and the use of the property pursuant to 67-6512, Idaho Code, and pursuant to 11-2-418 D of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian, Idaho. 4. That 11-2-418 C of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian sets forth the standards under which the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council shall review applications for Conditional Use Permits; that upon a review of those requirements and a review of the facts presented and the conditions of the area, the Planning and Zoning Commission concludes as follows: a. The use, would in fact, constitute a conditional use and a conditional use permit is required by ordinance. b. The use should be harmonious with and in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan but the Zoning Ordinance requires a conditional use permit to allow the use. c. The use apparently would be designed and constructed, to be harmonious in appearance with the intended character of the general vicinity. d. That the use would not be hazardous nor should it be disturbing to existing or future neighboring uses. e. The property has sewer and water service available. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - BURRUP PAGE 5 f. The use would not create excessive additional requirements at public cost for public facilities and services and the use would not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. g. The use would not involve a use, activity, process, material, equipment or conditions of operation that would be detrimental to person, property or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic or noise. h. That sufficient parking for the property and the proposed use is required. i. The development and uses will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural or scenic feature of major importance. 5. That the comments of the City Engineer' office and the Planning and Zoning Administrator must be met and complied with. 6. The requirements of the Ada County Bighway District must be met. 7. That all ordinances of the City of Meridian must be met, including but not limited to, the Uniform Building Code, Uniform Fire Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, the Uniform Electrical Code, the Fire and Life Safety Code, all parking and landscaping requirements. 8. That the landscaping must be placed, the parking areas are to be paved and the remodeling and operation are to comply with all Federal, State and local requirements prior to issuance of an occupancy permit. 9. That the structure on the property must be brought up to all codes prior to issuance of an occupancy permit. 10. That the property must be cleaned up and all trash, junk or inioperable vehicles removed prior to issuance of an occupancy FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - BURRUP PAGE 6 permit. APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts and approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONER HEPPER COMMISSIONER ROUNTREE SHEARER VOTED VOTED ~ C .~ VOTED ~(~~' ~ J COMMISSIONER ALIDJANI CHAIRMAN JOHNSON (TIE BREAKER) DECISION AND VOTED VOTED The Meridian Planning and Zoninq Commiasion hereby recommends to the Meridian City Council that they approve the Conditional Use Permit requested by the Applicant for the property described in the application with the conditions aet forth in the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. MOTION: APPROVED• DISAPPROVED• FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - BURRUP PAGE 7 • ~ ORIGINAL BEFORE THE MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION BILLY QUINN ANNEXATION AND ZONING SECTION 6, TOWNSHIP 3 NORTH, RANGE 1 EAST MERIDIAN, IDAHO FINDINO3 OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The above entitled annexation and zoning application having come on for consideration on August 8, 1995, at the hour of 7:30 o•clock p.m. on said date, at the Meridian City Hall, 33 East Idaho Street, Meridian, Idaho, and the Commission having heard and taken oral and written testimony and the Applicant, Billy Quinn, appearing in person, and having duly considered the matter, the Planning and Zoning Commission makes the following: FINDIN(i8 OF FACT 1. That notice of public hearing on the annexation and zoning was published for two (2) consecutive weeks prior to the said public hearing scheduled for August 8, 1995, the first publication of which was fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing; that the matter was duly considered at the August 8, 1995, hearing; that the public was given full opportunity to express comments and submit evidence; and that copies of all notices were made available to newspaper, radio and television stations. 2. That the property included in the application for annexation and zoning is described in the application, and by this reference is incorporated herein; that the property is QUINN - FF/CL Page 1 approximately 2.3 acres in size; it is in Section 6, Township 3 North, Range 1 East of J.E. Pfost's Subdivision, Ada County, Idaho. 3. That the property is presently zoned by the County RT (Rural Transition); that the Applicant requested in his letter of submittal that the property be zoned R-40 High Density Residential; in another document he requested that it be zoned high density residential and light commercial. That adjacent to this property to the south is the boundary line for the City of Meridian; that the property surrounding this property in all directions, save the Cunningham and Rnapp to the east lies in the City of Meridian. 4. The Applicant, Billy Quinn, stated in his application that this property is surrounded by property within the city limits of Meridian; that City water and sewer are trunked to the edge of the property along Meridian Road; that he would like to hook up to Meridian water and sewer enabling him to apply for government insured financing to accomplish a "one time only" lot split between a house on a lot of approximately 9000 foot square; that his plans would be to develop the 2.3 acre portion, to include limited office usage and four-plexes, but that these plans do not include immediate development; that the concept is of a combination office/resident and town houses fronting Meridian Road with some other residential usage further to the east; that the land was within a Mixed/Planned Use Development Area. 5. The Applicant, Billy Quinn, is the owner of record of the property .and has requested this annexation and zoning and the application is not at the request of the City of Meridian. QUINN - FF/CL Page 2 6. That the property included in the annexation and zoning application is within the Area of Impact of the City of Meridian. 7. That the parcel of ground is included within the Meridian Urban Service Planning Area as the Urban Service Planning Area is defined in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. 8. That in the Rural Area section of the Comprehensive Plan, Section 6.3, it does state that land in agricultural activity should so remain in agricultural activity until urban services can be provided. 