1995 07-11
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
AGENDA
TUESDAY, JULY 11, 1995 - 7:30 P.M.
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING HELD JUNE 13, 1995:
(APPROVED)
MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING HELD JUNE 22, 1995:
(APPROVED)
TABLED JUNE 13, 1995: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR CENTRAL VALLEY
CORPORATE PARK PHASE 5 BY RON NAHAS: (TABLED UNTIL
AUGUST 8, 1995)
2. TABLED JUNE 22, 1995: ACCESSORY USE PERMIT TO SELL AN
OCCASIONAL FIREARM BY JIM COMBE: (APPLICATION WITHDRAWN)
3. TABLED JUNE 22, 1995: PUBLIC HEARING FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING
FOR PACKARD SUBDMSION NO.2 BY PNE/EDMONDS
CONSTRUCTION: (TABLED UNTIL AUGUST 8, 1995)
4. TABLED JUNE 22, 1995: PUBLIC HEARING FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR
PACKARD SUBDIVISION NO.2 BY PNE/EDMONDS CONSTRUCTION:
(TABLED UNTIL AUGUST 8, 1895)
5. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR ANNEXATION AND
ZONING REQUEST WITH A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN
APPROXIMATELY 700,000 SQUARE FOOT RETAIL PROJECT BY
LANGLY AND ASSOCIATES: (TABLED UNTIL SEPTEMBER 12, 1995)
6. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR ANNEXATION AND
20NING REQUEST OF 42.02 ACRES TO R-4 FOR WHITESTONE
ESTATES SUBDIVISION BY WHITESTONE ESTATES PARTNERSHIP:
(APPROVED; PASS ON FAVORABLE RECOMMNEDATION)
7. PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR WHITESTONE ESTATES SUBDNISION BY
WHITESTONE ESTATES PARTNERSHIP: (APPROVED; PASS ON
FAVORABLE RECOMMENDATION)
8. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR ANNEXATION AND
ZONING REQUEST OF 4.5 ACRES TO C-G BY JACKSON FOOD STORES:
(APPROVED; PASS ON FAVORABLE RECOMMEEDATION)
9. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A TRAVEL CENTER BY JACKSON FOOD
STORES: (CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE FINDINGS OF FACT AND
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW)
10. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR ANNEXATION AND
ZONING REQUEST OF 180 ACRES FOR HIGHLANDS RANCH
SUBDMSION BY GEM PARK II PARTNERSHIP: (APPROVED; APPROVED
RECOMMENDATION)
11. PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR HIGHLANDS RANCH SUBDIVISION BY GEM PARK
II PARTNERSHIP TABLED JUNE 13, 1995: (TABLED UNTIL AUGUST
8, 1995)
12. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR HIGHLANDS RANCH SUBDIVISION BY
GEM PARK II PARTNERSHIP TABLED JUNE 13, 1995: (TABLED UNTIL
AUGUST 8, 1995)
13. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR ANNEXATION AND
ZONING OF 22.24 ACRES TO R-4 FOR LOS ALAMITOS SUBDIVISION
N0. 3 BY FARWEST DEVELOPERS: (APPROVED; PASS ON A
FAVORABLE RECOMMENDATION)
14. PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR LOS ALAMITOS SUBDMSION NO.3 BY FARWEST
DEVELOPERS TABLED JUNE 13, 1995: (PASS ON A FAVORABLE
RECOMMENDATION)
15. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR ANNEXATION AND
ZONING OF 23.27 ACRES TO R-4 FOR SALMON RAPIDS SUBDMSION
N0. 3 BY FARWEST DEVELOPERS: (APPROVED; PASS ON A
FAVORABLE RECOMMENDATION)
16. PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR SALMON RAPIDS SUBDMSION N0.3 BY FARWEST
DEVELOPERS TABLED JUNE 13, 1995: (PASS ON A FAVORABLE
RECOMMENDATION)
17. MODIFIED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR
ANNEXATION AND ZONING REQUEST TO C-G BY MICHAEL PRESTON:
(APPROVED; APPROVE RECOMMENDATION)
18. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT REQUEST TO OPERATE A RETAIL BAKERY BY ROBERT
PREECE: (APPROVED; APPROVE RECOMMENDATION)
19. AMENDED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR
ANNEXATION AND ZONING REQUEST FOR THE LAKE AT CHERRY
LANE NO. 5 AND 6 BY STEINER DEVELOPMENT: (APPROVED;
APPROVE RECOMMENDATION)
20. PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR THE LAKE AT CHERRY LANE NO.5 AND 6 BY
STEINER DEVELOPMENT: (TABLED UNTIL AUGUST 8, 1995)
21. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 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: (CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE FINDINGS
OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW)
22. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO
CONSTRUCT A 6,000 SO. FT. MULTI-TENANT RETAIL PAD WITH DRIVE
THRU FACILITIES FOR LOT 5 -BLOCK 1 OF AVEST PLAZA BY AVEST
LIMITED PARTNERSHIP: (CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE FINDINGS
OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW)
23. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR AN ACCESSORY USE. PERMIT FOR AN
OFFICE FOR A SMALL PLUMBING COMPANY BY JAMES WALSH:
(CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE FINDINGS OF FACT AND
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW)
24. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A
DAY CARE BY WILLIAM AND CINDY WALGAMOTT: (CITY ATTORNEY
TO PREPARE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW)
25. PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A SIDEWALK CAFE BY
HARRY'S BAR AND GRILL: (CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE FINDINGS
OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW)
26. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF 4.54 ACRES
TO LtAAITED OFFICE FOR TREASURE VALLEY BAPTIST CHURCH BY
RICH~11'~D DEMICHELE: (GITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE FINDINGS AF
FACT AfVt1 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW)
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
AGENDA
TUESDAY, JULY 11, 1995 - 7:30 P.M.
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING HELD JUNE 13, 1995: a~rro/e
MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING HELD JUNE 22, 1995: a~PiU~e,
TABLED JUNE 13, 1995: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR CENTRAL VALLEY
CORPORATE PARK PHASE 5 BY RON NAHAS: fd~eu~ ~~~ &~~ dh
2. TABLED JUNE 22, 1995: ACCESSORY USE PERMIT TO SELL AN
OCCASIONAL FIREARM BY JIM COMBE: ~~ c{~~ ~~fi~
~i~~QfQw ret~r;.c;rf by rc,d~iz~i..~
3. TABLED JUNE 22, 1995: PUBLIC HEARING FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING
FOR PACKARD SUBDIVISION NO. 2 BY PNE/EDMONDS
CONSTRUCTION: -~,.a~'e ~~~~~~~:~:.. ~~'` ~"'.'`,~•
4. TABLED JUNE 22, 1995: PUBLIC HEARING FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR
PACKARD SUBDMSION N0.2 BY PNE/EDMONDS CONSTRUCTION:
5. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR ANNEXATION AND
ZONING REQUEST WITH A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN
APPROXIMATELY 700,000 SQUARE FOOT RETAIL PROJECT BY
LANGLY AND ASSOCIATES:
6. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR ANNEXATION AND
ZONING REQUEST OF 42.02 ACRES TO R-4 FOR WHITESTONE
ESTATES SUBpN~S19N BY WHITESTONE ESTATES PARTNERSHIP:
k~~n~a~.e ~/`~/F ~ C~/I a~y~o~t ve«~.r~ d~cfi~
7. PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR WHITESTONE ESTATES SUBDIVISION BY
WHITESTONE ESTATES PARTNERSHIP:
RP~prove tec nn. n..+,,,daf7bx>
8. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR ANNEXATION AND
ZONING REQU~T OF 4.5 ACRES TO C-G BY JACKSON FOOD STORES:
ci~p~o/e ~F ~ e/L
9. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A TRAVEL CENTER BY JACKSON FOOD
STORES:
10. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR ANNEXATION AND
ZONING REQUEST OF 180 ACRES FOR HIGHLANDS RANCH
SUBDMSION BY GEM PARK II PARTNERSHIP:
aQj~~-v v~ f ~~ ~ e /L
~t~pYw~e YPCa~a-~zT-daha'„
11. PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR HIGHLANDS RANCH SUBDIVISION BY GEM PARK
II PARTNERSHIP TABLED JUNE 13, 1995:
12. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR HIGHLANDS RANCH SUBDIVISION BY
GEM PARK II PARTNERSHIP TABLED JUNE 13, 1995:
~t.5~z Lcn,fiZ ~u~. 8~
13. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR ANNEXATION AND
ZONING OF 22.24 ACRES TO R-4 FOR LOS ALAMITOS SUBDIVISION
NO.3 BY FARWEST DEVELOPERS: q~provP ~/pt `'/L
G~prm,.'e ~-c~cor~ h..enclafib~
14. PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR LOS ALAMITOS SUBDMSION NO. 3 BY FARWEST
DEVELOPERS TABLED JUNE 13, 1995:
-EE~"9°`~ {~ kSS cn. {a voz.w ~- rP ~o r~ v~. e,-~, a'w tad-,-i
15. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR ANNEXATION AND
ZONING OF 23.27 ACRES TO R-4 FOR SALMON RAPIDS SUBDIVISION
NO. 3 BY FARWEST DEVELOPERS: ~Pp~"' ~~~ ~ ~'~~
16. PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR SALMON RAPIDS SUBDMSION N0.3 BY FARWEST
DEVELOPERS TABLED JUNE 13, 1995:
~asr pvl ~vp'ia-<aZe ~-ecov..rr-~-da~,t~..
17. MODIFIED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR
ANNEXATION AND ZONING REQUEST TO C'-G BY MICHAEL PRESTON:
18. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT REQUEST TO OPERATE A RETAIL BAKERY BY ROBERT
PREECE: ~.~{ ~ G,~~
~i~piv ve
19. AMENDED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR
ANNEXATION AND ZONING REQUEST FOR THE LAKE AT CHERRY
LANE NO. S AND 6 BY STEINER DEVELOPMENT:
G~~/-o/P ~/F ~G'/l U~~O,o/t' I~eCOrn,o~~rf'~~bh-
20. PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR THE LAKE AT CHERRY LANE N0.5 AND 6 BY
STEINER DEVELOPMENT:
fic~x rte.-t~~/~-+~t'.~a.c'~ ti,.-h7 /~~, g~
21. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 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: ~`~
t~,~ ~ t~r~~f -tv p ye per' ~ ~~
22. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 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:
23. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR AN ACCESSORY USE PERMIT FOR AN
OFFICE FOR A SMALL PLUMBIyG COMPANY BY JAMES WALSH:
~'~kf atFaz..ey ~~P~ ~/~ ~~lc
24. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A
DAY CARE BY WILLIAM AND CIN Y WALGAMOTT:
~~ ~ Cu- tz~~ y' ~ ~, p~a.,.e ~~f ~ c/L
25. PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A SIDEWALK CAFE BY
HARRY'S BAR AND GRILL: ,~
r~ --% /~fl~n.t to /~~~~e ~~~' ~ c t
26. PUBLIC HEARING: REt~UEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF 4.54 ACRES
TO LIMITED OFFICE FOR TREASURE VALLEY BAPTIST CHURCH BY
RICHARD DEMICHELE:
~~~1?r ~cflZvr.eJ ~ /.~.zjaa,~z ~~~ f c'/i
CITY OF MERIDIAN
PUBLIC ME ~ ING SIGN-UP SHEET 7 //` ~5
NAME PHONE NUMBER
2~S' ~
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JULY 11. 1995
The regular meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order
by Chairman Jim Johnson at 7:30 P.M.:
MEMBERS PRESENT: Tim Hepper, Charlie Rountree, Jim Shearer:
MEMBERS ABSENT: Moe Alidjani:
OTHERS PRESENT: WiII Berg, Wayne Crookston, Gary Smith, Shari Stiles, Helen Sharp,
Dale Sharp, Jeanne and James Walsh, Frank Graham, Billie Jo Premoe, Vem Alleman,
Chad Jolly, Julie Verba, Wayne Forrey, Janice Gaffin, Malcolm MacCoy, Ted Hutchinson,
Craig Thompson, Tom Bauens, Mary Cahoun, Elizabeth Gwin, Denise Milner, Ronald.
Glass, William Walgamott, Steve Youngerman:
MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING HELD JUNE 13, 1995:
Johnson: You have the minutes before you are there any correction, deletions or additions
to these minutes as written? Entertain a motion for approval of the minutes.
Rountree: Mr. Chairman, t so move.
Hepper: Second
Johnson: Moved and seconded we approve the minutes as written for the meeting of June
13, 1995, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING HELD JUNE 22, 1995:
Johnson: Are there any comments, discussion, changes, additions or deletions to these
minutes as written?
Hepper: Mr. Chairman, I move that we approve the minutes of the special meeting on June
22.
Rountree: Second
Johnson: We have a motion for approval of the June 22 minutes with a second, all those
in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #1: TABLED JUNE 13, 1995: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR CENTRAL VALLEY
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
July 11, 1995
Page 2
CORPORATE PARK PHASE 5 BY RON NAHAS:
Johnson: We have a letter that the applicant desires this to be pushed forward, we need
to do this to a date certain. The date requested is 8-8-95 which is our next regularly
scheduled meeting.
Rountree: Mr. Chairman, I move that we put this item on table until our next regularly
scheduled meeting August 8.
Hepper: Second
Johnson: Moved and seconded that we table item #1 until our August meeting, all those
in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #2: TABLED JUNE 22, 1995: ACCESSORY USE PERMIT TO SELL AN
OCCASIONAL FIREARM BY JIM COMBE:
Johnson: We have a letter from Mr. Combe asking to withdraw this request and withdraw
his application. Does that take any kind of action Wayne?
Crookston: No, you need a motion to take it off the table and then a motion to withdraw it.
Rountree: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion that we take item 2 off the table and withdraw
per the request of the app-icant.
Hepper: Second
Johnson: Moved and seconded that we take this item off the table and approve the
request by the applicant to withdraw his application, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #3: TABLED JUNE 22, 1995: PUBLIC HEARING FOR ANNEXATION AND
ZONING FOR PACKARD SUBDIVISION NO. 2 BY PNE/EDMONDS CONSTRUCTION:
Johnson: At this point I will step down because I have an apparent conflict of interest.
Rountree: 1 need to check with the City Attorney, is it optional to take more testimony. We
held it open to receive the testimony of ACHD which we have done and staff comments.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
July 11, 1995
Page 3
Crookston: If those were the only things that is was left open for that is all you can do.
Rountree: That is my recollection, if you would check please.
(inaudible)
Rountree: We don't we have staff comments. How about I just ask, is there anybody in the
audience that wishes to add to their previous testimony or would like to testify on this
particular item?
Sharp: A couple of things that I wanted to clarify is that on this annexation 1 wanted to
know just what responsibility the City of Meridian might have once that was granted.
Would they really be required at that time then to make sure that sewer and water etc. the
services would have to be provided?
Rountree: Gary, would you answer that please?
Smith: I don't know from a technical standpoint if a property is annexed if the City is
required to provide services or not. In the past it has been the developer, the applicant that
has been required to bring services to their property. In this particular case I had some
real concerns as to how they are going to get the services to the property because we
have not seen any plans that show how that is to be done.
Sharp: So you are saying that this has not been resolved?
Smith: I haven't seen any plans as to how the sewer is to be provided to the property. The
water reportedly is to come through the number 1 parcel which is to be accessed through
an undeveloped portion of Dove Meadows Subdivision for water. I haven't seen any plans
for that I understand my assistant has talked to the applicant's engineer about it, but I have
not seen any plans.
Sharp: I was also interested too in the first plat that we had seen there was no real, there
were 2 accesses according to what the Highway Department told me when I called and
I talked to 2 people down there, Mr. Joe Rosenlund and Dave Wynkoop, the attorney.
Who said they have to have 2 accesses has that been shown that they do have that? If
not then I am wondering why they would go ahead an annex at this time.
Rountree: My recollection on the preliminary plats as proposed indicate accesses but they
do not tie into existing streets at this point in time. As far as why they would request
annexation at this time I think that is the developers prerogative to request it. The City will
take action on their request.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
July 11, 1995
Page 4
Sharp: Then you are telling me that this board will not?
Rountree: No, I am saying that the City will take action on the request.
Sharp: I am just wanting to make sure that certain things are clarified before they asked
you as a board collectively to make a decision on this.
Rountree: We might ask them to clarify those issues yes.
Crookston: Mrs. Sharp, with regard to the sewer and water. There would be no building
permits issued until they had that available.
Sharp: Okay, in other words it has to be one thing before the other?
Crookston: That is correct.
Rountree: Anyone else wish to testify?
Hutchinson: I am Ted Hutchinson of Tealy's Land Surveying, office address is 109 South
Fourth Street in Boise. We have this display from the last hearing which shows how all
of this ties together with regard to the number of access points into this development. We
will access through Dove Meadows as indicated. We do have an existing easement that
was recorded in 1994 that grants as temporary easement access into this parcel with the
caveat in the easement that once a public road is dedicated that the temporary easement
would go away. So we do have the right to access this property. We wilt do a public road,
we will get Mr. Leader to dedicate the road right of way which will complete that and
remove the necessity of that easement. So this connection right here will be accomplished
which will provide primary access into at least Packard No. 1 subdivision. We also provide
an access into Wingate Place Subdivision which has access out through Chateau Drive
to Locust Grove Road. With regard to the second phase or Packard Subdivision No. 2 it
will access Packard 1 with its 2 primary points. We also have a proposed stub for future
development which will extend east to Eagle Road. This is Chamberlain Estates No. 1
which has been approved in phase 1 I believe they have asked for a time extension on
their final plat for this. Once this is in this will provide the next access out to Locust Grove
Road. Then we are also providing a stub street to the west in the event that or when
Chamberlain Estates No. 2 is completed and Mr. Alleman's parcel is completed there will
be connection there. We are also providing a collector with a stub to the north so that if
Mr. Alleman ever decides that its a time frame to sell then we have that access as well.
So we have provided those accesses. We are aware that no building permits could be
issues until the services are extended. We are proposing and we have spoken with City
staff about this. I talked to Gary's assistant yesterday about the proposal for the extension
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
July 11, 1995
Page 5
of sewer across Mr. Alleman's property and there was some concern last time about an
all weather road required by the City. Gary's assistant was saying that if this distance is
short enough than a manhole at either end would work and they could get by without
having the all surface road. This distance is about 300, little over 300 feet so it would be
possible to put a manhole on either end of this and not have the all weather surface so that
they could still access into that for the provision of sewer. The developer's do want to get
the sewer to this as soon as possible because we are proposing a temporary lift station
in phase 1. The temporary lift station will be there until we can get sewer so it hinges on
how soon this connection up here can be made so that the sewer can be extended and it
would be natural for the development to come this way and then further extend the sewer
so that any temporary lift station will be taken off line and there would no longer be any
maintenance required for that. The water will come out of Dove Meadows. I spoke with
Bill Stuart at the water department, he told us where the line needs to be. He said there
is a 10 inch Tine at this point in Dove Meadows, we will extend that as a 10 inch line so that
it comes clear through and then leave a 10 inch line up into our project so it will be brought
in sewer and water. Again we are aware that the Highway District's position on the number
of building permits that should or would be allowed until there is an access to Ustick and
we are willing to live with those constraints. We recognize that this area as I think you can
see, the entire section is getting pretty close to being ready to completely develop out. 1
have another exhibit that I will submit tonight and basically this would help located those
persons who have testified in the past on this. I think you have heard testimony from
Peterson's, Dauvin's, Thompson's, Ms. Roberts has testified, Mr. Apeman has tested, the
Sharp's are right here, Mr. Reichert has tested as well, he is right here. This shows what
the development is that has been approved or is proposed in this section. Again this
section is building out quite quickly. Fred Meyers is proposed down here in this comer at
Locust Grove and Fairview, there is a commercial center that is proposed here at the
comer of Hickory Avenue and Fairview Avenue. I believe Mr. Leader is still looking at his
options of coming back with the next phase of Dove Meadows. So all of this will be in
place before too long. This is just a logical extension of the existing development that is
occurring in that section. We do have access points, one thing I didn't mention on that
other is Wingate Place No. 2 which has been tabled I believe at the developer's request
that will further add to the access points which will complete some of the traffic issues that
are involved with this particular development. But again this one was prepared basically
to give you a good idea of where the people that testified live in relationship to this
particular project. Are there any questions that 1 might answer from the Commission?
Hepper: What is the number of lots in Packard No. 2 that Ada County Highway District
says can be developed without a second access?
Hutchinson: 1 don't know that I have that specific number yet. I have a meeting with them
on Friday morning and I will have specifics on that number at that time.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
July 11, 1995
Page 6
Hepper: My other question was do we have the input from the Highway District yet on
Wingate Lane?
Hutchinson: As soon as I got the traffic study from the engineer that was submitted to your
City Engineer. So that report is available, the Highway District has reviewed that and they
are ready to prepare their comments. But I haven't got that number yet.
Rountree: Any other questions? If you not forget, please leave those wi#h us. Anyone else
wish to provide any new testimony on this particular item. Seeing none I will close the
hearing. We need to have some kind of an action. ACHD's meeting is Friday.
Hepper: Gary, do you still need to meet with the developer or his representative on sewer
and water routing?
Smith: Yes Commissioner, we don't have any information on how they are going to get
there other than what we have been told verbally, no plans have been submitted.
Rountree: Those are addressed in your comments?
Smith: Yes
Hepper: I would move that we table this until our next scheduled meeting and give the
developer time to meet with the City Engineer and also to get the ACHD recommendations.
That would be August 8.
Shearer: Second
Rountree: It has been moved and seconded to table this item until August 8; all those in
favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #4: TAB1_ED JUNE 22, 1995: PUBLIC HEARING FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR
PACKARD SUBDIVISION NO. 2 BY PNE/EDMONDS CONSTRUCTION:
Rountree: The public hearing is still open for the preliminary plat for Packard Subdivision
No. 2, anyone wishing to provide additional comments on that particular. Is it the same
relative to the annexation?
Sharp: What 1 did do is I did call the public library to ask on how they define easement
and how that is going to be pertinent to this preliminary plat. The thing that we are hearing
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
July 11, 1995
Page 7
quite a bit is easement. My question I guess would be directed I guess to the attorney here
and that is, is an easement a permission granting someone permission to have access to
get to a spot or is it something that can be transferred bought and sold? We had heard
last time that Mr. Reichert was going to grant his easement to the people on the east side
of the lane, where would that leave his property should it be sold to someone else? We
are talking about equal access, if that is (inaudible) because we are at the end of that lane
and if they have a gate there to service us would they want to go through the subdivision
just to deliver to our house, I am talking about mail, post office, UPS, whatever, friends of
relatives when they can come right down Wingate Lane. I realize fines look great, the
pictures aren't too great my camera isn't too good but I took some pictures of the lane and
the properties that would show you just what we are talking about and that might mean a
little bit more to you so I will just leave them with you. On the back I have tried to describe
where the properties are. There are pictures here where they hope to put the slough and
if they cross Wingate Lane and I am not sure where they propose to cross the lane if it is
where Borup's property was then it is next to Reichert it would. not cross Mr. Reichert's
property so his granting the easement at this point would make me wonder why other than
he would get his part of the lane paved. Anyway, here are some pictures that might tell
you where the subdivision is going to be and you can see on the other side where the
Carol Subdivision is right adjacent to it. Where the slough is right behind Dauvin's property
and each piece of property. I apologize because they are not the best of pictures, but
might do you a little bit better idea of what we are talking about rather than just some lines
on a piece of paper.
Crookston: Mrs. Sharp, with regard to your questions of easement. An easement
(inaudible) what the language of the easement document indicates. You can draw up an
easement that said you can only use the easement if you paid'$500 a day. I have not
reviewed the easement in particular. Generally an easement can be conveyed, when you
sell your property if you have rights to use the property you can convey your rights to use
that easement to your buyer. If there were restrictiohs in the easement that said you could
not convey then you could not. It is controlled by the easement document itself.
Sharp: I do believe that was presented at one of the meetings last time.
Crookston: It was presented I just haven't reviewed it.
Sharp: I was just curious because it did say equal access and I think that would be a key
word, we would not have equal access then if a gate were put up there for access into our
property. Of course Boise City's code states a grant of right to use land for specific
purpose or purposes and I am not sure what the City of Meridian's code book would read
on that. But here again I think it is something that needs to be clearly identified. For
example if someone in the middle of the lane signed over their easement say to strangers
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
July 11, 1995
Page 8
what does that do to their property and the accessibility then as far as the original
easement? Because we know that the original easement was granted for our property
because we are at the end of the lane and the people of course at the front of the lane
granted it (inaudible).
Crookston: (Inaudible) it would depend upon how the easement was worded. If a property
has a right to use the easement that, the owner of that property could convey that right
separate from conveying the property. Again it just depends on what the easement
document says.
Sharp: I am glad they are tabling this because I think these are some of the things that
need to be addressed. Thank you.
Rountree: Anyone else wish to testify?
Hutchinson: Shari do you have a copy of that easement I gave you yesterday? The
easement that I submitted last time was the original grant of easement for Wingate Lane
and (inaudible) people who lived on Wingate Lane plus any assignees or any heirs and
it would happen to be on the west side of the centerline which would have been all of
basically Wingate Lane is to the west. That is the only properties it talked about, it didn't
talk about the properties that are on the east side of that line that was described for
Wingate Lane. This is the easement that the property owners have from Mr. Leader which
would in the event of dedication of the public road right. of way which would be required
in order for us to complete the access from Dove Meadows. I provided this copy to Shari
in a meeting yesterday. I will give you this again, specific language about the easement
is temporary and it will go away with the dedication of public road right of way.
Rountree: You are talking specifically about your easement through the Dove Meadows
area, not Wingate Lane?
Hutchinson: That would be just this now. Now the Wingate Lane easement because
Sigmont and Edmonds are now property owners on the west side of Wingate Lane they
have purchased and have the right of access in easement to Wingate Lane. However we
have no intention of developing any access or to provide an access for this development
onto Wingate Lane. We recognize the status of Wingate Lane, we know what this lane
looks like, it is a very narrow, one lane at most dirt road. We don't want to use that as part
of our development. However that portion of Wingate Lane that Sigmont and Edmonds
own in this development which is right here we intend to improve and dedicate to the
public right of way, it would be just this portion. Mr. Reichert has said that he will dedicate
his portion of the ground so that this will be a complete street down to this point. So it will
be a full width street improved public standards, curb, gutter, sidewalk so that this will be
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
July 11, 1995
Page 9
completed and look forward to working with Mr. Reichert to complete that. He will dedicate
it, it won't be an easement, it will be a public road dedication to complete this portion of
that street. So that actual dedication of Wingate Lane for public street will be from about
this point to this point. Then it reverts back to its easement and we are trying to figure out
the best way and we would like to work with the Sharp's to figure out the best way to
prevent access from. this development and still provide so that the Sharp's can get to their
property. Again when it comes off of the public road right of way down here they still have
access to their easement. There will be no interterence with that easerent. They have
the right to use that and we are going to make sure that right is maintained so'that they
can access their property. As far as mail the mail will be delivered on public streets, I
would imagine they would still receive mail in the same fashion that the receive it now.
We are dealing with just the portion we are dedicating this public and in essence any
easement for access wiH go away with dedication. Any other questions? Here is that copy
of this.
Rountree: Anyone else wish to testify?
Premoe: I would like to reiterate 1 live on the west side of the lane and my property was
the property that made the original agreement in 1913. We feel that our rights are being
violated with the changes that are being made. The original document said that there
would be equal use of this right of way, this easement. If they go though and make public
access on part of the lane and then put a gate that is not going to be the access that I have
today. I feel that these people bought this property knowing that there was no access, no
more building permitted on this lane. They knew they were being landlocked and now we
are in the process of trying to force us all to go along with their money making project. I
feel that they are stepping on our rights that have been longstanding. They want to change
our way of life and 1 think that they have gotten themselves in a position and that we don't
need to accommodate them. 1 feel that they haven't talked to us about what, they say they
would do something for us but they haven't talked to us at all. They haven't approached
us other than being intimidating on the telephone to us trying to buy us out. Telling things
about our property, saying that we were selling out when we weren't. Things like that. we
just don't appreciate the attitude we have received from them. We haven't been
approached in any way to tell us how they would provide our rights. Thank you.
Rountree: Anyone else wishing to provide new testimony?
Thompson: My name is Craig Thompson, my main concern is if they do put a gate up,
accessibility to the subdivision. If they don't put up a gate they will have accessibility.
think something, before this can proceed, I think that something has to be done there.
Understanding what is going, each time we have a meeting, it is said we will furnish
something or do something that will take care of that problem. Every time we meet that
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
July 11, 1995
Page 10
problem hasn't been taken care of. Last meeting that we had Mr. Hepper brought up an
idea of why do they have to intersect Wingate Lane. Anybody that I talk to I can't get a
straight answer. It is right in the middle of everything that people on the west side of
Wingate Lane they are going to access Locust and the people on the other side they are
going to access Fairviiew. Why do we have to have that intersection there anyway? I don't
think it is going to be used that much. I think that should be looked into. further.
Intersecting that I would like to have documents that prove that has to be done. People
that I talk to I haven't received an answer from that.
Hepper: Have you had a chance to talk to the highway district about that and see what
their #eelings are?
Thompson: No I haven't, what I did was talk to the Mayor. He didn't have an answer as
to why.
Hepper: You know they have public hearings too, I would like to see somebody from
Wingate Lane go down there and talk to them and voice their concerns to them and make
sure they are aware of everything that you have made us aware of and see what their
comments are on it.
Thompson: Okay, we will do that.
Hutchinson: The public hearing following this Friday's meeting will be next Wednesday
night or Wednesday noon, I will have to find out.
Rountree: Ada County Highway District?
Hutchinson: Ada County Highway District, we will have this before their commission next
Wednesday or so and it is a public hearing.
Rountree: Is that evening or afternoon?
Hutchinson: I don't know they alternate between evenings and noons, I will find aut
Friday. They could call the Highway District and find out.
Rountree: Anyone else?
Sharp:. I'm Dale Sharp, something that hasn't been addressed yet tonight is the water
pressure. I don't know if that has ever been resolved out in that area. I know it is not very
strong because I have talked to a neighbor and he said they didn't have any water
pressure. Has that been resolved?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
July 11, 1995
Page 11
Rountree: When you got up to ask that question the City Engineer left (inaudible).
Sharp: I think there are so many questions. I don't see how you can even act on this thing.
It is so nebulous as to what they are really doing. We haven't got the sewer, you don't
have the sewer and Alleman testified and wrote a letter that he is not ready to sell and so
forth. So, that is a stumbling block right there. I think the schools are another issue, we
don't have the bond passed and it could be very likely it wouldn't be passed again. So we
have a lot of houses, there is going to be a lot of bussing of those students. As far as
having a gate and so forth you are restricting if this, if what they are proposing they are
taking away my right to have an easement down my property. If they put a gate there it
doesn't say it is restricted to Dale and Helen Sharp, we have an easement to that property
for whatever reason people need to get down there. If you put a gate there that is
restricting that lane. I think that if they are going to do something then they should probably
put berm and fence Wingate Lane and separate those, these subdivisions. Right now I just
don't see how you could even act with all of this questions.
Rountree: Anyone else? I will close the hearing.
Hepper: Mr. Chairman, I move that we table this until our next meeting until we can get
comments from ACRD, until the sewer and water problems can be worked out with the City
and I would like to see the developer try to work something out with the Sharp's on this
and see if we can have an answer to this before the next meeting.
Rountree: The next meeting of the meeting after? Excuse me for interrupting Tim, the next
meeting would be August 8.
Hepper: I move we table this to August 8.
Shearer: Second
Rountree: It has been moved and seconded to table this item until August 8, all those in
favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #5: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR ANNEXATION AND
ZONING REQUEST WITH A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN APPROXIMATELY
700,000 SQUARE FOOT RETAIL PROJECT BY LANGLY AND ASSOCIATES:
Rountree: We have been requested by the Highway District to withhold action until they
can report back to us. It is my understanding that they will report back to us August 9th
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
July 11, 1995
Page 12
which is the day after our next regularly scheduled meeting. So if we do anything it is
going to have to be in September. We need a motion.
Hepper: September what?
Rountree: September 12th.
Hepper: Mr. Chairman, I move we table this item until our next meeting September 12.
Shearer: Second
Rountree: It has been moved and seconded to table item #5 until September 12, all those
in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #6: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR ANNEXATION AND
ZONING REQUEST OF 42.02 ACRES TO R-4 FOR WHITESTONE ESTATES
SUBDIVISION BY WHITESTONE ESTATES PARTNERSHIP:
Johnson: We have the findings of fact and conclusions before you, are there any changes,
any discussion on these?
Rountree: We get to the last page of the findings of facts and there are a couple of typos.
Line seven it should be except for instead of what's there. And the second to the last line
should be 1400 square feet as opposed to whatever language that is.
Johnson: Any other changes, any other discussion regarding the findings of fact? Hearing
none what would you like to do with these?
Rountree: Mr. Chairman, I move the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby
adopts and approves these findings of fact and conclusions.
Hepper: Second
Johnson: It is moved and seconded that we accept the findings of fact and conclusions of
law as written, this is a roll call vote.
ROLL CALL VOTE: Hepper -Yea, Alidjani -Absent, Rountree -Yea, Shearer -Yea
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
July 11, 1995
Page 13
Johnson: Any decision or recommendation you wish to pass onto the City?
Rountree: Mr. Chairman I move the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby
recommends to the City Council of the City of Meridian that they approve the annexation
and zoning as stated above in the conclusions for the property described with the
conditions set forth in the findings of fact.
Shearer: Second
Johnson: It has been moved and seconded we pass the recommendation onto the City
as stated, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #7: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR WHITESTONE ESTATES SUBDIVISION BY
WHITESTONE ESTATES PARTNERSHIP:
Johnson: What action would you like to take on the preliminary plat?
Hepper: Mr. Chairman, I move we recommend approval of the preliminary plat.
Rountree: Second
Johnson: Moved and seconded that we recommend to the City Council approval of the
preliminary of Whitestone Estates Subdivision, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #ti: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR ANNEXATION AND
ZONING REQUEST OF 4.5 ACRES TO C-G BY JACKSON FOOD STORES:
Johnson: Any comment regarding these findings of fact as prepared by the City Attorney?
Hepper: There is a typo on page 21, on the approval of the findings of fact, after city the
word "Council" should be stricken.
Johnson: Can we have a motion regarding the findings of fact?
Hepper: Mr. Chairman, I move the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of the City
of Meridian hereby adopts and approves these findings of fact.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
July 11, 1995
Page 14
Rountree: Second
Johnson: Moved and seconded we approve the findings of fact and conclusions of law as
written, roll call vote.
ROLL CALL VOTE: Hepper -Yea, Rountree -Yea, Shearer -Yea, Alidjani -Absent
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Johnson: Recommendation to the City Council?
Hepper: Mr. Chairman, I move 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, including that the
applicant enter into a development agreement prior to issuance of a building permit. If the
applicant does not agree with these findings of fact and is not agreeable with entering into
a development agreement the property should not be annexed.
Rountree: Second
Johnson: Moved and seconded to send the recommendation onto the City Council as
written all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #9: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A TRAVEL CENTER BY JACKSON FOOD
STORES:
Johnson: This is the conditional use, what action would you like to take?
Crookston: There needs to be findings on this, findings were not prepared because no
action on the annexation findings had been adopted.