9. That Mr. Quinn testified that in his discussions with the City Planner that it was arrived at that the R-40 zoning, versus an R-15 zoning, was a reasonable request; that compared to neighbors and the surrounding zoning he might have moderated it a little bit; that he is surrounded by some pretty dense zoning; he stated that he was not ready to develop at this time; he stated that he desired to split his off of this property and use the rest for development; that R-40 is described in the Zoning Ordinance, 11-2-408 B. 6. as follows: (R-401 Hich Density Residential District: The purpose of the (R-40) District is to permit the establishment of high density residential uses at density not exceeding forty (40) dwelling units per acre. Connection to the Municipal Water and Sewer Systems of the City of Meridian is required. and R-15 is defined as follows: fR-151 Medium Hiah Density Residential District - The purpose of the (R-15) District is to permit the establishment of medium-high density single-family attached and multi-family dwellings at a density not exceeding fifteen (15) dwelling units per acre. All such districts must have direct access to a transportation QUINN - FF/CL Page 3 arterial or collector, abut or have direct access to a park or open space corridor, and be connected to the Municipal Water and Sewer systems of the City of Meridian. The predominant housing types in this district will be patio homes, zero lot line single-family dwellings, townhouses, apartment buildings and condominiums. 10. That Shari Stiles, Meridian City Planner, stated that in helping Mr. Quinn with his application, while the purpose was to get hooked up to sewer and water and split his lot, proposing either a tri-plex, or multi-family also with his single family dwelling that he intends to remain there, and also offices; that all of those uses fell under the R-40 zoning without having to go for a variance which the City ran into with the Sciacoe's which lasted for months and months because they wanted to have this little office and then it ended up they had to have a variance to live in the home that was already there as a single family residence; that he has R-40 to the north of him, commercial, general-commercial to the south and Shari Stiles felt that the R-40 was not an inappropriate zone for the property as long as the R-4 properties across Meridian Road are buffered appropriately; that the requirement in the R-15 is that they be adjacent to a park or an open space corridor and that is unlikely with the size of this piece of property. 11. Doris Barrett submitted written testimony; that she lives at 2250 N. Meridian Road and although her property is zoned commercial she is being surrounded by high density zoning; that this application of R-40 be reduced to single family dwellings with a maximum of 5 units per acre so that it would compliment those QUINN - FF/CL Page 4 across the street at Meridian Road. 12. Meridian Police Department, Meridian Fire Department, the Meridian City Engineer, Ada County Highway District, the Meridian School District and the Meridian Planning Director, submitted comments and such are incorporated herein. as if set forth in full. 13. That the Meridian City Engineer's office specifically commented as follows: a. Any existing irrigation/drainage ditches crossing the property to be included in this project, shall be tiled per City Ordinance 11-9-605.M.; plans will need to be approved by the appropriate irrigation/drainage district, or lateral users association, with written confirmation of said approval submitted to the Public Works Department; b. Any existing domestic wells and/or septic systems shall be removed from their domestic service per city Ordinance Section 5-7-517; that wells may be used for non-domestic purposes such as landscape irrigation; c. That water service to this development is contingent upon positive results from a hydraulic analysis by computer model; d. Water service to the proposed site could be via the existing water line stub installed in Blue Beron Lane directly adjacent to the north. e. That a legal description for the proposed site shall be submitted of the annexation perimeter; that it shall be prepared by a Registered Land Surveyor, Licensed by the State of Idaho and shall include all those portions of adjacent Right-of- Ways contiguous to the Corporate City Limits of the City of Meridian; that the legal description must place this parcel contiguous to the existing city limit boundary. f. That assessment fees for water and sewer service are determined during the building plan review process; that in addition to these assessments, water and sewer "Late Comers" fees will also be charges against this parcel to help reimburse .the QUINN - FF/CL Page 5 parties responsible for installing the water and sewer mains to their current points. 14. That Shari Stiles, Planning and Zoning Administrator specifically commented stating as follows: a. That Blue Heron Road, which rune along the northern boundary of this property, was dedicated to the public in J. E. Pfost's Subdivision plat recorded in 1908; that the strip is 33 feet in width; that this road should be improved to ACRD standards at the time of development of the property. b. Meridian Road is identified as an entrance corridor in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan; that a landscape setback of 35 feet beyond required ACRD right-of-way should be provided. c. That detailed landscape plans will be required under the conditional use process. d. That a development agreement is required as a condition of annexation. e. That although Applicant's concept plan does not indicate a density to R-40, it was determined this zoning was necessary to allow the variety of uses proposed without requiring a variance (i.e., single-family, tri-plex, office). 15. That the Ada County Highway District submitted site specific comments; that the Applicant dedicate 45 feet of right-of- way from the centerline of Meridian Road abutting the parcel (15 additional feet) prior to issuance of building permit or other required permits; that restrictions on the width, number and locations of driveways, as required by the District policy, shall be places on future development of this parcel; that direct lot or parcel access to Meridian Road ie prohibited and that lot access restrictions shall be stated on the final plat; that if the private road will be graveled, pave, (a minimum of 20 feet wide), at least QUINN - FF/CL Page 6 20 feet beyond the edge of pavement of Meridian Road; install pavement tapers abutting the existing curb returns on Blue Herron Lane. 16. The Meridian School District submitted comments; that there is no excess capacity in the schools of the District; that the School District asked for support for a development fee or a transfer fee to help offset the costs of building additional schools. 17. That the Meridian Comprehensive Plan, under Land Use, Residential Policies, 2.1U states as follows: "Support a variety of residential categories (urban, rural, single-family, multi-family, townhouses, apartments, condominiums, etc.) for the purpose of providing the City with a range of affordable housing opportunities." 18. That the Meridian Comprehensive Plan, under Land Use, Rural Areas, 6.3 c., it states as follows: "Within the Urban Service Planning Area development may occur in densities as low as 3 dwellings per acre if physical connection is made to existing City of Meridian water and sewer service and the property is platted and subdivided . .' 19. That the Meridian Comprehensive Plan, under Land Use, Rural Areas, 6.4, it states as follows: "Residential development is allowed in the rural area provided that said development does not exceed the Rural Residential Agricultural density, unless it is inside the Urban Service Planning Area and City sewer and water is provided, then Low, Medium and High density residential may be considered. All residential development must also comply with the other appropriate sections of this plan." 20. That the Meridian Comprehensive Plan, under Population, Housing Policies, at page 66, it states as follows: QUINN - FF/CL page 7 "1.1 The City of Meridian intends to provide for a wide diversity of housing types (single-family, modular, mobile homes, multi-family, townhouses, apartments, condominiums." "1.3 An open housing market for all persona, regardless of race, sex, age, religion or ethnic background." "1.4 The development of housing for all income groups close to employment and shopping centers should be encouraged." 