Rountree: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion we have findings prepared on the request for
a conditional use permit.
Hepper: Second
Johnson: It is moved and seconded that we have the City Attorney prepare findings of fact
and contusions of law on the conditional use permit for a travel center by Jackson Food
Stores, all those in favor? Opposed?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
July 11, 1995
Page 15
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #10: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR ANNEXATION AND
ZONING REQUEST OF 180 ACRES FOR HIGHLANDS RANCH SUBDIVISION BY GEM
PARK II PARTNERSHIP:
Johnson: Page 5, number 5, there is a correction. Just a couple of words were deleted,
Mr. and Mrs. Allen (inaudible) comparable to the other comments by the City Attorney it
should say submitted written testimony and such is incorporated here and have set forth
in full, the other written tes#imony is that way. Do you agree with that Wayne?
Crookston: Yes
Johnson: Any other corrections, changes or discussion regarding these findings of fact?
What would you like to do?
Rountree: Mr. Chairman I move that the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby
adopts and approves these findings of fact and conclusions.
Hepper: Second
Johnson: We have a motion and a second to approve the findings of fact and conclusions
of law as prepared by the City Attomey, roll call vote.
ROLL CALL VOTE: Hepper -Yea, Rountree -Yea, Shearer -Yea, Alidjani -Absent
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Johnson: Is there a recommendation you wish to take action on at this time?
Rountree: Mr. Chairman, I move that the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
hereby recommends to the City Council that the annexation and zoning proceed to the City
Council. That the applications for a preliminary plat, conditional use permit for a planned
development remain at planning and zoning until action is taken on the annexation and
zoning by the City Council. That 'rf the applicant does not make the changes suggested
by the Commission before the City Council hearing it is recommended the City Council
deny the annexation and zoning application based on the reasoning in the above findings
and conclusions. If the changes suggested herein are made, annexation and zoning
required to meet the suggestions herein would be in the best interest of the City and that
the annexation and zoning would then be recommended, that the applicant would be
required to meet these findings and conclusions in the ordinances of the City of Meridian.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
July 11, 1995
Page 16
(End of Tape)
Shearer: Second
Johnson: It is moved and seconded we pass a recommendation onto the City as read, all
those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #11: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR HIGHLANDS RANCH SUBDIVISION BY GEM
PARK II PARTNERSHIP TABLED JUNE 13, 1995:
Johnson: What would you like to do regarding the preliminary plat?
(Discussion Inaudible)
Crookston: In the annexation findings it says the plat would stay at P & Z so you need to
table it to a date certain.
Hepper: Mr. Chairman, I move that we table this item until August 8 which is our next
regularly scheduled meeting as stated in the findings of the previous annexation and
zoning request.
Rountree: Second
Johnson: It is moved and seconded that we table the preliminary plat for Highlands Ranch
Subdivision until the next regularly scheduled meeting August 8, 1995, all those in favor?
Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #12: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR HIGHLANDS RANCH SUBDIVISION BY
GEM PARK II PARTNERSHIP TABLED JUNE 13, 1995:
Hepper: Mr. Chairman, I move we table that also until August 8.
Shearer: Second
Johnson: Moved and seconded that this item also be tabled until August 8, 1995, all those
in favor? Opposed?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
July 11, 1995
Page 17
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #13: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR ANNEXATION AND
ZONING OF 22.24 ACRES TO R-4 FOR LOS ALAMITOS SUBDIVISION NO. 3 BY
FARWEST DEVELOPERS:
Johnson: Any comment regarding these findings of facts as prepared?
Rountree: Mr. Chairman, I move that the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
hereby adopts and approves the findings of fact and conclusions.
Shearer: Second
Johnson: It is moved and seconded that we adopt the findings of fact and conclusions of
law as prepared, roll call vote.
ROLL CALL VOTE: Alidjani -Absent, Shearer -Yea, Rountree -Yea, Hepper -Yea
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Johnson: Is there a decision or recommendation you would like to pass onto the City
Council?
Rountree: Mr. Chairman, I move the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby
recommends to the City Council 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 the minimum house size of 1500 square
feet.
Shearer: Second
Johnson: It is moved and seconded that we pass a recommendation onto City Council
as written and stated by Commissioner Rountree, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #14: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR LOS ALAMITOS SUBDIVISION NO. 3 BY
FARWEST DEVELOPERS TABLED JUNE 13, 1995:
Johnson: Mr. Chairman, I move that we pass on a favorable recommendation onto the City
Council.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
July 11, 1995
Page 18
Shearer: Second
Johnson: It is moved and seconded that we pass a favorable recommendation onto the
City Council regarding this preliminary plat, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #15: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR ANNEXATION AND
ZONING OF 23.27 ACRES TO R-4 FOR SALMON RAPIDS SUBDIVISION NO. 3 BY
FARWEST DEVELOPERS:
Johnson: Any discussion regarding these findings of fact? Any corrections? What action
would you like to take?
Rountree: Mr. Chairman, I move that the Meridian Planning and Zoning commission
hereby adopts and approves the findings of fact.
Hepper: Second
Johnson: We have a motion and a second to approve the findings of fact and conclusions
of law as written, roll call vote.
ROLL CALL VOTE: Hepper -Yea, Rountree -Yea, Shearer -Yea, Alidjani -Absent
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Johnson: A recommendation to the City Council?
Rountree: Mr. Chairman, I move the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby
recommends to the City of Meridian that they approve the annexation and zoning stated
above for the property described with the conditions set forth in the findings of fact
including the minimum house size of 1500 square feet.
Shearer: Second
Johnson: It is moved and seconded that we pass a recommendation onto the City Council
as written and read, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #16: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR SALMON RAPIDS SUBDIVISION NO. 3 BY
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
July 11, 1995
Page 19
FARWEST DEVELOPERS TABLED JUNE 13, 1995:
Rountree: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion that we pass onto the City Council a favorable
recommendation.
Shearer: Second
Johnson: Moved and seconded that we pass a favorable recommendation to the City
Council regarding the preliminary plat for Salmon Rapids Subdivision No. 3, alt those in
favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #17: MODIFIED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR
ANNEXATION AND ZONING REQUEST TO C-G BY MICHAEL PRESTON:
Johnson: Any comments, any discussion, any corrections regarding the findings of fact
as prepared by our City Attorney?
Hepper: Mr. Chairman, I move the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby
adopts and approves these findings of fact.
Rountree: Second
Johnson: We have a motion and a second to approve the findings of fact as written, roll
call vote.
ROLL CALL VOTE: Hepper -Yea, Rountree -Yea, Shearer -Yea, Alidjani -Absent
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Johnson: Is there a recommendation or decision you wish to pass onto the City Council?
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 annexation
and zoning as stated for the property described in the application with the conditions set
forth in the findings of fact and conclusions of law. And that the applicant and owners be
spec~cally required to the all ditches, canals and waterways as a condition of annexation.
That the applicant meet all the ordinances of the City of Meridian specifically including the
development time requirements and entering into the required development agreement.
If the conditions of these findings of fact and conclusions of law are not met that the
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
Jufy 11, 1995
Page 20
property shall not be annexed or if annexed shall be de-annexed.
Rountree: Second
Johnson: It is moved and seconded that the modified findings of fact and conclusions be
accepted as written, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #18: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT REQUEST TO OPERATE A RETAIL BAKERY BY ROBERT PREECE:
Johnson: You have these findings before you are there any corrections or deletions, any
discussion regarding the findings of fact?
Rountree: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion that the Meridian Planning and Zoning
Commission hereby adopts and approves these findings of fact and conclusions.
Shearer: Second
Johnson: We have a motion and a second for approval of the findings of fact and
conclusions of law, roll call vote.
ROLL CALL VOTE: Hepper -Yea, Rountree -Yea, Shearer -Yea, Alidjani -Absent
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Johnson: Any decision or recommendation you wish to pass onto the City Council at this
time?
Rountree: Mr. Chairman, I move the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
recommends to the City Council that they approve the conditional use permit requested
by the applicant for the property described in the application with the conditions set forth
in the findings of fact and conclusions.
Shearer: Second
Johnson: It is moved and seconded to pass a recommendation on the City Council as
read, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
July 11, 1995
Page 21
ITEM #19: AMENDED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR
ANNEXATION AND ZONING REQUEST FOR THE LAKE AT CHERRY LANE NO. 5 AND
6 BY STEINER DEVELOPMENT:
Johnson: We received those today, does anyone have any comments regarding these
findings of fact? Any discussion?
Hepper: Mr. Chairman, I move the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby
adopts and approves these findings of fact.
Rountree: Second
Johnson: tt is moved and seconded we adopt the amended findings of fact and
conclusions of law as prepared by the City Attorney, roll call vote.
ROLL CALL VOTE: Hepper -Yea, Rountree -Yea, Shearer -Yea, Alidjani -Absent
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Johnson: Recommendation to the City Council?
Hepper: Mr. Chairman, 1 move the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby
recommends to the City Council of the City of Meridian that the property requested to be
zoned R-4 be annexed and so zoned and that the applicant be given the opportunity to
meet these findings of fact and conclusions of law so that the remaining portions of the
land can be annexed and zoned. That if the conditions are not met that the property now
requested be zoned R-15 not be annexed.
Shearer: Second
Johnson: Moved and seconded that the amended findings of fact and conclusions of law
be approved as written, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #20: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR THE LAKE AT CHERRY LANE NO. 5 AND 6 BY
STEINER DEVELOPMENT:
Johnson: This is a preliminary plat.
Hepper: Mr. Chairman, I move that we table the preliminary plat until the applicant has
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
July 11, 1995
Page 22
time to meet the findings of fact on the annexation and zoning.
Rountree: Second
Johnson: It is moved and seconded that we table the preliminary plat for the Lake at
Cherry lane No. 5 and 6 by Steiner Development, all those in favor?
Crookston: We should have a date.
Hepper: August 8
Johnson: The tabling request motion is until our next regularly scheduled meeting which
is August 8, 1995, do we have a second on that?
Rountree: Second
Johnson: Moved and seconded that we approve this preliminary plat, all those in favor?
Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #21: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 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:
Johnson: I will now open the public hearing and invite the applicant or representative to
come forvvard and address the Commission regarding this conditional use permit.
Tom Bauens, 380 East Park Center Blvd, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Bauens: Gentlemen, as you are aware, Avest Limited Partnership has been working on
this Fred Meyer development on the corner of Locust Grove and Fairview for quite some
time now. We have completed the preliminary and final subdivision plat, we have obtained
conditional use permits for the Fred Meyer parcel, the Key Bank parcel and McDonald's
parcel. We are now making application for the conditional use permits for parcels 2 and
5. The first one on the agenda tonight is parcel 2 which is a 27,921 square foot parcel
located on the north part of the project immediately on Locust Grove. Our application is to
construct a 6,000 square foot multi-tenant retail commercial building with 2 drive thrus one
on each end, the east and west ends of the building. We are currently negotiating leases
for this building. The potential users are a yogurt facility, carry out pizza and coffee shop
a •
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
July 11, 1995
Page 23
and two of those tenants have requested drive thrus. We have met with ACHD and are
in concurrence with all of their findings and have gained Commission approval last
Wednesday. We are asking for your approval on our conditional use permit this evening
for parcel two. Can I answer any questions?
Johnson: There is a possibility we have some transposition here or just confusion, but
according to parcel No. 2 we are addressing at this time, the tenants were different than
what you stated, proposed tenants.
Bauens: Parcel 2?
Johnson: Parcel 2 according to the information that was submitted was carry out and
eating in sandwich shop, shoe store and dry cleaner.
Bauens: That is for parcel 5
Johnson: There is an error here in your submission because this is on your fax.
Bauens: Parcel 2?
Johnson: Okay, so let's go back to parcel 2 then because we probably have that in our
next item.
Bauens: Parcel 5 is the next, we are on parcel 2.
Johnson: I understand that, the tenants aren't right.
Bauens: Bear in mind that these leases are being negotiated and the tenants may change
again. We have no signed leases on parcel 2 at this time.
Johnson: Well, I understand that but the parcel sizes are different. For parcel 2 is how
large?
Bauens: The land parcel itself?
Johnson: The land parcel itself.
Bauens: 27,921 square feet.
Johnson: Are there any questions of the applicant's representative?
i ~
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
July 11, 1995
Page 24
Bauens: I might mention that we have reviewed all of the City staffs comments and are in
full concurrence.
Hepper: Okay, so we are looking at the one that is on Locust Grove?
Johnson: Northwest corner I believe.
Hepper: Do you have any idea what the proposed hours would be?
Bauens: Normal business hours of operation. I would imagine that some of these coffee
and yogurt type shops could be open as late as 11:00 during the week days and maybe
midnight on weekends.
Hepper: Would there be outside speakers?
Bauens: There may be small outside speakers for the drive in faci-ities to take your order
and then come up to the window. Similar to Pizza Hut and McDonald's, Jack in the Box
any of those types of places.
Hepper: Would you be taking any measures to dampen the effect of those speakers on
the residential houses right across the street?
Bauens: Yes, I believe we can meet the 55 decibel City ordinance or recommendation of
the staff. I believe the surrounding road noise would be louder than that.
Hepper: My other question was about the direction of the drive through so that the flights
from the cars don't shine on the houses across the street.
Bauens: Well, we still have the berating requirement from the development agreement, on
the project of the 20 foot berm on Locust Grove and 4 feet high. The drive through on
Locust Grove would oriented in a north -south direction. Excuse me that is wrong, it is
pointed, it is in the, the drive thru is in the northwest comer of the building with an outdoor
patio on the west side of the building and berming would also be on Locust Grave down
along here. The drive thru is located in this corner. There will be heavy shrubbery and
things that are required as part of our landscaping on the berm.
Rourrtree: Is it my understanding of your drawing that you have 2 drive through windows
and you have drive thru lanes that cross one another, is that how it is going to operate?
Bauens: On parcel 2 we have a drive thru lane that runs along the north side bade of the
building to funnel into this northeast comer drive thru. The drive thru window is on the west
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
July 11, 1995
Page 25
end, excuse me east end of the building that would exit straight to the north out on the loop
road.
Rountree: So to get into the one you would have to cross the path of the other?
Bauens: Most likely yes, you would have to cross or make this corner.
Johnson: Any other questions? Apparently none at this time, we will reserve the right to
call you back. This is a public hearing, anyone else like to address the Commission on this
issue please come forward.
Mary Gahoun, 1875 North Locust Grove, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Cahoun: I am right across from this that they are proposing. My first choice would be that
there be nothing there, but I know that is not a possibility. I have a real problem with the
double drive through. I am already being impacted by Fred Meyers and the loop road that
is right there by my driveway. 1 think rf they have a double drive thni this is going to cause
even more traffic and congestion. I am worried about the exhaust fumes, the air pollution,
the lights shining in my front window and my bedroom window. I am worried about the
safety factor for my children, I have two little boys. I am also speaking for the neighbors
just north of me, Monty Border at 1915 North Locust Grove, they couldn't make it here this
evening and also Terry and Cheryl Bodkin at 1805 North Locust Grove, they have these
same concerns. I just feel like we are really impacted, I feel like it is very intrusive into my
privacy. I think that this will intensify the traffic problem that I am already experiencing by
backing onto Locust Grove with my vehicle in the morning, I am a working mother and I
drive my kids. 1 am really concerned for their safety. I don't want to drive through that at
all, the loud speakers if they are going to be open until 11:00 in the evening it, I am really
upset about it. I have tried to be a real trooper through this whole thing and it is really
difficult. Is there anything you can do to make them not have drive thrus there, can you
help me, how they are zoning this and what they are putting in there. Can they have
meetings, I know the people along Locust Grove are more than happy to maybe meet with
the developer or whatever. Can we have some input into this, I feel like we haven't had
that opportunity at all. A lot of these meetings they say how they are meeting with alt of the
neighbors, I have talked to the neighbors bordering Locust Grove and they have not met
with us. There is a lady that stays there all day long she watches her children and they
haven`t contacted her.
Johnson: Anything else?
Cahoun: Can you help me, have them meet with us so that we can maybe make this a tittle
bit better for the people who border Locust Grove that in this direct impact area?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
July 11, 1995
Page 26
Johnson: We will have the applicant address that issue at the end of our public hearing.
Cahoun: When will that be like tonight or is this going to be in the future?
Johnson: Tonight, I am not saying you are going to get an answer to your questions but
we will have him address that situation as best he can. Particularly the suggestion that
he meet with the neighbors.
Cahoun: Thank you.
Johnson: Anyone else from the public?
Elizabeth Gwin, 1515 South Carol Street, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Gwin: Pretty much since this development has come in along side our neighborhood I just
feel like we are more or less looking at the demise of our neighborhood for what it was.
When this first, this shopping center was first proposed we were told by the developers
that they were looking at an insurance office of something for this parcel too that would be
right across the street from these peoples homes. Now, this almost all night food service
and you know what that means. These loud speakers, I can hear the loud speaker from
over at Intermountain Arms and I live across Fairview from that. I am probably more than
300 feet from that thing. I surmise that I am more than 300 feet because I never received
a letter from the City when they built that and I am across the road. So I can hear that and
I don't know, these ordinances don't seem to be enforced anyway. We are out there
dealing with all kinds of junk from these places. Sweeping the parking Tots late at night
things like that. To me this is insulting that this could possibly, that they even come with
this to put it right beside peoples homes. This is going to be a very public thing, it is going
to draw all the neighbofiood kids which is probably why they want it there. Why can't they
put it up on Fairview away from the families that live along that road. You have that little
slogan on your envelope that says Meridian is a great place to live, well it is getting, for
our neighborhood it used to be a great place to live. All I can say is if you recommend this
to the City Council to allow it to go through pretty much every bad, black Irish spot that has
been in my little heart about you guys will be true. That is all I, this makes me really angry
that they would even do this, but then they are developers and I have learned a lot about
those type of people. For one time could you just not look at the dollar signs and look at
what it is going to do to these people's homes and to our neighborhood. I don't know, it
really shakes my morale to live there. It is like nobody really cares, you build your house
there you pay taxes, you send your kids to school, you try to give back to the community
a little bit with volunteer efforts, whatever you can do. I don't have zillions of bucks to
develop anything and add much to the tax base, but I am stilt a member of the community.
I have enjoyed living in Meridian until the last few years and all of this development has
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
July 11, 1995
Page 27
come. I wish you guys would just think about what the people have to put up with because
if it gets too bad people are not going to want to be here, they are going to want to leave
which is pretty much what happened to us right now. We have our house for sale and we
are planning to leave if we can. I just, this sort of thing doesn't belong right next door to a
group of family homes. It belongs up here on Fairview where the cars can come and go.
I don't think anybody came in and protested McDonalds or anything, but this belongs up
on Fairview. What we were promised here was possibly some type of office situation and
hopefully something that would not be open until 11:00 at night. As I said if you pass this
it is just the last straw for me as far as what Meridian City Council and Meridian Planning
and Zoning are trying to do to our community. This kind of stuff will tear down the
residential area and our neighborhood. So I would ask that you don't recommend this to
the City Council and that they can come back with some other types of tenants for this
area. That is all I have to say.
Johnson: Anyone else that would like to address the Commission? Seeing no one then
I will close the public hearing, but before t do that, I'm sorry, is there anything you would
like to address that was brought up by the 2 people that testrfied?
Bauens: I would like to mention that throughout this process in the past we have met wit
the adjoining neighbors. We did not meet with them on this particular application. The
various topics of their concerns have been addressed in numerous public hearings, we've
accommodated them with the berming, the landscaping and all of those issues we feel
have been addressed and will be addressed during the building permit process for the
staffs review. We fully intend to comply with those requirements. As far as the parcel, the
preliminary plat and final subdivision plat were approved, this is zoned commercial and we
intended always to put commercial uses on this parcel on Locust Crave.
Johnson: Any questions of the applicant by the Commission? I will now close the public
hearing.. We need some action on this request for a conditional use permit. What would
you like to do?
Shearer: Mr. Chairman, I move we have the attorney prepare findings of fact and
conclusions of law for this project.
Rountree: Second
Johnson: It has been moved and seconded we have our attorney prepare findings of fact
and conclusions of law, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
July 11, 1995
Page 28
ITEM #22: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO
CONSTRUCT A 6,000 SQ. FT. MULTI-TENANT RETAIL PAO WITH DRIVE THRU
FACILITIES FOR LOT 5 -BLOCK 1 OF AVEST PLAZA BY AVEST LIMITED
PARTNERSHIP:
Johnson: At this point I will open the public hearing and invite the representative from the
applicant to address the Commission.
Tom Bauens, 380 East Park Center Blvd., Boise, was sworn by the City Attomey.
Bauens: This application is for parcel 2 or excuse me parcel 5 located on Fairview Avenue
on the east end of the project. This parcel size is 32,282 square feet. Our application is
to again construct a 6,000 square foot multi tenant facility with 2 drive through windows
one on each end the east and west end of the buildings. We have no signed leases on
this building but interest and letters of intent are being worked on with a sandwich shop
on the west end with a drive thru window, a shoe store taking the middle portion of the
building and a dry cleaning facility store taking the east end of the building also with a
drive thna. We have reviewed the City staff requirements and met with ACRD and gained
the Ada County Highway District Commissioners approval last Wednesday on the
application. We ask for your approval this evening.
Johnson: Thank you, any questions of the Avest representative? This is a public hearing,
anyone from the public that would like to address the Commission on this application?
Seeing no one then I will close the public hearing. If there is no further discussion by the
Commission I will entertain a motion.
Rountree: Mr. Chairman, I move that we have the City Attorney prepare findings of fact
and conclusions of law on this item.
Shearer: Second
Johnson: It is moved and seconded to have the City Attomey prepare findings of fact and
conclusions of law for this conditional use permit request, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #23: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR AN ACCESSORY USE PERMIT FOR AN
OFFICE FOR A SMALL PLUMBING COMPANY BY JAMES WALSH:
Johnson: I will now open the public hearing and invite the representative for Mr. Walsh
to come forward and address the Commission.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
July 11, 1995
Page 29
Genie Walsh, 2935 West Ann Street, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Walsh: I am here tonight to request an approval for us to have an office in our home to
run a small plumbing company. We started out before we even started our company t did
make a visit to this office to find out if there was anything that I needed to do as far as
requiring a permit to have it in our home and they told me no I didn't need anything. So
we proceeded in setting our office up in our home.
Johnson: When was that do you remember?
Walsh: Approximately the 11th of January. We proceeded, we got our office set up and
everything and we used our personal vehicle at first for our truck. Since that time we have
acquired one more company truGc and we had a lot of visitors. We had our in-laws living
with us, we had four extra vehicles parked in our driveway which forced one of our
vehices to be parked out in front of our home and we did, we had a visitor from an officer
here in Meridian about in May. He came and asked if we had a business in our home and
I said yes and he said are you aware that you had to apply for a permit? 1 said 1 went to
the City and they said I didn't need one and they said well we have been receiving some
complaints and you also have somebody living in a motor home. We had a motor home
parked on the left side of our property behind a fence which complied with our covenants
of our subdivision and we had our in-laws visiting us. My father-in-law was laid off so they
were going to go bade to California. I told him that and he said okay I am going to give you
30 days to comply with your business. You can't have anything, you have to apply for your
use. Right away I came down and got an application for this and we complied. We had the
motor home taken out just because we didn't want anymore problems with any neighbors
or anything. We had rented a storage and moved all of our inventory out and we have
parked our company vehicle behind our fence. Which complies with the covenants and
alsowhich states in the City application that is what they wanted us to do if we have that
vehice. So we still had complaints and we just believe that a lot of the complaints that we
had were just mis-construed for being our personal things and people were mixing them
up with our business. Because we did have extra vehicles there we had more traffic
because of that. Since then our in-laws have moved out and there is no one else living
there and we have tried really hard to keep our vehicle parked behind. We don't have
anything in our garage from our company, we have a storage now and we do have
support. Our neighbors are here, they have complimented us on how well we have done.
We are just here tonight to apply to be able to run the office out of one office of our home.
Johnson: Are there any questions of Mrs. Walsh by the Commission?
Hepper: So you wouldn't have any supplies stored in the garage or behind the fence,
beside the house?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
July 11, 1995
Page 30
Walsh: No we don't.
Hepper: In the backyard, you don't have any and you don't plan on having any?
Walsh: That is correct.
Hepper: What about the second company vehicle?
Walsh: The second vehicle is currently parked behind the fence when it is brought home,
but we do have an employee and we are going to let him take that vehicle home and park
it at his house.
Hepper: Where is the main company vehicle parked?
Walsh: In the driveway.
Hepper: Do you have a 2 car garage or a 3 car garage?
Walsh: Two
Johnson: Do you have any copies of letters that we have received in opposition to your
request?
Walsh: No I don't have any of the opposition, I have a support letter for support, but no
opposition.
Johnson: I have a letter here from a realtor by the name of (inaudible) you are not familiar
with that letter?
Walsh: No I am not.
Johnson: It is dated June 14th, sent to the Zoning Administrator, the statements in here
conflict with your testimony. They make reference to vehicles particularly in a landscaping
vehicle parked on the street. Pluming supply warehouse run out of a garage. It speaks
toward traffic to and from the home. There is also a letter from Mr. Ron Hammon I believe
is the way you pronounce that at 2971 West Ann, writing for he and his wife, objecting to
the application.
Walsh: I believe his wife is here tonight and I, she can come up if she likes. t believe she
is okay with the office in the home. It is just the vehicles.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
July 11, 1995
Page 31
Johnson: That letter was dated June 7th perhaps some things have changed. There is also
another letter from a V. Schultz that is objecting as well. General objection based on a
commercial in a residential area. And we do have one letter of support as well. Any other
questions of Mrs. Walsh at this time?
Rountree: I have a question, she may have said it but I didn't hear it, it is in the letter that
Jim referred to the first time from the realtor, it speaks of a landscaping vehicle that is
parked there.
Walsh: I have no knowledge of what that is. This is one of the instances which has been
really hard for us to be calm about this because what happens is there has been lots of
complaints coming, it has nothing to do with our business. We have friends that are
contractors that may have a van that come over and visit. As soon as that person parks
in front somebody is calling City Hall about our business. It has nothing to do with running
our of our business and it is just getting really ridiculous to us because we are doing all
that we can. We respect our neighbors and we care about what they think. We certainly
do not want to do anything that is going to upset them or you know we want to have a
good relationship with them so we are doing anything that we can. The odds are against
us when every time there is something besides our own business another vehicle there
there is a complaint. So all you see are the complaints in front of you and that is what you
have to go on. The landscaping vehicle, I don't have any idea what that is. But like I say
at first when we did start the business in early January we did have some vehicles that
were parked out on the street and we did have some inventory in the garage. That has
been taken care of. We do have like I say we have some people here tonight that can
testify that everything has been looking real good around there and being kept up and the
vehicles have been parked behind the fence and there is no inventory in the garage. I also
have some pictures that I took on Monday of the side where we park the vehicle and also
what our garage looks like, if you would tike to see them.
Hepper: Is there anybody that works in the office besides you?
Walsh: No
Rountree: How many people are employed by the company?
Walsh: Two, the owner and one employee.
Rountree: The owner or the owners?
Walsh: The owners, myself and my husband James.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
July i1, 1995
Page 32
Rountree: So there would be 3 people whose livelihood depend on this company?
Walsh: That is right. 1 am at home so I am not in and out, we just adopted a baby so 1 am
staying home and am going to do the business. So I am there all day long now.
(End of Tape)
Hepper: When you have people come to the office or when you have business dealings
with contractors doing bids, payroll for your employees stuff like that, would most of them
be coming to the office?
Walsh: What we are doing is we are meeting the contractors in places like restaurants to
get the bids. The employee does come to the residence to pick up his paycheck.
Currently right now he has been coming back to the residence at the end of the day to
drop off the vehicle but like I said, and he parks his own vehicle behind our fence and
takes the truck, but now he will be bringing that home.
Johnson: Any other questions for Mrs. Walsh? Thank you very much, this is a public
hearing, is there someone else that would like to testify on this application?
Denise Milner, 2971 West Ann Street, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Milner: My husband Ron Hammon and I are one of the complainants. Since our complaint
we have seen that Jim, they have done a very good job at cleaning everything up. We
have no objection to a home office but we do have objection to a business with big trucks
and lots of employees and supplies in the front. They have changed that. Never did want
to see anybody hurt, lose their career but the changes that have been made are fine with
me personally. That is all I wanted to say.
Johnson: Fine, just for the record, does your subdivision have a homeowners
association?
Milner: Yes it does.
Johnson: Has it addressed this issue?
Milner: It says that there shall be no business.
Johnson: That is in the covenants though which we have access to, has there been any
public meetings regarding this business, any meetings by the homeowners association,
their board of directors?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
July 11, 1995
Page 33
Milner: Businesses in general
Johnson: No this specific one?
Milner: No
Johnson: And businesses in general what do they do?
Milner: It is going to be discussed again in August and perhaps make an amended to the
CCBR's.
Johnson: Thank you very much, anyone else like to address the Commission?
Ronald Glass, 1653 North Victor, was sworn by the City Attomey.
Glass: I too live in the subdivision, probably 8 or 9 houses down from the subject property.
At first the business was, there was more business run out of the garage and since then
basically all I see from where I am at is the daily work truck that you or I would drive back
and forth to work everyday. There are no signs on the truck it is just a truck. It has some
racks on the top with some pipe on it. There are other trucks just like it parked in the same
subdivision that are getting no complaints. It seems like this house has been singled out
maybe because of the activity and the certain individuals that are around it that are there
more often than other parts of the neighborhood. So, I have no objections to it and support
it. A small business in today's vworld is tough to run. If they can do it all the power to them.
I don't see any problem having an office there. That is really all I wanted to say.
Johnson: Thank you, anyone else?
Julie Verba, 2892 West Ann, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Verba: I live directly across the street from the Walsh's and have at the beginning noticed
all the traffic and things like that. They had family staying with them and everything so we
were understanding to that. But now, everything looks good, they keep their truck behind.
the fence, there is not a lot of activity going on. Me being right in front of them it doesn't
bother me to see the cars come and go and my little girl plays out front and there is not a
lot of traffic going on. So I am all for them getting their permit to run their business from
their home. I, this probably isn't the time to mention it but they are just wanting to run. a
business from their one bedroom but there are also people out in the subdivision that are
running day cares and I don't know if they have come in and gotten their certificates or
whatever they need to do in the subdivision to actually run a business. It is harder in
today's society to actually make it and a lot of people are working out of the home. So l
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
July 11, 1995
Page 34
support them and hope that they get their permit. Thank you.
Crookston: What is the name of the subdivision?
Verba: Sunburst.
Crookston: Thank you.
Johnson: Someone else that would like to address the Commission? Seeing no one then
I will c-ose the public hearing at this time. This is for an accessory use permit.
Rountree: I have a question, do we do findings on these or do we?
Johnson: It is my understanding we act on these, is that true Wayne?
Crookston: Mr. Chairman, it doesn't stick in my mind what exactly we do. The actual
question I have is whether or not this is an accessory use permit or whether it is a
conditional use.
Rountree: That is my next question, it seems to me that it is kind of on the edge of the
envelope of what an accessory is. A conditional use would not be allowed in this
neighborhood because my recollection is that it is an R-4 neighborhood.
Johnson: The fact that it is an accessory use permit application is probably not the
responsibility of the applicant. 1 don't know that they would know the difference or that any
layman would know the difference. So I would assume they were guided in that direction
by the City. Do you have any comments regarding what our action should be on this Shari
Stiles our Planning Administrator?
Stiles: Mr. Chairman and Commissioners, I did tell them to apply for the accessory use
permit because what they were asking for was to operate the office portion out of their
home and not the rest of it. Which would be allowed under the accessory use provisions
of the ordinance.
Johnson: t understand the accessory use permit with the way the activities have been
paired down, storage of supplies, materials, only an office t think it would fit the criteria for
an accessory use permit the way t understand it. Some of that is judgement.
Crookston: That is something that we can address in the findings.
Johnson: You would like us to do findings of fact is what you are saying.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
July 11, 1995
Page 35
Crookston: I think in that regard we should.
Rountree: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion that we have findings of fact and conclusions
prepared on this item.
Hepper: Second
Johnson: We have a motion for findings of fact and conclusions of law, all those in favor?
Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Johnson: What that means to you is that at our next meeting on August the 8th we will
have findings of fact prepared like we had tonight which are written documents that
address the situation from a legal standpoint and it incorporates all the testimony dealt
with here tonight. We have to pass those on rf we do approve them we have to pass those
onto City Council for approval and then they take it up at their next meeting. So it is kind
of a long process but we are just one step into it in a 3 or 4 step process depending on
how long it goes. Soon as the findings of fact are prepared and acted on by this Council
then they are made public to you. So you can get a copy of those following our August 8
meeting. Until they are acted on they are not public information.
(Inaudible)
Johnson: Well it is because, what is the reason for what, not being available to you?
(Inaudible)
Johnson: Well t think there is some feeling here that we are kind of in a gray area between
a conditional use application which probably would not be allowed because it is an R-4
subdivision or an accessory use permit which could be allowed because an accessory use
permit basically one that is unobtrusive for lack of a better term to the neighbors. There
are a lot of those. People might run a mail order business, you never see it or like an office
for telemarketing, you never see it. Those are permitted under our ordinance and we had
different guidelines and restrictions for both the accessory use permit and conditional use
permit. I feel you have applied in the right fashion on this because you have been guided
that way also. We need to incorporate the testimony tonight and state that so that when
it goes to the City Council there is no question. Where we are coming from as a
commission that doesn't mean they will accept what we do verbatim. The chances of it
being amended are probably slim unless you get substantial opposition between now and
then. You never know about those things, it will be noticed at the City and it will be on the
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
July 11, 1995
Page 36
City Council's agenda. At our next meeting there will be no further testimony like we did
the ones tonight that you had to sit through. If you have any further questions you can talk
to our City Clerk Will Berg or Shari Stiles during normal workfiours. I am being told that
perhaps we can give you a final decision if we determine it is an accessory use permit at
the next meeting. We don't have very many of these they come up only once or twice a
year. It is a very narrow definition of what will be permitted under an accessory use.
ITEM #24: PUBLIC HEARtNG: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A
DAY CARE BY WILLIAM AND CITY WALGAMOTT:
Johnson: I will now open the public hearing and invite the Walgamott's representative or
themselves to appear before the Commission and state what you plan on doing.
William. J. Walgamott, 3019 N. 28th Street, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Walgamott: We are requesting approval for a conditional use permit for the day care
facility at 1915 West Cherry Lane. I received many documents, I can't confirm what each
document is I am not that familiar with them. Several of them have a lot of stipulations, a
lot of requirements. Some of them are by the highway department or the highway district
excuse me. I received also another document on comments by the planning committee.
All of those things in there we plan to comply with. It is already set up the building is
already set up with a circular drive way. It already has the curb cuts in the sidewalk which
we plan to use. We are going to do a one way drive thru as not to obstruct the traffic. The
traffic will be flowing on, I am trying to think which way, i# would be west bound traffic.