21. That there is a population influx into the City of Meridian at the present time which has been going on for some time and is continuing; that the land is relatively close to Meridian and economic conditions are making it difficult to continue farming in the area. 22. That in 1992 the Idaho State Legislature passed amendments to the Local Planning Act, which in 67-6513 Idaho Code, relating to subdivision ordinances, states as follows: "Each such ordinance may provide for mitigation of the effects of subdivision development on the ability of political subdivisions of the state, including school districts, to deliver services without compromising quality of service delivery to current residents or imposing substantial additional costs upon current residents to accommodate the subdivision."; that the City of Meridian is concerned with the increase in population that is occurring and with its impact on the City being able to provide fire, police, emergency health care, water, sewer, parks and recreation services to its current residents and to those moving into the City; the City is also concerned that the increase in population is burdening the schools of the Meridian School District which provide school service to current and future residents of the City; that the City knows that the increase in population does not sufficiently increase the tax base to offset QUINN - FF/CL Page 8 the cost of providing fire, police, emergency health care, water, sewer, parks and recreation services; and the City knows that the increase in population does not provide sufficient tax base to provide for school services to current and future students. 23. That pursuant to the instruction, guidance, and direction of the Idaho State Legislature, the City may impose either a development fee or a transfer fee on residential property, which if possible would be retroactive and apply to all residential lots in the City, because of the imperilment to the health, welfare, and safety of the citizens of the City of Meridian. 24. 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." 25. 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." 26. 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;" 27. 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 QUINN - FF/CL Page 9 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." 28. That Section 11-9-605 L states as follows: Bicycle and pedestrian pathways shall be encouraged within new developments as part of the public right of way or as separate easements so that an alternate transportation system (which is distinct and separate from the automobile) can be provided throughout the City Urban Service Planning Area. The Commission and Council shall consider the Bicycle-Pedestrian Design Manual for Ada County (as prepared by Ada County Highway District) when reviewing bicycle and pedestrian pathway provisions within developments. 29. That the proposed Meridian Comprehensive Plan, under Land Use, Mixed-Planned Use Development, Mixed-Use Area at Locust Grove Road and Fairview Avenue Plus Areas North of Fairview Avenue, at page 28, 5.16U, it states as follows: "All Development requests will be subject to development review and conditional use permit processing to ensure neighborhood compatibility." 30. That the City has rezoned property in the vicinity of QUINN - FF/CL Page 10 • Applicant's property to R-40 but has restricted development to an R-20 standard, because of what that applicant stated. 31. That the Zoning Administrator commented that a development agreement id required as a condition of annexation; that a previous Zoning Administrator commented that an impact fee, to help acquire a future school or park site to serve the area, should be required on annexation, and that annexations should be subject to impact fees for police, and fire services as determined by the city and designated in an approved development agreement; that such comment is equally applicable to this Application. 32. That proper notice was given as required by law and all procedures before the Planning and Zoning Commission were given and followed. CONCLUSIONS 1. That all the procedural requirements of the Local Planning Act and of the Ordinances of the City of Meridian have been met, including the mailing of notice to owners of property within 300 feet of the external boundaries of the Applicant's property. 2. That the City of Meridian has authority to annex land pursuant to 50-222, Idaho Code, and Section 11-2-417 of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian; that exercise of the City's annexation authority is a Legislative function. 3. That the Planning and Zoning Commission has judged this annexation and zoning application under Section 50-222, Idaho Code, Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code, the Meridian City Ordinances, the QUINN - FF/CL Page 11 Meridian Comprehensive Plan, as amended, and the record submitted to it and things of which it can take judicial notice. 4. That all notice and hearing requirements set forth in Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code, and the Ordinances of the City of Meridian have been complied with. 5. That the Commission may take judicial notice of government ordinances, and policies, and of actual conditions existing within the City and State. 6. That the land within the annexation is contiguous to the present City limits of the City of Meridian, and the annexation would not be a shoestring annexation. 7. That the annexation application has been initiated by the Applicant with the consent of the titled owners and the annexation is not upon the initiation of the City of Meridian. 8. That since the annexation and zoning of land is a legislative function, the City has authority to place conditions upon the annexation of land. Burt vs. The City of Idaho Falls, 105 Idaho 65, 665 P.D 1075 (1983). 9. That the development of annexed land must meet and comply with the Ordinances of the City of Meridian and in particular Section 11-9-616, which pertains to development time schedules and requirements, and 11-9-605 M. which pertains to the tiling of ditches and waterways. 10. That the Applicant's property is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, and therefore the annexation and zoning Application is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. QUINN - FF/CL Page 12 11. That the requirements of the Meridian City Engineer's office, including those specifically stated in its comments and those stated herein in these Findings and Conclusions, and of the Ada County Highway District, Nampa 6 Meridian Irrigation District, Meridian Fire Department, U. S. West, and the comments of the Meridian Planning Director shall be met and addressed in a development Agreement. 12. That all ditches, canals, and waterways, including the Hunter Lateral, shall be tiled as a condition of annexation and if not so tiled the property shall be subject to de-annexation. 13. 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 except as otherwise required herein; that, as a condition of annexation, the Applicant shall be requireAd to enter into a development agreement as authorized by 11-2-416 L and 11-2-417 D; that the development agreement shall address the inclusion into the subdivision of the requirements of 11-9-605 C, G 1, H 2, K, L, M and the comments of the Planning Director, Shari Stiles; that the development agreement shall, as a condition of annexation, require that the Applicant, or if required, any assigns, heirs, executors or personal representatives, pay, when required, any impact, development, or transfer fee, adopted by the City; that there shall be no annexation until the requirements of this paragraph are met or, if necessary, the property shall be subject to de-annexation QUINN - FF/CL Page 13 and loss of City services, if the requirements of this paragraph are not met. 14. That proper and adequate access to the property is available and will have to be maintained. 