Traffic will enter in from the west bound side, it will be adequate parking spaces there for
all of the parents to be able to drive into. There will also be parking along an existing
driveway and parking area presently for employees. We will do the one way so the
parents are not backing out, we don't have people coming out 2 different ways obstructing
view of another person. Compliance with the hours, I was just handed a notice here by
Shari Stiles the hours are well within our operating hours. I don't believe we will open at
6:00 at the earliest 6:30 and we will definitely be going past 6:00 in the evening. I
presently run a day care in Boise and I know personally just ftom working I don't want to
be working past 6:00 and I know my neighbors don't appreciate that either. That is one
of the things we want the neighbors there to understand. We also keep good control, the
time limit that the children are outside is not going to be early in the morning. They wilt be
going out at certain times mostly during the summer months it wilt probably be like from
10:00 to 11:00, 11:30 or so simply because of the heat. The respect for the neighbors, I
am sure in that area there will be neighbors that aren't going to get up until maybe 9:00
or so. 1 personally wouldn't want a whole bunch of kids out or even a dozen kids out in the
back yard playing and yelling and what have you interrupting my sleep. Every thing that
we have found with the property, the building fits pertectty for what we were looking for.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
July 11, 1995
Page 37
The access, I mean it is a pertect spot in everything that we could find for a day care
center in this area. It is an upgrowing area, there is not any day cares really in the vicinity
of us of where we are trying to do it at. Now I am speaking on that from the way it is in
Boise, now in Boise in a mile radius of my house I could probably name at least half a
dozen large centers, I have one just down the street from me that takes in I think
approximately 80 children. Which is right smack dab in the residential area on 28th Street
and we do hear their children in the day time. But as far as out here 1 don't believe there
are that many others around.
Johnson: Okay, any questions of the applicant?
Crookston: How is your backyard, is it fenced?
Walgamott: The backyard presently is fenced and it has a 6 foot wooden fence. It is the
dog eared fence as far as the top, it is completely closed together so there is not a way for
children to put things through the fence and if there are pets on the other side they are not
going to be teased and things like that. We will be fencing another portion of the yard
which is along the side of the house which would be facing the highway Cherry lane. We
will also be fencing another side which will be coming from as you can see, I believe you
have the little diagram there, where the shed is where the auxiliary building that will be
fenced up to the garage. It will all be completely fenced in, the yard will be completely
fenced so there will be accessible gates but there wilt not be any open areas for that.
Crookston: 1 am not familiar with the property exactly, but i am aware that there is a house
along Cherry Lane on the east side of Linder that has a pool, does this have a pool?
Walgamott: No sir
Johnson: This is the old house that use to be there.
Walgamott: Yes, it is an older white house with a gravel roof.
Crookston: I was just trying to think of the older owner. 1 was aware of the name but it
slips my mind now. He owned that entire 80 acres there.
Walgamott: I would assume so, the house looks, I am not sure of the exactly building or
when it was constructed, but it is older.
Crookston: What concerns me along Cherry Lane, are you going to require that the
children be dropped off in that curve driveway rather than off of Cherry Lane. Can
somebody stop on the curb and let their kids jump out.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
July 11, 1995
Page 38
Walgamott: No, being in compliance with the highway district they said no one can park
on Cherry Lane and a requirement of the parents will be that they bring the children inside
the facility not just drop them off at the door, but they are going to be required to walk
inside the facility and sign in. That is a recommendation by us for the child's safety, for our
safety so we know that child has been brought in.
Crookston: What kind of, I assume you have gates on your fences, are they easily opened
and closed or are they going to be structured so that children cannot, children can do lots
of things. So they cannot be easily opened.
Walgamott: Currently there are no gates, the areas that we will be fencing that are not
presently fenced we will put access gates in. No they will not be easily accessed, we will
put a little clip, just a spring loaded clip, I don't know how else to call it, just a little clip so
that it hooks onto the gate latch itself so that if someone does need to get in or out they
can unhook that. Most children on a 6 foot fence unless they bring over several toys and
stack them up would not be able to reach that clip to get out. The purpose of that is just
to keep him in that contained area.
Crookston: How many children are you planning on caring for?
Walgamott: Right now we are anticipating under 45, simply because the size of the
structure we have was 1600 square feet. Computing that out we can do 45 children. We
will not know an exact number yet until we get the fire department to come in and tell us
and the State Health and Welfare they need to come in and do inspections also.
Crookston: You will be obtaining a health and welfare license a day care?
Walgamott' Yes sir.
Crookston: Thank you
Rountree: What ages of children will you be looking after?
Walgamott: Currently we are still deciding that more than likely it will be probably 2 years
old up to after schoolers.
Rountree: No infants?
Walgamott: Right not we prefer not to take infants.
Rountree: You talked about the minimum or you would, I have a drawing in our packet
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
July 11, 1995
Page 39
indicates a proposed bedroom. Would that proposed addition add to that number?
Walgamott: What I am estimating, this is my personal estimation and that should bring us
right up to the 1600 square feet with that proposed and that is a garage that is already
finished, it has already been sheet rocked and everything it just needs to go in and be
taped and textured. Removal of the garage door, it already has large windows in there
and that is because they take out the kitchen area and the bathroom areas when they
figure that and any storage closets, they take out those areas when they figure the amount
of children you can have.
Rountree: The sole use of the building would be for a day care, there will be no residential
use there?
Walgamott: No sir
Johnson: Any other questions? Thank you, this is a public hearing, anyone else like to
address the Commission on this application for a day care center? Seeing no one then
I will close the public hearing. This would require findings of fact.
Shearer: Mr. Chairman I move we have the City Attorney prepare findings of fact and
conclusions of law on this project.
Rountree: Second
Johnson: It is moved and seconded that we have the City Attorney prepare findings of fact
and conclusions of law for the application for a day care by the Walgamott's, all those in
favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #25: PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A SIDEWALK CAFE
BY HARRY'S BAR AND GRILL:
Johnson: At this time I will open the public hearing and invite the applicant to address the
Commission or his representative.
Steve Youngerman, 5451 South Caper Place, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Youngerman: I got the input from the City staff on my request for a conditional use permit
and I have kind of prepared some responses for that. I have copies for everybody. Do you
have the drawing that we made in your packet? Essentially what we want to do is to put
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
July 11, 1995
Page 40
five tables and ten chairs along the overhang on the front of the building that faces E. 1st
Street. In the responses and I will just start from the top, the City Engineer or the Assistant
to the City Engineer addresses traffic volumes both vehicular and pedestrian. As a
concern over the tables being a distraction to the motoring public and possibly impeding
pedestrian traffic on the sidewalk, the tables would be shielded from most motorists by
parked vehicles being along the visual parking strip along there. (Inaudible) that is 14 feet
wide shouldn't impede any kind of pedestrian traffic. My observation of running a business
in downtown Meridian the pedestrian traffic is quite light anyway. Probably less than one
person every minute. We have already had the plans reviewed by ACRD and they have
approved it and we have a license agreement between Harry's Bar and Grill and ACHO
being processed at this time. The Chief of Police raises the concern of the new premise
description needs to go to the Alcohol Beverage Control Commission, 1 have talked to Fred
Bums who is our local agent about the project and he has been consulted and is able to
provide some input. If an when this is approved would be the appropriate time to give him
a new premise description and draw one up for him. The Chief of Police also raises the
question about people under the influence of alcohol and in the middle of a public
conveyance. The people that would be out there would be under the same kind of rules
and restrictions on over service and intoxicated patrons as our inside. The real intent of
this is not to sell cocktails on First Avenue East, it is really to increase my lunch business
which I don't have a great percentage of my luncheon patrons don't drink Mostly because
a great percentage of them go back to work and have a Pepsi or ice tea or something like
that. There are a number of establishments in downtown Boise that have outside seating
areas and quite a bit larger than ours, the one that we propose and it seems to work for
them quite well. The Fire Marshall raises the question of blocking access to fire exits. We
can't block fire exits when you operate a business and we don't, we wouldn't in this
instance. Again Central District Health we would give them a new description when at the
appropriate time if this is approved. It is important to note that we aren't proposing any
change in any kind of food or beverage preparation which is of course about 90% of their
concem. Kind of as a cosing downtown Meridian is kind of drying up on us. Zamzows is
going to move there is another business on my block that is going to move in 6 months.
Little towns all over the country are facing this. People are going out to strip malls and
things like that. This will add some community and friendliness to the downtown
community that maybe it lacks right now. That is all I have to say.
Johnson: Thank you, any questions of the applicant?
Rountree: Would the tables be secured in the location that you propose?
Youngerman: No they wouldn't, they would be stackable tables mostly for the reason that
I would like to stack them up and cable them at night so they wouldn't be stolen. The table
1 want to use is made by Grossiflex and it is a 24 inch square stacker that has an umbrella
Meridian Planning 8 Zoning Commission
July 11, 1995
Page 41
hole in the middle. I have used them in other places that I have operated and you run a
cable through the middle and if they want to steal the whole stack or what we will do is
attach it to the building. So you stack your chairs and you stack your tables and run a
cable through the hole mess and lock them up.
Hepper: Would they be stacked on the outside?
Youngerman: That was our plan, it is going to be nice clean looking stuff.
Shearer: Would you anticipate holding this out in the bulb?
Youngerman: No, mostly because it is so sunny out there most of the year. I know that
Bolo's has a new outside seating area it is on the south side of their building and you don't
see many people out there in the afternoon because it is so hot right now. I might add to
on the traffic impediment, pedestrian impediment, Zamzows has got steer manure and dog
houses and calf hutches and everything else stacked underneath their overhang and I kind
of have a feeling that ff steer manure is appropriate on the sidewalk in Meridian maybe
people eating lunch ought to too.
Johnson: Any other questions of Steve?
Shearer. I would anticipate though that you would need to keep 5 foot of concrete on the
exterior side open.
Youngerman: That is what ACRD said to us too.
Shearer: Which means, actually that is 15 foot not 14 foot that you have that there is 2
foot of brick and 6 inches of curb so there is 2.5 feet and another 5 would be 7.5 feet in
which would leave you about 7.5 feet to work with.
Youngerman: We are only anticipating using about 5, the tables are 24 inches wide and
a 36 inch alley should be adequate.
Shearer: I think if you have 5 feet between the brick and the tables, you would be more
than adequate.
Youngerman: I know that the guy from ACHD thought that it had increased the traffic
county by 120 cars a day. 1 figure there are about 1.5 people per car and if 1 could be 180
people in for every 10 seats I added I would be adding seats fast and furiously I tell you.
1 think that is a little bit exaggerated.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
July 11, 1995
Page 42
Johnson: I have a question regarding the hours of use, the concern by the police
department seems to be alcohol and the open container law. Would it be possible or a
consideration for this only to be used certain hours of the day like the noon hour or do you
also anticipate this in evening hours.
Youngerman: My grill is open on week nights until 9:00 and we serve food until 2:00 on
Friday and Saturday nights. I would like to have as many hours as I could but I also want
to do this.
Johnson: I am just kind of edwing what you said, you would like to see your lunch crowd
grow. I don't eat lunch at 9:00.
Youngerman: If that was something that we could work out I would be open to that.
Johnson: Anything else? Thanks Steve, anyone else from the public that would like to
come forward on this application? Everyone is here for the las item so we will now close
this public hearing. This is a request for a conditional use permit it would require findings
of fact from the City Attorney.
Rountree: Mr. Chairman, I move we have findings of fact prepared on this item.
Hepper: Second
Johnson: It is moved and seconded we the City Attorney prepare findings of fact and
conclusions of law, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #26: PUBLIC HEARING WITH REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF
4.54 ACRES TO LIMITED OFFICE FOR TREASURE VALLEY BABTIST CHURCH BY
RICHARD DEMICHELE:
Johnson: I will now open the public hearing and invite the applicant or his representative
to come forvvard and address the Commission.
Frank Graham, 2704 Northwest 13th, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Graham: I just wanted to, 1 had a couple of questions here on the letters and the
comments that come bads from and I think the one was from the fire department and it said
that they were concerned about us building wooden furniture and other equipment inside
of the building. I don't know what we would build inside of the church, we don't build
• i
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
July 11, 1995
Page 43
anything in the church. If there is anything to be built we build it outside or in another
location and bring it into the church. So I don't know that comment was or who would, 1
think it was written by the Fire Chief.
Johnson: 1 think what he is alluding to is certain fire codes have to be met wooden pews
or (inaudible) I think he is just tipping you off that you would have to meet the fire code on
that.
Graham: We have 2 rows of wooden pews is all we have in the whole building. The rest
of the chairs are all metal chairs. And that includes probably 375.
Johnson: Right and 1 couldn't tell you what those requirements are, 1 think he is just
alerting you to that fact. Once annexed into the City you can anticipate an inspection.
Graham: That is my only comment.
Johnson: Any questions of Frank? Does anybody have any?
Hepper: 1've got a question, this is to bring the church into the City limits is that what the
application is for?
Graham: Right, for the purpose of water. We have sewer crossing the property now, we
are hooked up to the sewer. The water is in the fire hydrants are hooked up as far as I
know. The, we just want to hook up to the water so that we will have City water and we will
use our well water to irrigate and to water the property.
Johnson: Did you get the comments from Bruce Freckleton the Assistant to the City
Engineer dated July 7? There are four comments.
Graham: Oh yes
Johnson: Do you have any questions or problems or anything at all regarding these
comments?
Graham: No, the only one I had is number 2 the item existing irrigation drainage ditches
and such as that. On the side of the property which would be the east side of the property
is Nine Mile Creek. Is that what he had in mind there?
Smith: That is a natural drainage way.
Johnson: A natural drainage wouldn't be tiled. No we wouldn't be expecting you to the
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
July 11, 1995
Page 44
that.
Graham: We have ducks in there now.
Johnson: Thank you, anyone else from the public that would like to address the
Commission on this application? No other discussion or testimony I will close the public
hearing at this time. This is a request for annexation to bring into the city the main
purpose of which is to attach the City water.
Shearer: Mr. Chairman, I move we have the Attomey prepare findings of fact and
conclusions of law.
Rountree: Second
Johnson: It is moved and seconded we have the City Attomey prepare findings of fact and
conclusions of law on the application from Treasure Valley Baptist Church, all those in
favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Johnson: It is 9:45, 26 items and it is 9:45.
Shearer: I move we adjourn.
Rountree: Second
Johnson: We have a motion and a second for adjournment, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:45 P.M.
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
APPROVED:
SON, CHAIRMAN
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
July 11, 1995
Page 45
ATTEST:
WILLIAM G. BERG, JR. C~ ERK
CITY OF MERIDIAN
PUBLIC MEETING SIGN-UP SHEET
Ju.,e~. //~ / 9 9 S
~~
• ORIGINAL
BEFORE THE MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
WILLIAM AND CINDY WALGAMOTT
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
1915 W. CHERRY LANE
MERIDIAN, IDAHO
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The above entitled matter having come on for public hearing
July 11, 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
said public hearing scheduled for July 11, 1995, the first
publication of which was fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing;
that the matter was duly considered at the July 11, 1995, hearing;
that the public was given full opportunity to express comments and
submit evidence; and that copies of all notices were available to
newspaper, radio and television stations;
2. That this property is located within the City of
Meridian and the Applicant is not the owner of the property; that
the owner is Anne L. Plough and she gives her consent for this
application; that the property is currently zoned L-O Limited
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 1
WALGAMOTT
Office; that the intention of the Applicant is to operate a day
care for children 2 years of age and up to after schoolers and
preferably no infants; that with the proposed addition of making
the garage a room, the square footage of the day care would be
1,600 feet; that this will be a day care facility and not used as
a residence; that the plans are for this facility to handle up to
45 children; that the Applicants are applying for a license from
the Department of Health and Welfare; that the hours would be from
6:30 a.m. to approximately 6:00 p.m.; that the backyard is~fenced
with a six (6) foot wooden fence, no gates, and that another
portion, involving the shed area and garage, would be a fenced
area not accessible to children but would have spring loaded gates
for access; that there will be a one way drive through access with
adequate parking space; that children will not be dropped off from
Cherry Lane, but would need to be brought into the facility and
each child signed in by the parent/guardian; that the comments
received from the Planning Director, Assistant City Engineer, Ada
County Highway District would be complied with.
3. That a day care center is a permitted use in the L-O
District under a conditional use permit; the Limited Office Zone
requires a conditional use permit for the operation of a day care
center caring for thirteen (13) or more children, which is the use
the application requests; that such use requires a conditional use
permit in any zone where allowed.
4. That the L-O District is described in the Zoning
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 2
WALGAMOTT
Ordinance, 11-2-408 B. 7 as follows:
(L-O) 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 System of the City of Meridian is
a requirement in this district.
5. The Applicants requests that a conditional use be
granted for the operation of a Day Care Center.
6. The Assistant to the City Engineer submitted comments
which are incorporated herein as if set forth in full; the
comments address the off-street parking requirements, drainage,
outside lighting, paving and striping, and signage shall meet all
Meridian City Ordinances; that sewer and water are available but
the use may require additional charges or fees.
7. That the City Planning and Zoninq Administrator, Shari
Stiles submitted comments which are incorporated herein as if set
forth in full; that all parking and driveway areas will need to be
paved prior to opening; that a handicap parking space must be a
minimum of 8 feet wide with an 8 foot access aisle and be signed
appropriately; that all fire and life safety codes be complied
with; that the number of children be kept to approved levels; that
the hours of operation be restricted to 6:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m.;
that the entrance corridor of Cherry Lane be landscaped with sod
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 3
WALGAMOTT
and trees.
8. The Ada County Highway District submitted comments and
they are hereby incorporated herein; that the driveways shall be
a minimum of 20 feet wide and a maximum of 24 feet wide and shall
be signed as one way with the westerly driveway enter only and the
easterly driveway exit only with no additional driveways
permitted; that a minimum of two additional standard on-site
parking spaces be provided (total 10); that no parking shall be
allowed on Cherry Lane; and that utility street cuts in the new
pavement on Cherry Lane will not be allowed unless approved by the
District Commission.
9. Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District submitted comments
and they are hereby incorporated herein.
10. Central District Health Department submitted comments
and they are hereby incorporated herein.
11. That there was no public 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
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 4
WALGAMOTT
11-2-418 of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of
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 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
Meridian, and the record submitted to it and the things of which
it may take judicial notice.
6. 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
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 5
WALGAMOTT
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 Cherry Lane
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.
g. If the conditions are met, the use should 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, noise, smoke, fumes,
glare or odors.
h. That sufficient parking for the proposed use will
be required to meet the requirements of the City
ordinance.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 6
WALGAMOTT
i. The development and uses will not result in the
destruction, loss or damage of a natural or scenic
feature of major importance.
7. That the Applicant shall comply with the Uniform
Building Code, Uniform Fire Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, Uniform
Electrical Code, the Uniform Fire and Life Safety Code, and all
parking and paving requirements.
8. The Applicant shall meet the conditions of the Ada
County highway Department; that if any children are dropped off
while the car they are departing is on Cherry Lane, the
Conditional Use Permit, if granted, may be revoked.
9. The Conditional Use Permit, if granted, should be
reviewed periodically to see if the Applicant continues to meet
the requirements of the permit.
APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts and
approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions.
ROLL CALL
HEPPER
COMMISSIONER ROUNTREE
COMMISSIONER SHEARER
COMMISSIONER ALIDJANI
CHAIRMAN JOHNSON (TIE BREAKER)
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
WALGAMOTT
VOTED
VOTED_'~~ ~ ~,G~~
VOTED G
VOTED
VOTED
Page 7
DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION
The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends
to the City Council of the City of Meridian that they approve the
Conditional Use Permit requested by the Applicant for the property
described in the application with the conditions set forth in the
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law 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, 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:
P~~
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page S
WALGAMOTT
BEFORE THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN
JACKSON FOOD STORES, INC.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
LOT 11 OF MAGIC VIEW SUBDIVISION
625 NORTH EAGLE ROAD
MERIDIAN, IDAHO
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The above entitled annexation and zoning application having
come on for consideration on July 11, 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 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 July 11, 1995, the first
publication of which was fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing;
that the matter was duly considered at the July 11, 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
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - CONDITIONAL, USE/JACKSON
Page 1
CJ
reference is incorporated herein; that the property is
approximately 4.5 acres in size.
3. That the property is presently zoned C-G General Retail
and Service Commercial (C-G); that the specific use for the
property will be for a Jacksons Travel center, providing food and
fuel service, which application requires a conditional use permit
for the operation of the travel center.
4. That the General Retail and Service Commercial, (C-G) is
defined in the Zoning Ordinance at 11-2-408 B. 11. as follows:
(C-G1 General Retail and Service Commercial: The purpose of
the (C-G) District is to provide for commercial uses which are
customarily operated entirely or almost entirely within a
building; to provide for a review of the impact of proposed
commercial uses which are auto and service oriented and are
located in close proximity to major highway or arterial
streets; to fulfill the need of travel-related services as
well as retail sales for the transient and permanent motoring
public. All such districts shall be connected to the
Municipal Water and Sewer systems of the City of Meridian, and
shall not constitute strip commercial development and
encourage clustering of commercial development.
5. That the use proposed by Applicant is a specifically
allowed conditional use in the Zoning Schedule of Use Control, 11-
2-409.
6. That the property is located on Eagle Road just north of
Interstate I-84; that the property immediately to the south is a
vacant corn field; that the application complies with the Meridian
Comprehensive Plan.
7. That Jacksons Food Stores, Inc. is the record owner of
the above referenced property and has consented to the application
and has requested this conditional use and the application is not
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - CONDITIONAL USE/JACKSON
Page 2
at the request of the City of Meridian.
8. That there was no testimony presented at this hearing by
the Applicant or a representative.
9. That there was no public testimony given.
10. That the Meridian City Planning Director, the City
Engineer, Police Department, Fire Department, the Ada County
Highway District, Central District Health Department, U S West and
the Nampa Meridian Irrigation submitted comments and they are
incorporated herein as if set forth in full.
11. That Gary Smith, City Engineer, and Bruce Freckleton
Assistant to the City Engineer, submitted comments; 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 irrigation; that the high seasonal
ground water needs to be determined and a profile submitted on the
subsurface soil conditions as prepared by a soil scientist with the
design of the site drainage plan; that a drainage plan designed by
an architect or an engineer shall be submitted for all off-street
parking areas; that outside lighting shall be designed and placed
so as to not direct illumination on any nearby residences; that all
signage shall be in accordance with Meridian City Ordinances; that
off-street parking, paving and stripping, and sidewalks shall all
be provided in accordance with City Ordinances; that all
construction shall conform to the requirement of the Americans with
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - CONDITIONAL USE/JACKSON
Page 3
Disabilities Act; that sanitary sewer service could be to the sewer
line being installed in Magic View Drive directly adjacent to the
north; that water service to the proposed site could be to the
water line being installed along the easterly side of S. Eagle Road
and that assessment fees for water and sewer service shall be
determined during the building plan review process; that Late
Comers fees will also be charged on installing the water and sewer
mains to help reimburse the parties responsible for installing.
12. That the Planning and Zoning Administrator, Shari Stiles
submitted comments and they are incorporated herein as if set forth
in full; that the area shown as sod is not to be replaced with
bark, rock, etc.; that continuation of the sidewalk is required
along Eagle Road; that additional parking spaces are required;
City Ordinance requires one (1) space per 200 square feet of gross
floor area; that the total paved area calculation be provided to
the Zoning Administrator; that landscaping should be considered
along the westerly portion of developed area to screen the facility
from view of nearby residential sites and consideration for nearby
residents made during construction.
13. The Meridian Police and Fire Department Departments
submitted comments as did the Central District Health Department,
Nampa Meridian Irrigation District, and U. S. West; that all such
comments are incorporated herein as if set forth in full.
14. That U S West commented that the standard easement
requested of 10 feet of front lot line easement from right-of-way
on Magic View and 10 feet along Eagle Road be granted.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - CONDITIONAL USE/JACKSON
Page 4
15. That the Ada County Highway District (ACRD) submitted
site specific requirements and they are incorporated herein as if
set forth in full which include constructing two (2) 30-foot wide
curb return driveways on Magic View Drive; that the eastern
driveway shall be located a minimum of 85-feet west of the Eagle
Road right-of-way and the western driveway shall be located a
minimum of 125-feet west of the eastern driveway; dedicate an
additional 30-feet of right-of-way from the centerline of Magic
View Drive abutting parcel (5 additional feet); dedicate a 15'x 15'
triangle (or appropriate curve) of right-of-way at the corner of
Magic View Drive and Eagle Road abutting parcel to keep the street
improvements in the public right-of-way; comply with requirements
of the Idaho Transportation Department for State Highway 55/Eagle
Road frontage; locate proposed signs out of the public right-of-way
and out of clear-vision sight-triangle of all street and driveway
intersections.
16. That proper notice was given as required by law and all
procedures before the Planning and Zoning Commission have been
given and followed.
CONCLUSIONS
1. That all the procedural requirements of the Local
Planning Act and of the Ordinances of the City of Meridian have
been met; including the mailing of notice to owners of property
within 300 feet of the external boundaries of the Applicant's
property.
2. That the City of Meridian has authority to grant
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - CONDITIONAL USE/JACKSON
Page 5
conditional uses pursuant to Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code, and
Section 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. The property will have to be furnished sewer and
water service which shall be the responsibility of
the Applicant.
e. 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.
5. That all ordinances of the City of Meridian must be met,
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - CONDITIONAL USE/JACKSON
Page 6
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 paving requirements.
6. That all conditions and requirements of the City Engineer
and City Planning Director shall be met and complied with.
APFROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts and
approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions.
ROLL CALL
COMMISSIONER HEPPER VOTED
COMMISSIONER ROUNTREE VOTED~~
COMMISSIONER SHEARER VOTED-~/~
COMMISSIONER ALIDJANI VOTED-rte _° ~ C
V
CHAIRMAN JOHNSON (TIE BREAKER) VOTED
DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION
The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends
to the Meridian City Council that they approve the Conditional Use
Permit requested by the Applicant for the property described in the
application with the conditions set forth in the Findings of Fact
and Conclusions of Law.
MOTION: C~~ ~d
APPROVED :(((/// DISAPPROVED:
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - CONDITIONAL USE/JACKSON
Page 7
•
• oR~~~NAL
BEFORE THB MERIDIAR PLARHIHO AHD ZOHIHO COMMISSION
TREASURE VALLEY BAPTIST CHURCH
AMRESATIOH ARD ZONIHO
A PORTIOR OF THH $W 1/4 OF THS SS 1/4 OF SSCTIOH 18,
TOWNSHIP 3 HORTH RAROS 1 EAST
BOISE MSRIDIAH
MERIDIAN, IDABO
FINDIROS OF FACT ARD COHCLUSIOHS OF LAW
The above entitled annexation and zoning application having
come on for public hearing on July 11, 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, the Petitioner appearing through their
representative, Frank Graham, on July 11, 1995, the Planning and
Zoning Commission having heard and taken oral and written testimony
and having duly considered the matter, the Planning and Zoning
Commission makes the following:
FIHDIROS 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 July 11, 1995, the first
publication of which was fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing;
that the matter was duly considered at the July 11, 1995 hearing;
that the public was given full opportunity to express comments and
submit evidence; and that copies of all notices were available to
newspaper, radio and television stations;
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION - TREASURE VALLEY BAPTIST CHURCH
Page 1
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
approximately 4.54 acres in size; it is located in Lot 2 Block 1 of
the Timothy Subdivision.
3. That the property is presently zoned by the county as RT
(Rural Transition) and the proposed zone would be L-O, Limited
Office; that churches are a permitted use in the L-O District under
the Meridian Zoning Ordinance.
4. The present land use is currently for the Treasure Valley
Baptist Church, which church has been constructed and used for a
number of years.
5. That the property is adjacent and abutting to the present
City limits.
6. The Applicant, Treasure Valley Baptist Church, is the
owner of record of the property.
7. That the property included in the annexation and zoning
application is within the Area of Impact of the City of Meridian.
8. That the entire parcel of ground is included within the
Meridian Urban Service Planning Area as the Urban Service Planning
Area is defined in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan.
9. That the Application requests that the parcel be annexed
and zoned L-O, Limited Office; that the L-0 District is described
in the Zoning Ordinance, 11-2-408 B. 7 as follows:
jL-O) Limited Office District - The purpose of the (L-O)
District is to permit the establishment of groupings of
professional, research, executive, administrative, accounting,
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION - TREASURE VALLEY BAPTIST CHURCH
Page 2
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.
10. That the Applicant indicated that the intended annexation
of the property is for the sole purpose of connecting to city
water; that they are currently hooked up to the sewer; that well
water will be used to irrigate and to water the property; that the
landscaping on the property is complete and will be a beautiful
addition to the City of Meridian
11. That Frank Graham testified that the comments received
from the Fire Department were not understood; that nothing is built
inside the building; that anything which is built is done strictly
outside the building and then brought in; that the comments made by
the Assistant City Engineer, Bruce Freckleton regarding the
existing irrigation/drainage ditches and tiling; that on the east
aide of the property is Nine Mile Creek; that is a natural drainage
way which wouldn't be tiled.
12. That the City Engineer's office, Police Department, Fire
Department, Central District Health Department, and the Nampa
Meridian Irrigation submitted comments and they are incorporated
herein as if set forth in full
13. That the Assistant to the City Engineer, Bruce Freckleton
submitted comments, which are incorporated herein as if set forth
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION - TREASURE VALLEY BAPTIST CHURCH
Page 3
in full; that the Corporate City Limit lines of the City of
Meridian are adjacent and contiguous to the westerly boundary of
the proposed annexation, however the Corporate City Limit line
along the northerly boundary is at the north right-of-way line of
I-84; that the legal description submitted with this application
only describes to the centerline of I-84; that per City of Meridian
Resolution 158 and Idaho State Tax Commission Regulations, the
inclusion of all the right-of-way between the subject parcel and
the northerly right-of-way line needs to be in the legal
description and map for annexation; that any existing
irrigation/drainage ditches crossing the property to be included in
this annexation shall be tiled per City Ordinance; that any
existing domestic wells and/or septic systems with this project
will have to be removed from their domestic service per City
Ordinance; that wells may be used for non-domestic purposes such as
landscape irrigation; that connection to City services will be
subject to Applicant paying assessment fees for sewer and water
service as well as the applicable latecomers fees associated with
each mainline; that Applicant will be required to enter into a re-
assessment agreement with the City.
14. That the Meridian City Fire Department submitted
comments; that the Department does not have a problem with this
annexation, but that all codes will need to met when they start to
build wooden furniture or other equipment inside or outside of
church.
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION - TREASURE VALLEY BAPTIST CHURCH
Page 4
15. That Meridian has, and is, experiencing a population
increase; that there are pressures on land previously used for
agricultural uses to be developed.
16. That the property can be physically serviced with City
water and sewer.
17. 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.
18. That Section 11-9-605 C states ae 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, parka or shopping areas;
the pedestrian easement shall be at least ten feet (10')
wide."
19. 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."
20. 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;"
23. That Section 11-9-605 K states as follows:
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION - TREASURE VALLEY BAPTIST CHURCH
Page 5
"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."
24. That Section 11-9-605 L states as follows:
Bicycle and pedestrian pathways shall be encouraged within new
developments as part of the public right of way or as separate
easements so that an alternate transportation system (which is
distinct and separate from the automobile) can be provided
throughout the City Urban Service Planning Area. The
Commission and Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider
the Bicvcle-Pedestrian Design Manual for Ada County (as
prepared by Ada County Highway District) when reviewing
bicycle and pedestrian pathway provisions within developments.
25. That in prior requests for annexation and zoning the
previous Zoning Administrator has commented that annexation could
be conditioned on a development agreement including an impact fee
to help acquire a future school or park site to serve the area and
that annexations should be subject to impact fees for park, police,
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION - TREASURE VALLEY BAPTIST CHURCH
Page 6
and fire services as determined by the city and designated in an
approved development agreement; that such comment is equally
applicable to this Application.
26. That in 1992 the Idaho State Legislature passed
amendments to the Local Planning Act, which in 67-6513 Idaho Code,
relating to subdivision ordinances, states as follows:
"Each such ordinance may provide for mitigation of the effects
of subdivision development on the ability of political
subdivisions of the state, including school districts, to
deliver services without compromising quality of service
delivery to current residents or imposing substantial
additional costs upon current residents to accommodate the
subdivision.";
that the City of Meridian is concerned with the increase in
population that is occurring and with its impact on the City being
able to provide fire, police, emergency health care, water, sewer,
parks and recreation services to its current residents and to those
moving into the City; the City is also concerned that the increase
in population is burdening the schools of the Meridian School
District which provide school service to current and future
residents of the City; that the City knows that the increase in
population does not sufficiently increase the tax base to offset
the cost of providing fire, police, emergency health care, water,
sewer, parks and recreation services; and the City knows that the
increase in population does not provide sufficient tax base to
provide for school services to current and future students.
27. 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,
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION - TREASURE VALLEY BAPTIST CHURCH
Page 7
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.
28. That proper notice was given as required by law and all
procedures before the Planning and Zoning Commission 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
and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian; that exercise of
the City's annexation authority is a legislative function.
3. .That the Planning and Zoning Commission has judged this
annexation and zoning application under Section 50-222, Idaho Code,
Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code, the Meridian City Ordinances, the
Meridian Comprehensive Plan, as amended, and the record submitted
to it and things of which it can take judicial notice.
4. That all notice and hearing requirements set forth in
Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code, and the Ordinances of the City of
Meridian have been complied with.
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION - TREASURE VALLEY BAPTIST CHURCH
Page 8
5. That the Commission may take judicial notice of
government ordinances, and policies, and of actual conditions
existing within the City and State.
6. That the land within the proposed annexation is
contiguous to the present City limits of the City of Meridian, and
the annexation would not be a shoestring annexation.
7. .That the annexation application has been initiated by the
Applicant, with the consent of the owner 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 11-9-605 M, Piping of Ditches; that the Applicant will be
required to connect to Meridian water and sewer; that the property
shall be subject to and controlled by the Subdivision and
Development Ordinance; that, as a condition of annexation the.
Applicant shall be required to enter into a development agreement
as authorized by 11-2-416 L and 11-2-417 D; that the development
agreement shall address the inclusion into the subdivision of the
requirements of 11-9-605 C, G., H 2, R, L, and M.
10. That proper and adequate access to the property is
minimal, but available, and it is suggested that additional access
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION - TREASURE VALLEY BAPTIST CHURCH
Page 9
•
be obtained, but this is not a condition of annexation, and all
access shall be maintained.
11. That the annexation and zoning Application is in
conformance with the Comprehensive Plan and does not conflict with
the Rural Areas policies.
12. It is concluded that the development as a L-O, Limited
Office use is in the City's best interest and that the property
should be zoned in that fashion.
13. Therefore, based on the Application, the Findings of Fact
and Conclusions, and the Ordinances of the City of Meridian, it is
ultimately concluded that Applicant's property should be annexed
and zoned Limited Office; that the use of the property shall not be
changed; that representations of Applicant's representative shall
be a restriction on the use of the property and all representations
shall be met; that such annexation would be orderly development and
reasonable if the conditions are met; that the property shall be
subject to de-annexation if the L-O restrictions are violated or
the use is changed
14. That all ditches, canals, and waterways shall be tiled as
a condition of annexation and if not so tiled the property shall be
subject to de-annexation.
15. With compliance of the conditions contained herein, the
annexation and zoning of Limited Office, would be in the beat
interest of the City of Meridian.
16. That if the conditions of approval are not met the
property shall be subject to de-annexation.