15. That these conditions shall run with the land and bind the applicant, the titled owners, and their assigns. 16. That it is concluded that the Applicant did not have specific plans for development; that the request for R-40 zoning was not made in consideration of specific plans but to avoid the requirement in the R-15 zone that the land have access to a park or open space corridor. 17. That since the City has previously zoned property in the area to R-40 but restricted development to R-20, it is concluded that the City may take similar action in similar cases; the City may also do this because it is an annexation request, which is a legislative action; the Applicant did not request any limitation on the density, but he also did not have any determined plans for development; since it has been done for other land in the area, it is concluded to make logical sense to do that with this property. 18. That it is concluded that since the property is 2.3 acres in size, to zone the property R-15 requiring a park or open space corridor is impractical. 19. That the Applicant shall be required to enter into a Development Agreement. 20. That the requirements of the Meridian City Engineer, and of the Ada County Highway District, Nampa & Meridian Irrigation QUINN - FF/CL Page 14 District, Meridian Fire and Police Departments, and the comments of the Meridian Planning Director, would have to be met and addressed in a development Agreement, if the property is annexed. 21. That all ditches, canals, and waterways would have to be tiled, if the land were annexed, as a condition of annexation and if not so tiled the property shall be subject to de-annexation; that the Applicant shall be required to install a pressurized irrigation system, and if not so done the property shall be subject to de-annexation. 22. That if the property is annexed and zoned the Applicant, and the property, shall meet all of the Ordinances of the City. 23. With compliance of the conditions contained herein, annexation and zoning of R-40 Residential, with restriction on development to R-15, would be in the best interest of the City of Meridian; since that Applicant desired to split off his house, he shall a provide separate legal description for his house and the property should be zoned R-4. 20. That if these conditions of approval are not met the property shall be subject to de-annexation. QUTAiN - FF/CL Page 15 APPROVAL OF FINDIN68 OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts and approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONER HEPPER COMMISSIONER ROUNTREE COMMISSIONER SHEARER COMMISSIONER ALIDJANI CHAIRMAN JOHNSON (TIE BREAKER) DECISION AND VOTED VOTED VOTED ~,'~,,.~ ti ~ S~ 9 ~( ~ VOTED VOTED The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council of the City of Meridian that they approve the annexation and zoning as stated above for the property described in the application with the conditions set forth in the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, including R-4 for Applicant's land that he desires to split off and including R-40 for the land other than the property for his house and he shall provide separate legal descriptions for his house and the property to be zoned R-4; that on the property to be zoned R-40 development shall not occur at a density greater than R-15; that the Applicant and owners be specifically required to the all ditches, canals and waterways as a condition of annexation and that the Applicant meet all of the QUINN - FF/CL Page 16 Ordinances of the City of Meridian, specifically including the development time requirements and entering into the required development agreement, and the conditions of these Findings and Conclusions of Law, and that if the conditions are not met that the property be de-annexed. MOTION: APPROVED: DISAPPROVED: QUINN - FF/CL Page 17 L BEFORS THE PLANNING AND ZONING CONI[ISSION OF THE CITY OF MBRIDIAN JIlI aat.T.s~amYNE ANNEYATION AND ZONING A PORTION OF THH NS 1/4 SECTION 13 T 3N R1 W MSRIDIAN, IDAHO FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The above entitled annexation and zoning application having come on for consideration on August 8, 1995, at the hour of 7:30 o'clock p.m. on said date, at the Meridian City Hall, 33 East Idaho Street, Meridian, Idaho, and the Planning and Zoning Commission having heard and taken oral and written testimony and the Applicant appearing through Wayne S. Forrey, AICP, and having duly considered the matter, the Planning and Zoning Commission makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. That notice of public hearing on the annexation and. zoning was published for two (2) consecutive weeks prior to the said public hearing scheduled for August 8, 1995, the first publication of which was fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing; that the matter was duly considered at the August 8, 1995, hearing; that the public was given full opportunity to express comments and submit evidence; and that copies of all notices were available to newspaper, radio and television stations. 2. That the property included in the application for annexation and zoning is described in the application, and by this reference is incorporated herein; that the property is FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - BALLANTYNE Page 1 approximately 38.25 acres in size; that the property is located South of Franklin Road and West of Meridian Road; that the parcel carries an R-14 designation and an RT designation in Ada County for zoning. 3. That the Applicant is owner of record of the above referenced property in part, as well as David L. Nordling, Paul Troutner, Art Troutner, Dennis E. Heeb, Edward Jenkins and N & D, Inc., Norman G. Fuller, President, and they have submitted consents to the application and have requested this annexation and zoning and the application is not at the request of the City of Meridian. 4. That the Applicant requests that the property be zoned General Retail and Service Commercial (C-G) and Limited Office (L- O); that the L-O District is described in the Zoning Ordinance, 11- 2-408 B. 7. as follows: (L-Ol Limited Office District - The purpose of the (L-O) District is to permit the establishment of groupings of professional, research, executive, administrative, accounting, clerical, stenographic, public service and similar uses. Research uses shall not involve heavy testing operations of any kind or product manufacturing of such a nature to create noise, vibration or emissions of a nature offensive to the overall purpose of this district. The (L-O) District is designed to act as a buffer between other more intense non- residential uses and high density residential uses, and is thus a transitional use. Connection to the Municipal Water and Sewer systems of the City of Meridian is a requirement in this district. That the other 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-G) General Retail and Service Commercial: The purpose of the (C-G) District is to provide for commercial uses which are customarily operated entirely or almost entirely within a FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - BALLANTYNE Paqe 2 building; to provide for a review of the impact of proposed commercial uses which are auto and service oriented and are located in close proximity to major highway or arterial streets; to fulfill the need of travel-related services as well as retail sales for the transient and permanent motoring public. All such districts shall be connected to the Municipal Water and Sewer systems of the City of Meridian, and shall not constitute strip commercial development and encourage clustering of commercial development. 