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION - TREASURE VALLEY BAPTIST CHURCH
Page 10
APPROVAL OF FINDIN(i8 OF FACT AND
The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts and
approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions.
ROLL CALL
COMMISSIONER HEPPER
ROUNTREE
COMMISSIONER SHEARER VOTED
ALIDJANI VOTED ~~
CHAIRMAN JOHNSON (TIE BREAKER)
DECISION AND RSCONNENDATION
8~~
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
in the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and 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 C nclusions.
MOTION:
APPROVED: ~ ~ DISAPPROVED:
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION - TREASURE VALLEY BAPTIST CHURCH
Page 11
• V'e ~ Q<v~~f 7 ~/-~S
~~~>
Harr~^s
13ar & Grill
704 East 1st St.
Meridian, ID 83642
To: Mayor, City Council, Planning & Zoning
From: Steve Youngerman, Proprietor
Subject: Proposed Sidewalk Cafe
In response to the various questions raised by the conditional use permit process, we have
prepared the following answers.
The tables will be shielded from most motorists views by parked vehicles much of
the time. Requiring only 5' of a sidewalk that is 14' feet wide at its narrowest will
prevent us from impeding extremely light pedestrian traffic, pedestrian traffic in
Downtown Meridian is well below one pedestrian every minute upon average.
ACHD have already reviewed the plans and a license agreement between Harry's Bar
& Grill and ACHD is being processed at this time.
Fred Burns, of Alcohol Beverage Control has been consulted about the project and.
has been able to provide input, a new premise description will be submitted at the
appropriate time.
Our outside seating azea would be subject to the same kinds of rules on over serving
and intoxicated patrons as any inside seating and would help to control those patrons
who would like to get a breath of fresh air. A number of establishments in
downtown Boise have outside seating areas considerably larger than that which we
propose.
Fire codes prohibit any blockage of fire exits under any circumstances.
Central District Health will be asked to inspect at the appropriate times, it is
important to point out there will be no changes in any food or beverage preparation
areas.
Meridian's Downtown is in a serious state of decline, retail business have fled to the
outlying areas. It was sad to see the lack of participation in the Dairy Days Sidewalk
Sale. I guess it's hard to sell insurance and accounting services at a side walk sale.
A side walk cafe would add warmth and a feeling of community to the downtown azea,
something that it lacks at this time.
OOMMENTS
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING: JULY 11.1995
APPLICANT: JACKSON FOOD STORES AGENDA I TEM NUMBER: 8 8 9
REQUEST: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR ANNEXATION ZONING WITH A
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A TRAVEL CENTER
AGENCY
CITY CLERK:
CITY ENGINEER:
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR:
CITY ATTORNEY:
CITY POLICE DEPT:
CITY FIRE DEPT:
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT:
MERIDIAN POST OFFICE:
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT:
ADA COUNTY STREET NAME COMMITTEE:
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH:
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION:
SETTLERS IRRIGATION:
IDAHO POWER:
US WEST:
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION:
FINDNGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
/~Il
//`~ ~~~
U"~~~
r~~~
~~~
I,~ t ~ ~~
r ,~ ~-
~"
~~
~~
a~~~~~`` ~
1 ~ CJ I
L~~
All Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
BEFORE T$E PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN
JACKSON FOOD STORES, INC.
ANNEXATION AND ZONING
LOT 11 OF MAGIC VIEW SUBDIVISION
625 NORTH EAGLE ROAD
MERIDIAN, IDAHO
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The above entitled annexation and zoning application having
come on for consideration on June 13, 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 the Architect, Dale Binning, 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 June 14, 1954, the first
publication of which was fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing;
that the matter was duly considered at the June 13, 1954, 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
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - JACKSON
Page 1
annexation and zoning is described in the application, and by this
reference is incorporated herein; that the property is
approximately 4.5 acres in size.
3. That the property is presently zoned by the county as R-
T; that the Applicant requests that the property be zoned C-G
General Retail and Service Commercial (C-G); that the specific use
for the property will be for a Jacksons Travel center, providing
food and fuel service.
4. That the property is located on Eagle Road just north of
Interstate I-84; that the property immediately to the south is a
vacant corn field; that the application complies with the Meridian
Comprehensive Plan.
5. That Jacksons Food Stores, Inc. is the record owner of
the above referenced property and has consented to the application
and has requested this annexation and zoning and the application is
not at the request of the City of Meridian.
6. That Dale Binning testified that this facility will be a
food and fuel service travel center with no plans for a car wash;
that there are no specific plans for the use of the remaining
parcel at this point; that it is not needed in order to comply with
the design criteria for this development.
7. That Steve Benson testified that approval of this
application would devalue his home and he feels this will present
more traffic problems; that with St. Luke's being across the
street, another type of business other than a convenience store,
gas station, would be better.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - JACKSON
Page 2
8. That Randy Warden testified regarding the covenants of
the subdivision; that the Meridian City Attorney, Wayne G.
Crookston, Jr., explained that covenants are binding only upon the
property owners within the subdivision, to be enforced by the them
if that is their desire, but covenants do not restrict a
governmental entity from dealing with an application that may or
may not be in violation of the covenants; that Mr. Warden stated
that he is against this application; that his property looks right
across the street at the unused portion and that he is concerned
whether there will be a light at the access of Magic View
Subdivision; that his concerns involve what will go in there and if
this will open the door to other types of businesses and if this
will mean splitting up those homeowners' properties or making
subdivisions into the rest of the existing subdivision.
9. That Richard Moore offered his testimony; that he stated
that the covenants have expired, which is why he purchased in 1993;
that he will be across from Jackson's and is glad to see this go
commercial.
10. That the Meridian City Planning Director, the City
Engineer, Police Department, Fire Department, the Ada County
Highway District, Central District Health Department and the Nampa
Meridian Irrigation submitted comments and they are incorporated
herein as if set forth in full; the Applicant's representative
stated at the hearing that they had no problem with the comments
from the departments.
11. -That Gary Smith, City Engineer, and Bruce Freckleton
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - JACKSON
Page 3
Assistant to the City Engineer, submitted comments; that a legal
description shall be submitted for the proposed site and shall
include all those portions of adjacent Public Rights-of-Way
contiguous to the Corporate City Limits of the City of Meridian and
1/2 of all other adjacent Public Right-of-Ways, and shall be
prepared by a Registered Land Surveyor, Licensed by the State of
Idaho and shall conform to all the provisions of the City of
Meridian Resolution No. 158; that water service is contingent upon
positive results from a hydraulic analysis; that the construction
of a pressure boost station may be needed; 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 irrigation; that the high seasonal ground water
needs to be determined and a profile submitted on the subsurface
soil conditions as prepared by a soil scientist with the design of
site drainage plan; that a drainage plan designed by an architect
or an engineer shall be submitted for all off-street parking areas;
that outside lighting shall be designed and placed so as to not
direct illumination on any nearby residentials; that all signage
shall be in accordance with Meridian City Ordinances; that off-
street parking paving and stripping, a drainage plan, sidewalks,
and signage shall all be provided in accordance with City
Ordinances; that all construction shall conform to the requirement
of the Americans with Disabilities Act; that sanitary sewer service
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - JACKSON
Page 4
could be to the sewer line being installed in Magic View Drive
directly adjacent to the north; that water service to the proposed
site could be to the water line being installed along the easterly
side of S. Eagle Road and that assessment fees for water and sewer
service are determined during the building plan review process;
that Late Comers fees will also be charged on installing the water
and sewer mains to help reimburse the parties responsible for
installing.
12. That the Planning and Zoning Administrator, Shari Stiles
submitted comments and they are incorporated herein as if set forth
in full; that a 35 foot landscape setback is required along Eagle
Road beyond Idaho Transportation Department right-of-way, as a
condition of annexation; that the area shown as sod is not to be
replaced with bark, rock, etc.; that continuation of the sidewalk
is require along Eagle Road; that additional parking spaces are
required. City Ordinance requires one (1) space per 200 square
feet of gross floor area; that the total paved area calculation be
provided to the Zoning Administrator; that landscaping should be
considered along westerly portion of developed area to screen
facility from view of nearby residential sites and consideration
for nearby residents made during construction; that a development
agreement shall be required as a condition of annexation,
particularly since no plans are shown for the remainder parcel.
13. The Meridian Police and Eire Department Departments
submitted comments as did the Central District Health Department,
Nampa Meridian Irrigation District, Water Department and U. S.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - JACRSON
Page 5
West; that all such comments are incorporated herein as if set
forth in full.
14. That the Meridian City Water Superintendent commented as
to whether or not city water was being requested and if so what the
service requirement would be for the building and/or fire hydrants.
15. That U S West commented that the standard easement
requested of 10 feet of front lot line easement from right-of-way
on Magic View and 10 feet along Eagle Road.
16. That the Ada County Highway District (ACRD) submitted
site specific requirements and they are incorporated herein as if
set forth in full which include constructing two {2) 30-foot wide
curb return driveways on Magic View Drive; that the eastern
driveway shall be located a minimum of 85-feet west of the Eagle
Road right-of-way and the western driveway shall be located a
minimum of 125-feet west of the eastern driveway; dedicate an
additional 30-feet of right-of-way from the centerline of Magic
View Drive abutting parcel (5 additional feet); dedicate a 15'x 15'
triangle (or appropriate curve) of right-of-way at the corner of
Magic View Drive and Eagle Road abutting parcel to keep the street
improvements in the public right-of-way; comply with requirements
of the Idaho Transportation Department for State Highway 55/Eagle
Road frontage; locate proposed signs out of the public right-of-way
and out of clear-vision sight-triangle of all street and driveway
intersections.
17. That the property included in the annexation and zoning
application is within the Area of Impact of the City of Meridian.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - JACKSON
Page 6
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
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 land is in a Mixed/Planned Use Development in
the Meridian Comprehensive Plan and the following pertinent
statements are made in the Plan:
A. Under ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, Economic Development Goal
Statement
Policies, Page 19
1.1 The City of Meridian shall make every effort to
create a positive atmosphere which encourages
industrial and commercial enterprises to locate in
Meridian.
1.2 It is the policy of the City of Meridian to set
aside areas where commercial and industrial
interests and activities are to dominate.
1.3 The character, site improvements and type of new
commercial or industrial developments should be
harmonized with the natural environment and respect
the unique needs and features of each area.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - JACKSON
Page 7
• s
1.5 Strip industrial and commercial uses are not in
compliance with the Comprehensive Plan.
1.6 It is the policy of the City of Meridian to support
shopping facilities which are effectively
integrated into new or existing residential areas,
and plan for new shopping centers as growth and
development warrant.
1.8 The City of Meridian intends
Review Ordinance which will
use and design within the
contiguous developments; and
in building techniques, so tk
of the community are met, w
providing for the efficient
B. Under LAND USE
to establish a Design
foster compatible land
development, and with
encourage innovations
iat the growing demands
hile at the same time
use of such lands.
1. EXISTING CONDITIONS, Page 21
Commercial and retail areas are established along
major arterials, (East First Street, Cherry Lane,
Fairview Avenue, Franklin and Meridian Roads) and
include small commercial center and individual
businesses. Uses include retail, wholesale,
service, office, and limited manufacturing.
2. GENERAL POLICIES, Page 22
The following land use activities are not in
compliance with the basic goals and policies of the
Comprehensive Plan:
a. Strip commercial and strip industrial.
b. Scattered residential (sprawl or spread).
3. COMMERCIAL POLICIES, Page 26
a. 4.4U Locate new planned Neighborhood
Commercial Centers (3-8 acres) on arterials or
collectors near residential areas in such a
way as to complement but not conflict with
adjoining residential areas.
b. 4.5U Discourage isolated neighborhood
commercial development in residential areas
unless the uses are compatible with the
Planned Neighborhood Commercial designation.
c. 4.6U Community shopping centers will be
encouraged to locate at arterial intersections
and near high-traffic intensity areas.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - JACKSON
Page 8
d. 4.8U Encourage commercial uses, offices and
medical-care uses to locate in the Old Town
district, business parks, shopping centers and
near high-intensity activity areas, such as
freeway interchanges.
5. MIXED-PLANNED USE DEVELOPMENT, Page 27
These areas are unique in that they are surrounded
by arterials, immediately adjacent to the freeway
(I-84), are relatively level in topography, have a
distinct linear shape, and are greatly affected by
contiguous industrial, residential and commercial
land uses. In order that compatible land uses and
efficient use of the land might occur, this
corridor is anticipated for a variety of planned,
compatible mixed uses. Probable mixed uses for the
areas could be commercial, combined medium-to-high
density residential, open space uses (as a means to
buffer highway noise), tourist lodging, industrial,
office, medical, and related land uses.
a. 5.6 The development of a variety of compatible
land uses should be provided in specific plans and
proposals for future development.
b. 5.8 Development in these areas should be based on
functional plans and proposals in order to ensure
that the proposed uses conform to the
Comprehensive Plan policies and are compatible
with the surrounding neighborhoods.
c. 5.9 The integrity and identity of any adjoining
residential neighborhood should be preserved
through the use of buffering techniques, including
screen plantings, open space and other landscaping
techniques.
d. 5.10 Development should be conducted under Planned
Unit Development procedures and as conditional
uses, especially when two or more differing uses
are proposed.
e. 5.11 The character, site improvements, and type of
development should be harmonized with previously-
developed land in the area, and where located
adjacent to or near any existing residence or
residential area, shall be harmonized with
residential uses, and all reasonable efforts shall
be made to reduce the environmental impact on
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - JACKSON
Page 9
residential areas, including noise and traffic
reduction.
f. 5.12 Strip development within this mixed-use area
is not in compliance with the goals and policies
of the Comprehensive Plan.
g. 5.13 Clustering of uses and controlled access
points along arterials and collector streets will
be required.
h. 5.14U Because these areas are near I-84, Franklin
and Overland Roads, high-quality visual appearance
is essential. All development proposals in this
area will be subject to development review
guidelines and conditional use permitting
procedures.
i. 5.15U The mixed-use area in the vicinity of the
Overland Road/Franklin Road/ Eagle Road/I-84
interchange is a priority development area.
C. Under TRANSPORTATION, Page 42
1. Existing Conditions
a. I-84 is listed as a principal arterial
b. Eagle Road, North of Overland Road is listed as
a Principal Arterial.
D. Under COMMUNITY DESIGN, at Page 72
1. Entryway Corridors
c. Eagle Road (North and South entrances).
2. Entrance Corridors Goal Statement - Promote,
encourage, develop and maintain aesthetically
pleasing approaches to the City of Meridian.
3. Policies, Page 73
a. 4.3U Use the Comprehensive Plan, subdivision
regulations, and zoning to discourage strip development
and encourage clustered, landscaped business
development on entrance corridors.
b. 4.4U Encourage landscaped setbacks for new
development on entrance corridors. The City shall
require, as a condition of development approval,
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - JACKSON
Page 10
~i
landscaping along all entrance corridors.
4. Quality of Environment Goal Statement, Page 73
Sustain, enhance and promote those elements which
contribute to the quality of local environment as an
inducement for liveability and business development
in Meridian.
5. Policies
a. 5.1U
Preserve the aesthetic natural resources of the
Meridian area.
b. 5.2U
Ensure that all new development enhances rather
than detracts from the visual quality of its
surroundings, especially in areas of prominent
visibility.
5. Neighborhood Identify Goal Policies, Page 74
a. 6.4U Limit the conversion of predominantly
residential neighborhoods to nonresidential uses,
and require effective buffers and mitigation
measures through conditional use permits when
appropriate nonresidential uses are proposed.
22. 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."
23. 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.
24. That Section 6.3, of the LAND USE section of the
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - JACKSON
Page 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."
25. That the property is included within an area designated on
the Generalized Land Use Map in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan as
a commercial area; that the commercial area is in an area that is
listed as Mixed/Planed Use Development area.
26. That the requested zoning of General Retail and. Service
Commercial, (C-G) is defined in the Zoning Ordinance at 11-2-408 B.
11. as follows:
(C-G1 General Retail and Service Commercial: The purpose of the
(C-G) District is to provide for commercial uses which are
customarily operated entirely or almost entirely within a
building; to provide for a review of the impact of proposed
commercial uses which are auto and service oriented and are
located in close proximity to major highway or arterial streets;
to fulfill the need of travel-related services as well as retail
sales for the transient and permanent motoring public. All such
districts shall be connected to the Municipal Water and Sewer
systems of the City of Meridian, and shall not constitute strip
commercial development and encourage clustering of commercial
development.
27. That Section 11-2-409, ZONING SCHEDULE OF USE CONTROL, B,
Commercial, lists commercial uses allowed in the various zoning
districts of the City; that Convenience Stores, are not listed as
allowed uses in the General Retail and Service Commercial (C-G)
district, but as conditional uses; that Service Stations and Retail
Stores are listed as allowed uses in the General Retail and Service
Commercial (C-G) district.
28. That Planned Development is defined in 11-2-403 B, at page
20 of the Zoning Ordinance booklet, as follows:
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - JACKSON
Page 12
"An area of land which is developed as a single entity for a
number of uses in combination with or exclusive of other
supportive uses. A PD may be entirely residential, industrial,
or commercial or a mixture of compatible uses. A PD does not
necessarily correspond to lot size, bulk, density, lot coverage
required, open space or type of residential, commercial or
industrial uses as established in any one or more created
districts or this Ordinance."
and a Planned General Development is defined as follows:
"A development not otherwise distinguished under Planned
Commercial, Industrial, Residential Developments, or in which
the proposed use of interior and exterior spaces requires
unusual design flexibility to achieve a completely logical and
complimentary conjunction of uses and functions. This PD
classification applies to essential public services, public or
private recreation facilities, institutional uses, community
facilities or a PD which includes a mix of residential,
commercial or industrial uses."
29. That under 11-2-409, ZONING SCHEDULE OF USE CONTROL, B
Commercial, Planned Commercial Development, is a permitted use in
the C-G district and Planned Unit Development - General, is an
allowed conditional use in the C-G district.