5. That Applicant's representative stated the proposed use for the property will be to allow office development and general commercial development for Meridian tax base; that the portion of property next to the residential lots within Franklin Square Subdivision (excluding Lot 17, Blk 5) will be zoned as Limited Office to provide a buffer land use between Franklin Square Subdivision and the Commercial General located along Franklin Road and Meridian Road; that the area surrounding this property is urbanized and includes commercial development, the Bope Arms Apartments, public indoor and outdoor storage, mobile home park and a residential subdivision; with Limited Office located on the west side of the property. as a buffer to the Franklin Square Subdivision, this annexation plan will blend with existing development and support the City's stated desire to have business uses at this location. He also stated that this annexation request complies with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan which supports office and commercial land uses along Franklin Road and Meridian Road; that it is understood by the Applicants that any uses in the L-O and C-G zone should be processed with a Conditional Uae Permit to allow additional public and City review to address site specific issues FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - BALLANTYNE Page 3 at the time of development; that the Applicants request a development agreement that addresses the conditional use procedure for all development in this annexed property. And Mr. Forrey testified that approximately one (1) year ago Troy Green brought before the Commission his application to develop a mobile home park at this location; that it went through the public hearing process where the citizens voices were heard regarding protecting local property values, creating a property tax base, concern about school attendance and their concerns over having good landscape buffers right next to their subdivision; that the Commission recommended denial and the Application proceeded no further. That this request for annexation to Limited Office and General Retail and Service Commercial will be good for the residents in Franklin Square Subdivision; that any development that would occur there should be done under the conditional use permit process; that maximum citizen involvement is what the residents requested during the Troy Green project and this will offer the residents total involvement as to what is developed at the site. Mr. Forrey testified that the developer would expect there to be a development agreement fully approved and negotiated before any processing of any conditional use permits on the property; that to this date, no specific use has been expressed; that the staff reports have been reviewed by the developer and that there are no objections; that the residents/neighbors would give input as to type and how wide the landscaping buffer would be; that a good FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - BALLANTYNE Page 4 setback of maybe 35 feet along the back on the west edge of the L-O and next to Franklin Square Subdivision with a creative kind of easement that would give the people that back up to this property a way to access their backyards, is something that can be easily worked out in each development proposal; that as far as the business uses there is really no demand to use the local streets, Pennwood or Barrett; that the attraction is Meridian and Franklin Roads and the two business interests that the developer is looking at now are offers to get access to both of those arterials; that it is entirely possible to have either no connection and cul-de-sac those streets or a very indirect way as an outlet and a convenience to the subdivision but not necessarily be a convenience or necessary for the office or commercial development and that any connection there would be fairly secondary and not primary at all in the development concept. 6. That the developer, Jim Ballantyne, testified that a small strip of land owned by Norm Fuller may be an easement; that it is a 50 foot easement. That the City Attorney, Wayne G. Crookston, Jr. stated that the 50 foot easement would have to be annexed to be able to be used for a drive and that consent of the owner would be necessary; that consent was received prior to preparation of these Findings of Fact. 7. Mike Weavers testified regarding what the current zoning of R14 with the County is; he questioned whether Barrett Street and Pennwood Street would remain dead end streets or become cul-de-sacs or through streets; that he would like to see a layout of roadwork FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - BALLANTYNE Page 5 +~ ! of the area designated for L-O and whether roads will be directly behind the houses with a buffer zone and what type of a buffer zone will be available, chain link fence, wooden fence, a grass buffer, or a concrete barrier. 8. Raymond Kutch offered testimony regarding the proposed Limited Office (L-O) and how can the City annex something when it does not know what is to be put there and he also questioned as to how C-G allows access through L-O; and with regards to the buffer, he suggested that possibly Applicant would be allowed to buy some land directly behind their homes so they could have a permanent buffer. 9. Karen Gallagher, for the Ada County Highway District, testified that staff has discussed in general that the roadway network for this project would begin with a connection to Franklin Road and that would align with a lumber store across the way; that second would be what is coming from Franklin Road; that ACHD ie not sure how the easement is going to align as an offset with Gem Street and the approved accesses for the office developments that have been approved south of Gem Street; that details have not been looked at in specifics at this point; that certain proposals are being discussed and would take into consideration the extension of Corporate Drive through the parcel to the south through the rental center; that discussion has begun with some developers and their applicants; that when that road is before us and does become a reality, the Ada County Highway District would be looking for a connection from the extension of Corporate to this development, so FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - BALLANTYNE Page 6 stub streets would be a part of that; that connections from residential to office are usually good compatible land uses and the ACHD supports connections between residential and abutting commercial; that until ACHD sees specific proposals and those land uses are known, it is hard to make determinations on how it is going to work. Karen Gallagher further stated that the Ada County zone of R14 was a highly dense use which could easily allow duplexes, tri- plexes or four plexes; that as long as there is not a cut through adding more commercial traffic to the residential, but just providing a convenient connection, that there would be at least a 50/50, if not higher chance, that Barrett Street and Pennwood would be continued streets; but there is a possibility, depending on the development that comes in, that those could be cul-de-sacs and leave them as residential and that staff has been supportive of those indirect connections. 10. That Sharlene and Doug Danielson testified that the traffic now is of concern; that already people don't observe the stop sign at the corner of Kearney and Pennwood and to say now that the possibility exists that Pennwood is opened up to go through to this new development, the traffic will just be awful; that Mr. Danielson stated that if Pennwood was connected straight through to Meridian Road the access would be such that you could avoid getting on Franklin at all, not only for the residents to the west of this proposed annexation, but also residents to the west of his subdivision who presently use Lynwood or Southwest 12th; that FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - BALLANTYNE Page 7 • Pennwood would be a very convenient street for all of those residents to be using; that the stop sign on Southwest 7th and Pennwood is not observed and that 9 out of 10 cars, including police officers who patrol the area, do not come to a complete atop and 3 out of 10 ease through the stop sign, with 6 out of 10 just flat run it; that the speed limit of 25 mph is not enforced and all in all it's an accident waiting to happen. 11. That Don and Christine Mace submitted written testimony; that their property is lot #20 in Lynhurst Place; that the area to be zoned L-O will be right next to their backyard; that the request for Limited Office and Commercial General seems more practical and workable than the earlier request for a 240 space mobile home park and that they have no objections to this request; that their concerns lie with the extension of the streets and to the type of buffer between the office areas and the homes; that they do not want to look across their back yard and see a chain link fence with a parking lot and there should be no reason that a green belt type buffer cannot be created between the homes already existing in their subdivision and new office buildings. 12. That Bruce Freckleton, Assistant City Engineer, submitted comments; that water service is contingent upon positive results from a hydraulic analysis; that any existing irrigation/drainage ditches crossing the property shall be tiled; that any existing domestic wells and/or septic systems within this project will have to be removed from their domestic service per City Ordinance, but wells may be used for non-domestic purposes such as landscape FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - BALLANTYNE Page 8 • ~ irrigation; that the developer will be responsible for the design and construction of Water and Sanitary Sewer mains into the property and shall meet all of the requirements of the City of Meridian Public Works Department. 13. That Shari Stiles, Planning and Zoning Administrator, submitted comments that a landscape setback of 35 feet beyond the required Ada County Highway District right-of-way along the identified entrance corridors of both Meridian Road and Franklin Road should be provided; that a detailed landscape plan will be required as part of a conditional use process; that since no specific plans are shown, that any uses on this site should be considered under the conditional use process and that "strip" development should not be allowed; that a development agreement is required as a condition of annexation. 14. That in prior requests for annexation and zoning the former Planning Director had commented that annexation could be conditioned on a development agreement including an impact fee to help acquire future school or park sites to serve the area and that annexations should be subject to impact fees for park, police, and fire services as determined by the City and designated in an approved development agreement. 15. That the Ada County Highway District submitted site specific comments regarding this annexation; that 45 feet of right- of-way be dedicated from the centerline of Franklin Road abutting the parcel (20-additional feet) prior to issuance of a building permit (or other required permits); that required street FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - BALLANTYNE Page 9 • improvements of 50 feet of 5 foot sidewalk on Meridian Road abutting the parcel and required street improvements of 260 feet of 5 foot sidewalk on Franklin Road abutting the parcel be made by providing a deposit to the Public Rights-of-Way Trust Fund, prior to issuance of a building permit (or other required permits); that the driveway or street connections to Franklin Road shall align with the existing driveway to the Hoff Building Supply on the north side of Franklin or shall maintain minimum offsets; that driveway or street connections to Meridian Road maintain minimum offsets, and that additional restriction on the width, number and locations of driveways, as required by District policy, shall be placed on future development of this parcel. 16. That the Meridian Police and Fire Department Departments submitted comments as did the Central District Health Department; that all such comments are incorporated herein as if set forth in full. 17. That the property included in the annexation and zoning application is within the Area of Impact of the City of Meridian. 18. 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. 19. That the property can be physically serviced with City sewer; that the City Engineer has recently questioned the ability of the City to provide water and water service is contingent upon positive results from a hydraulic analysis by the City's computer FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - BALLANTYNE Page 10 model. 20. 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 commercial uses. 21. That the property is not included within any particular area designated on the Generalized Land Use Map in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan; that the property is shown as an existing urban area. 23. That it is specifically found that the Applicant did not present a concept and did not present a subdivision plat or any other specific or concrete plan of development; that Applicant only presented verbal indications as to what might be developed on the property. 24. That in the Rural Area section of the Comprehensive Plan, Land Use, Rural Areas, page 29, it states as follows: "Land covered by this policy section has characteristics which 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." 25. That Section 6.3, of the LAND USE section of the Comprehensive Plan, states that land in agricultural activity should so remain in agricultural activity until urban services (municipal sewer and water facilities) can be provided. 26. That Section 6.7U, of the LAND USE section of the FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - BALLANTYNE Paqe 11 • Comprehensive Plan, states as follows: "Existing rural residential land uses and farms/ranches shall be buffered from urban development expanding into rural areas by innovative land use planning techniques." 27. That the requested zoning of Limited Office (L-O) and General Retail and Service Commercial, (C-G), are defined in the Zoning Ordinance at 11-2-408 B. 7. and 11. as follows: (L-01 Limited Office District - The purpose of the (L-O) District is to permit the establishment of groupings of professional, research, executive, administrative, accounting, clerical, stenographic, public service and similar uses. Research uses shall not involve heavy testing operations of any kind or product manufacturing of such a nature to create noise, vibration or emissions of a nature offensive to the overall purpose of this district. The (L-O) District is designed to act as a buffer between other more intense non- residential uses and high density residential uses, and is thus a transitional use. Connection to the Municipal Water and Sewer systems of the City of Meridian is a requirement in this district. (C-G) General Retail and Service Commercial: The purpose of the (C-G) District is to provide for commercial uses which are customarily operated entirely or almost entirely within a building; to provide for a review of the impact of proposed commercial uses which are auto and service oriented and are located in close proximity to major highway or arterial streets; to fulfill the need of travel-related services as well as retail sales for the transient and permanent motoring public. All such districts shall be connected to the Municipal Water and Sewer systems of the City of Meridian, and shall not constitute strip commercial development and encourage clustering of commercial development. 28. That in 1992 the Idaho State Legislature passed amendments to the Local Planning Act, which in 67-6513 Idaho Code, relating to subdivision ordinances, states as follows: "Each such ordinance may provide for mitigation of the effects of subdivision development on the ability of political subdivisions of the state, including school districts, to deliver services without compromising quality of service delivery to current residents or imposing substantial additional costs upon current residents to accommodate the FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - BALLANTYNE Page 12 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 providing fire, police, emergency health care, water, sewer, parks, recreation services or school needs; and the City knows that new developments of commercial and industrial developments do increase the tax base so that some funds to provide for school services for current and future students can be raised. 29. 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. 30. 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." FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - BALLANTYNE Page 13 31. 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." 32. That Section 11-9-605 B 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;" 33. That Section 11-9-605 R 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." 34. That Section 11-9-605 L states as follows: "Bicycle and pedestrian pathways shall be encouraged within FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - BALLANTYNE Page 14 new developments as part of the public right of way or as separate easements so that an alternate transportation system (which is distinct and separate from the automobile) can be provided throughout the City Urban Service Planning Area. The Commission and Council shall consider the Bicycle-Pedestrian Design Manual for Ada County (as prepared by Ada County Highway District) when reviewing bicycle and pedestrian pathway provisions within developments." 35. That 11-9-607 A, of the Subdivision Ordinance, states in part as follows: "The City's policy is to encourage developers of land development and construction projects to utilize the provisions of this Section to achieve the following: 1. A development pattern in accord with the goals, objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan; 5. A more convenient pattern of commercial, residential and industrial uses as well as public services which support such uses." 7. A development pattern which preserves neighborhood development and stability and encourages a socioeconomic mixture of people within a given environment. 37. 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. 1. That all the procedural requirements of the Local Planning Act and of the Ordinances of the City of Meridian have been met; including the mailing of notice to owners of property within 300 feet of the external boundaries of the Applicant's property. 2. That the City of Meridian has authority to annex land pursuant to 50-222, Idaho Code, and Section 11-2-417 of the Revised FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - BALLANTYNE Page 15 • and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian; that exercise of the City's annexation authority is a legislative function. 3. 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. 4. That all notice and hearing requirements set forth in Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code, and the Ordinances of the City of Meridian have been complied with. 5. That the Council may take judicial notice of government ordinances, and policies, and of actual conditions existing within the City and State. 6. That the land within the proposed annexation is contiguous to the present City limits of the City of Meridian, and the annexation would not be a shoestring annexation. 7. That the annexation application has been initiated by the Applicant with the consent of the property owner, and is not upon the initiation of the City of Meridian. B. That since the annexation and zoning of land is a legislative function, the City has authority to place conditions upon the annexation of land. Burt vs. The City of Idaho Falls, 105 Idaho 65, 665 P.D 1075 (1983). 9. That the development of annexed land must meet and comply with the Ordinances of the City of Meridian and in particular Section 11-9-616, which pertains to development time schedules and FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - BALLANTYNE Page 16 • requirements, and Section 11-9-605 M., which pertains to the tiling of ditches and waterways and 11-9-606 14., which requires pressurized irrigation. 10. That the Applicant's proposed use of the property is not shown to be in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan because the Comprehensive Plan lists this area only as being in existing urban; that it is concluded that development of this area is very similar to development that would be done at Locust Grove Road and Franklin Road, Locust Grove Road and Fairview Avenue, and Eagle Road and Overland Road, all of which are in Mixed/Planned Use Development areas; it is therefore concluded that the annexation and zoning Application would be in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan and annexation and zoning should meat the same requirements as developments in the Mixed/Planned Use Development areas at Locust Grove Road and Franklin Road, Locust Grove Road and Fairview Avenue, Eagle Road and Overland Road. 11. The Applicant stated, in the annexation Application, its intention as to development, which is to provide office development and general commercial development. It was also stated that it is understood by the Applicants that any uses in the L-0 and C-G zone should be processed with a Conditional Uae Permit to allow additional public and City review to address site specific issues at the time of development and that the Applicants request a development agreement that addresses the conditional use procedure for all development in this annexed property. 12. That the City adopted the Comprehensive Plan at its FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - BALLANTYNE Page 17 i ~ meeting on January 4, 1994, and has not amended the Zoning Ordinance to reflect the changes made in the Comprehensive Plan; thus, uses may be called for or allowed in the Comprehensive Plan but the Zoning Ordinance may not address provisions for the use; it is concluded that upon annexation, as conditions of annexation, the City may impose restrictions that are not otherwise contained in the current Zoning and Subdivision and Development Ordinances. 13. That it is concluded that since the Applicant stated that it was understood by the Applicants that any uses in the L-O and C- G zone should be processed with a Conditional Use Permit, which is done in the Mixed/Planned Use Development areas, it is therefore concluded that development of the parcel of land should be conditioned on being developed as a Commercial Planned Development, which is permitted in the General Retail and Service Commercial (C- G) district and is a conditional use in the Limited Office district. 14. Therefore, it is concluded that the property should be annexed and zoned General Retail and Service Commercial (C-G) and Limited Office (L-O), but only capable of being developed as a planned commercial development under the conditional use permit process. 15. That since Applicant's representative stated that they desired a development agreement, as a condition of annexation and the zoning of L-O and 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 FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - BALLANTYNE Page 18 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. Payment by the Applicant, or if required, any assigns, heirs, executors or personal representatives, of any impact, development, or transfer fee, adopted by the City. 3. Addressing the subdivision access linkage, screening, buffering, transitional land uses, traffic study and recreation services. 4. An impact fee to help acquire a future school or park sites to serve the area. 5. An impact fee, or fees, for park, police, and fire services as determined by the city. 6. Appropriate berming and landscaping. 7. Submission and approval of any required plats. 8. Submission and approval of individual building, drainage, lighting, parking, and other development plans under the Planned Development guidelines. 9. Harmonizing and integrating the site improvements with the existing residential development. 10. Establishing the 35 foot landscaped setback required by the Planning Director and landscaping the same. 11. Addressing the comments of the Planning Director, Shari Stiles. 12. The sewer and water requirements. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - BALLANTYNE Page 19 • 13. Traffic plans and access into and out of the development. 16. 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. 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. 17. That it is concluded that the annexing and zoning of the property is in the beat interests of the City of Meridian, but it is concluded that there should be no annexation until the requirements of these Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are agreed to by the Applicant and the owners of the property; the annexation and zoning should be conditioned upon reaching that agreement. 18. That the requirements of the Meridian Police Department, Meridian Fire Department, Meridian City Engineer's office, Ada County Highway District, Meridian Planning Director, and the Central District Health Department, shall be met and addressed in a development agreement. 19. That all ditches, canals, and waterways shall be tiled as a condition of annexation and if not so tiled, the property shall FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - BALLANTYNE Page 20 • be subject to de-annexation. That pressurized irrigation shall be installed and constructed, and if not so done the property shall be subject to de-annexation. 20. 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. 21. That these conditions shall run with the land and bind the applicant and its assigns. 22. With compliance of the conditions contained herein, the annexation and zoning of Limited Office (L-O) and General Retail and Service Commercial (C-G), would be in the best interest of the City of Meridian; that Applicant shall provide legal descriptions for property to be zoned Limited Office (L-O) and the property to be zoned General Retail and Service Commercial (C-G) prior to enactment of the annexation and zoning ordinance, and such legal description shall be agreed upon by the City. 23. That if these conditions of approval are not met, the property shall not be annexed. 24. That, as found above, the Applicant did not present a subdivision plat or any other specific or concrete plan of development and Applicant only presented verbal indications as to what might be developed on the property; in a prior application for annexation and zoning the City Council decided that the application should be denied because no plat or concrete plan was presented; FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - BALLANTYNE Page 21 • the Commission is in a quandary over making a recommendation of approval since no plat or concrete plan was presented; that the Commission would like to receive direction from the City Council as whether the Commission should make approval recommendation where no plats or specifics on development are presented. It is, however, concluded that this proposal is the best proposal that the Commission has received for this parcel of property and should make a recommendation of approval. APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts and approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONER HEPPER VOTED COMMISSIONER ROUNTREE VOTED ~~~~~• ~~~////ps~ COMMISSIONER SHEARER VOTED~~ ~'~' "tt q' COMMISSIONER ALIDJANI VOTED (~ CHAIRMAN JOHNSON (TIE BREAKER) VOTED U The Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends that the property set forth in the application be approved by the City Council for annexation and zoning under the conditions set forth in these Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, including that the Applicant enter into a development agreement prior to issuance of a building permit; that if the Applicant is not agreeable with these Findings of Fact and Conclusions and is not agreeable with entering into a development agreement, the property should not be annexed. MOTION: APPROVED: DISAPPROVEDs FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - BALLANTYNE Page 22 • i°~ BALLANTYNE ANNEXATIQN BEQUEST 1. Him _- July 1994 -Troy Green Associates request for Mobile Home Parlc denied by City of Meridian. 2. t es~ona I earned from Troy Green Proposal Neighbors in Franklin. Square Subdivision and City officials want: • Ballantyne property to increase City tax base. • Ballantyne property to minimize school: attendance impacts. • Ballantyne property to protect local property values. • Ballantyne property to have-landscape. buffers next to Franklin Square Subdivision. 3. g~Ronse to Citizen and City C'~a~Prns -New Annexation Re°~~est / ~1_l development on Ballantyne property to be conducted through Conditional Use Permit Process for maximum citizen involvement. / Office and Commercial uses planned to ieerease City tax revenue for services and help incrgase Meridian School District revenue. / Limited Office (L-O) uses next to Franktin Square Subdivision as a compatible land use traesition. / Commercial General (C-G) uses located sway from Franklin Square Subdivision and next is existing C-G and Hope Arms Apartments. / Development Agreement prior to any Conditional Use Permit processing. "i ,L~_ 1 _.-_:.__ ~. acre y ~~. ~,r ~ La ~. y ~_ y K~6 ~F..~4.-.3 -`2- II aFRETT sr I 7 ,' 6 15 4..i3 'li 2 ~; I. ~r !0 III i12 l3-`14 i5 IE ULMER CT. ' r -i Ii 23 122 I I ~OC9 1 i y ~.. z6~z712e , iaN^vER I o' - .39~38~37i361g5'-~ i I I ~ t--;. _ ._ _..__i--. 42 I4; ; 44- ~.5~6~2 . NNWMf7 I;T 1 J _ _.. ~ y '~... 51~' ~~ 1013 ice' - I ~ '._ a,ju,~ 9'~4 13.2: 8115 ~~16 S~ - Cp ~~F -r RT N Club y ~ : ,~ ,: o- ' zf .r L. ~ w ~ 24 ~i 9 f~/pti 1 ~`!_~ '. ~=~ ~ is ~ u I 'r \ ~:. -- ®~'~ - -~ 1 ~ ~~~ !- -f- C ~~.~~~° _..__. w a '2'. 4 ~ _-~~_ ADA ~UN-'~NG A9~~ ~u~ ~ ~ ~ C•G -3 - f ,.~ -~-~ i,~ ~ -~ ~- ,. ,~ ~ f~~, 1~ n I~ i ~ SANE rm /~~ r- ..n. ..a.~r-__ -lOCr 1 _ _-. _. I I~ - ~~ d - [. (J Y i/)' __ _. b -~'~ -,~~- ,~ ~ =oA-I - 'iF- _.__.-._ ~~ • ~ ^e ~•_ "_~~ ~ I. _.