30. 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
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - JACKSON
Page 13
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 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.
31. 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.
32. That Section 11-9-605 C states as follows:
"Right-of-way for pedestrian walkways in the middle of long
blocks may be required where necessary to obtain convenient
pedestrian circulation to schools, parks or shopping areas;
the pedestrian easement shall be at least ten feet (10' )
wide."
33. That Section 11-9-605 G 1. states as follows:
"Planting strips shall be required to be placed next to
incompatible features such as highways, railroads, commercial
or industrial uses to screen the view from residential
properties. Such screening shall be a minimum of twenty feet
(20' ) wide, and shall not be a part of the normal street
right of way or utility easement."
34. That Section 11-9-605 H 2. states as follows:
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - JACKSON
Page 14
"Existing natural features which add value to residential
development and enhance the attractiveness of the community
(such as trees, watercourses, historic spots and similar
irreplaceable amenities) shall be preserved in the design of
the subdivision;"
35. That Section 11-9-605 K states as follows:
"The extent and location of lands designed for linear open
space corridors should be determined by natural features and,
to lesser extent, by man-made features such as utility
easements, transportation rights of way or water rights of
way. Landscaping, screening or lineal open space corridors
may be required for the protection of residential properties
from adjacent arterial streets, waterways, railroad rights
of way or other features. As improved areas (landscaped),
semi-improved areas (a landscaped pathway only), or
unimproved areas (left in a natural state), linear open space
corridors serve:
1. To preserve openness;
2. To interconnect park and open space systems within rights
of way for trails, walkways, bicycle ways;
3. To play a major role in conserving area scenic and natural
value, especially waterways, drainages and natural habitat;
4. To buffer more intensive adjacent urban land uses;
5. To enhance local identification within the area due to the
internal linkages; and
6. To link residential neighborhoods, park areas and
recreation facilities."
36. That Section 11-9-605 L states as follows:
"Bicycle and pedestrian pathways shall be encouraged within new
developments as part of the public right of way or as separate
easements so that an alternate transportation system (which is
distinct and separate from the automobile) can be provided
throughout the City Urban Service Planning Area. The
Commission and Council shall consider the Bicvcle-Pedestrian
Design Manual for Ada County (as prepared by Ada County Highway
District) when reviewing bicycle and pedestrian pathway
provisions within developments."
37. That 11-9-607 A, of the Subdivision Ordinance, states in
part as follows:
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - JACKSON
Page 15
"Existing natural features which add value to residential
development and enhance the attractiveness of the community
(such as trees, watercourses, historic spots and similar
irreplaceable amenities) shall be preserved in the design of
the subdivision;"
35. That Section 11-4-605 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 withir. rights
of way for trails, walkways, bicycle ways;
3. To play a major role in conserving area scenic and natural
value, especially waterways, drainages and natural habitat;
4. To buffer more intensive adjacent urban land uses;
5. To enhance local identification within the area due to the
internal linkages; and
6. To link residential neighborhoods, park areas and
recreation facilities."
36. That Section 11-9-605 L states as follows:
"Bicycle and pedestrian pathways shall be encouraged within new
developments as part of the public right of way or as separate
easements so that an alternate transportation system (which is
distinct and separate from the automobile) can be provided
throughout the City Urban Service Planning Area. The
Commission and Council shall consider the Bicvcle-Pedestrian
Design Manual for Ada County (as prepared by Ada County Highway
District) when reviewing bicycle and pedestrian pathway
provisions within developments."
37. That 11-9-607 A, of the Subdivision Ordinance, states in
part as follows:
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - JACRSON
Page 15
C,
C
"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. Amore 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.
38. That proper notice was given as required by law and all
procedures before the Planning and Zoning Commission and City
Council were given and followed.
CONCLUSIONS
1. That all the procedural requirements of the Local Planning
Act and of the Ordinances of the City of Meridian have been met;
including the mailing of notice to owners of property within 300
feet of the external boundaries of the Applicant's property.
2. That the City of Meridian has authority to annex land
pursuant to 50-222, Idaho Code, and Section 11-2-417 of the Revised
and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian; that exercise of
the City's annexation authority is a legislative function.
3. That the 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
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - JACKSON
Page 16
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.
8. That since the annexation and zoning of land is a
legislative function, the City has authority to place conditions
upon the annexation of land. Burt vs. The Citv of Idaho Falls, 105
Idaho 65, 665 P.D 1075 (1983).
9. That the development of annexed land must meet and comply
with the Ordinances of the City of Meridian and in particular
Section 11-9-616, which pertains to development time schedules and
requirements, 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 in
compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, and therefore the
annexation and zoning Application is in conformance with the
Comprehensive Plan.
11. That the City adopted the Comprehensive Plan at its meeting
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - JACRSON
Page 17
on January 4, 1994, and has not amended the Zoning Ordinance to
reflect the changes made in the Comprehensive Plan; thus, uses may
be called for or allowed in the Comprehensive Plan but the Zoning
Ordinance may not address provisions for the use; it is concluded
that upon annexation, as conditions of annexation, the City may
impose restrictions that are not otherwise contained in the current
Zoning and Subdivision and Development Ordinances.
12. The Applicant has stated its intention as to development,
which is to provide a convenience store and gasoline sales; it is
therefore concluded that since convenience stores are only allowed
in the C-G District as conditional uses, as a condition of
annexation and zoning, that such use or development of the property
shall only be allowed as a conditional use.
13. That it is concluded that since the Comprehensive Plan,
under LAND USE, Mixed-Use Area at Franklin, Overland/I-84 Mixed Use
Policies, in 5.14U, states that all development requests will be
subject to development review and conditional use permitting
procedures and since the City should have control over any uses
that are to be placed on the land, it is therefore concluded that
development of the parcel of land is conditioned on being developed
as a Commercial Planned Development, which is allowed in the
General Retail and Service Commercial (C-G) district, or under the
conditional use permit process and Applicant has applied for a
conditional use.
14. Therefore, it is concluded that the property should be
annexed and zoned General Retail and Service Commercial (C-G), but
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - JACKSON
Page 18
only capable of being under the conditional use permit process.
15. That, as a condition of annexation and the zoning of C-G,
the Applicant shall be required to enter into a development
agreement as authorized by 11-2-416 L and 11-2-417 D; that the
development agreement shall address, among other things, the
following:
1. Inclusion into the development of the requirements of
11-9-605
a. C, Pedestrian Walkways.
b. G 1, Planting Strips.
c. H, Public Sites and Open Spaces.
d. K, Lineal Open Space Corridors.
e. L, Pedestrian and Bike Path Ways.
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
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - JACKSON
Page 19
Stiles.
12. The sewer and water requirements.
13. Traffic plans and access into and out of the
development.
16. That Section 11-2-417 D of the Meridian Zoning Ordinance
states in part as follows:
"If property is annexed and zoned, the City may require or
permit, as a condition of the zoning, that an owner or
developer make a written commitment concerning the use or
development of the subject property. If a commitment is
required or permitted, it shall be recorded in the office of
the Ada County Recorder and shall take effect upon the adoption
of the ordinance annexing and zoning the property, or prior if
agreed to by the owner of the parcel. .";
that the above section does state that the development agreement
shall take effect upon the adoption of the ordinance annexing and
zoning the parcel but since no development agreement has been
agreed on, or even discussed, and it has been found that such
agreements are more effective and workable prior to construction
permit, it is concluded that the development agreement shall be
entered into prior to issuance of a building permit.
17. That it is concluded that the annexing and zoning of the
property is in the best interests of the City of Meridian, but it
is concluded that there shall be no annexation until the
requirements of these Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are
met and the annexation and zoning is conditioned upon meeting the
requirements of these Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.
18. That the requirements of the Meridian Police Department
Meridian City Engineer, Ada County Highway District, Meridian
Planning Director, Central District Health Department, and the
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - JACKSON
Page 20
Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District, 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
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 General Retail and Service Commercial (C-
G), would be in the best interest of the City of Meridian.
23. That if these conditions of approval are not met, the
property shall not be annexed.
APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of the City r
of Meridian hereby adopts and approves these Findings of Fact and
Conclusions.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - JACKSON
Page 21
ROLL CALL
COMMISSIONER HEPPER
COMMISSIONER ROUNTREE
COMMISSIONER SHEARER
COMMISSIONER ALIDJANI
CHAIRMAN JOHNSON (TIE BREAKER)
VOTED---
VOTED
VOTED J
VOTED A. `~ Cfit~[i -
VOTED
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:
DISAPPROVED:
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - JACKSON
Page 22
COMMENTS
MERIDIAN PLANNING 8 ZONING COMMISSION MEETING: JULY 11.1995
APPLICANT:_ FARWEST DEVELOPERS AGENDA I TEM NUMBER: 13 & 14
REQUEST: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR ANNE TION ZONING WITH A
PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR LOS ALAMITOS SUBDMSION NO 3
AGENCY
CITY CLERK:
CITY ENGINEER:
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR:
CITY ATTORNEY:
CITY POLICE DEPT:
CITY FIRE DEPT:
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT:
MERIDIAN POST OFFICE:
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT:
ADA COUNTY STREET NAME COMMITTEE:
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH:
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION:
SETTLERS IRRIGATION:
IDAHO POWER:
US WEST:
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION:
FINDNGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
~ ~f°~
~ ~-~~ ~
~, fb"'"
Y~ ~~ ~ ~Q,
~~~ ~~ ~
~ ~t ~~
~~~~ ~
r~G°"~~
CI"
Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
e
• OR6~If~'~~~--
BEFORE THE MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
FARWEST DEVELOPERS
ANNS7CATION AND ZONING
N 1/2 SW 1/4 OF SECTION 20. T.3 N.. R.1 E. B M
MERIDIAN, IDAHO
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The above entitled annexation and zoning application having
come on for consideration on June 13, 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 appearing through a
representative, Marty Goldsmith, 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 June 13, 1995, the first
publication of which was fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing;
that the matter was duly considered at the June 13, 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
LOS ALAMITOS NO. 3 - FF/CL Page 1
approximately 46.01 acres in size; it is in the North 1/2 of
Southwest 1/4 of Section 20, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Ada
County, Idaho.
3. That the property is presently zoned by the County RT
(Rural Transition); that the Applicant has requested that the
property be zoned R-4 Residential.
4. The general area surrounding the property is used
agriculturally and residentially; that much of the residential
property in the area is zoned R-4 Residential with some of it
developed at less density than allowed in the R-4 zone; that Los
Alamitos No. 1 and No. 2, which was previously annexed, is an R-4
development, a housing size of 1,400 square feet.
5. That the property is adjacent and abutting to the present
City limits.
6. The Applicant is not the owner of record of the property
but the owners of record are Gene A. Babbitt and Freda L. Babbitt
who have consented to this Application.
7. That the property included in the annexation and zoning
application is within the Area of Impact of the City of Meridian.
8. 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.
9. That the Application requests that the parcel be annexed
and zoned R-4 Residential; that the applicant indicated that the
intended development of the property is for single family dwellings
with a density of 2.6 dwelling units per acre; Applicant stated at
LOS ALAMITOS NO. 3 - FF/CL Page 2
the hearing that he had reviewed all of the comments of Planning
Director, City Engineer, and the Ada County Highway District and
that there was nothing that he disagreed with or would not be
complying with; that he was applying for an R-4 zone which is
1,400 square foot minimum; that Los Alamitos No. 1 had a 1,50:
square foot minimum; that there would be a perimeter fence.
10. 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.
11. That the property can be physically serviced with City
sewer; that there is a question in the mind of the City Engineer,
regarding water service and water service is contingent upon
positive results from a hydraulic analysis by the City's computer
model.
12. That an irrigation canal, the Hunter Lateral, crosses the
east end of this property with a south easterly to a northwesterly
flow; that a previous developer applied for a variance from tilinr~
this lateral which was denied.
13. That there was additional testimony at the public hearing
which was as follows:
a. Karen Gallagher, of the Ada County Highway District
testified that the District has not yet finished
their review of Los Alamitos No. 3; being discussed
is just a minor detail of aligning with the stub
street that has been approved to Sundance to the
north and the other issue is a little more
complicated and involves the stub street to the
east which is currently tagged as the school site.
LOS ALAMITOS NO. 3 - FF/CL Page 3
b. Shari Stiles, Meridian City Planning Director.
testified there is a concern that there is no
vehicle access between the two (2) sections of the
properties and also none to the school; that the
concern of access from the neighborhood to the
school is to come out on Victory Road, Eagle Road
and have to go all the way around through Sundance;
that there is really no point in not allowing
interneighborhood vehicle access.
c. Lydia Aguere testified that she approves the R-9
annexation if the house sizes are going to be 150
square feet; that her concern lies where the water
will come from and getting an average priced home
in there.
d. John Shipley testified with regards to pressurized
irrigation and stated that this question came up in
December 1993 and that Mr. Goldsmith was a bit
perturbed about pressurized irrigation system and
why was the City making him do this and the
conversation moved to surface water pressurized
irrigation; that Mr. Shipley is concerned what the
City will do about using well water for pressurized
irrigation since it was stated in the meeting that
Mr. Goldsmith was to use surface water; that Mr.
Shipley's other concern is with all the trash that
blows out of the subdivision and collects against
the fence lines and in the irrigation ditch causing
delays because of clean up time.
e. That Mr. Stoppello, owner of approximately thirteen
(13) acres of land lying south of the Los Alamitos
Park Subdivision and north of the Gem Park II
Partnership land, submitted a letter stating that
he is not opposed to the development but have a
certain number of concerns, namely:
1. He would like to see this sewer access
maintained for the future development of his
thirteen (13) acres;
2. He would like to make sure the street
alignments of Los Alamitos Park Subdivision
and the proposed Gem Park II Partnership be
coordinated with his land prior to approval of
their applications to not only insure
compliance with ACHD, but provide for utility
access for all development and;
3. That he is in favor of maintaining R-4
LOS ALAMITOS NO. 3 - FF/CL Page
standards.
14. Meridian Police Department, Meridian Fire Department, the
Meridian City Engineer, Ada County Street Name Committee, Ada
County Highway District, the Central District Health Department,
Nampa Meridian Irrigation District, U. S. West and the Meridian
Planning Director, submitted comments and such are incorporated
herein as if set forth in full.
15. That the Meridian City Engineer 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;
that no variances have been requested for tiling of
any ditches crossing this project;
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. Determine the seasonal high groundwater elevation,
and submit a profile of the subsurface soil
conditions as prepared by a soil scientist with
street development plans;
d. That water service to this development is
contingent upon positive results from a hydraulic
analysis by computer model;
e. That a determination of ground water level and
subsurface soil conditions should be made.
f. Applicant will be responsible to construct the
sewer mains to and through this proposed
development via the existing mains installed in
prior phases of this development; manholes shall be
provided to keep the lines on the south and west
LOS ALAMITOS NO. 3 - FF/CL Page 5
side of the centerline;
g. Applicant will be responsible to construct the
water mains to and through this proposed
development via existing mains installed in prior
phases of this development; that the well proposed
to be located in the No. 1 phase of this
subdivision needs to be in operation ahead of this
No. 2 phase development.
16. That Shari Stiles, Planning and Zoning Administrator
specifically commented stating as follows:
a. That any existing irrigation/drainage ditches
crossing the property, included in this project,
shall be tiled per City Ordinance 11-9-605; that
regardless of ownership, the developer will be
required to the the Hunter Lateral unless a
variance application is submitted and approved by
the City Council;
b. That any existing domestic wells and/or septic
systems within this project shall be removed from
their domestic service except that the wells be
used for non-domestic purposes such as landscape
irrigation, per City Ordinance;
c. That perimeter fencing is to be in place prior to
obtaining building permits for housing;
d. Submit protective covenants for subdivision in
accordance with City Ordinance Section 11-9-605.1.;
e. That the Applicant is to enter into a development
agreement as authorized by 11-2-416.L. and 11-2-
417.D.; that the Development Agreement shall
address, but not be limited to, the inclusion into
the subdivision of the requirements of 11-9-605 C.,
G., H.2., K. and L, and the goals expressed in the
Meridian Comprehensive Plan;
f. That the Applicant indicates a minimum house size
of 1,400 square feet; .that Phase 1 development:
agreement and restrictive covenants require a
minimum house size of 1,500 square feet;
g. That the Comprehensive Plan indicates that a school
and park site is needed in this section; that the
Applicant is to provide evidence of transfer of
school site property prior to obtaining building
LOS ALAMITOS NO. 3 - FF/CL Page 6
permits for housing.
17. That the Ada County Highway District submitted site
specific comments that include a revised preliminary plat with be
submitted to include the following changes:
a. Align Scaup Street with the approved stub street in
Sundance Subdivision to the north;
b. Cul-de-sac Cygnet Drive at its ease end since the
site's east boundary abuts the future school site;
c. Terminate Cygnet Drive in a cul-de-sac to avoid
substandard angles at the intersection with Easy
Jet Drive and;
d. Shift the stub street to the south property line tea
the west.
18. The Meridian School District submitted comments in prior
annexations in this area, that there is no excess capacity in the
schools of the District and that residents of the new subdivision
could not be assured of attending the neighborhood schools; the
School District asked for support for a development fee or a
transfer fee to help offset the costs of building additional
schools.
19. That the R-4, Residential District is described in the
Zoning Ordinance, 11-2-408 B. 3. as follows:
(R-4) LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT: The purpose of
the (R-4) District is to permit the establishment of low
density single-family dwellings, and to delineate those
areas where predominantly residential development has, or
is likely to occur in accord with the Comprehensive Plan
or the City, and to protect the integrity of residential
areas by prohibiting the intrusion of incompatible non-
residential uses. The (R-4) District allows for a
maximum of four (4) dwellings units per acre and requires
connection to the Municipal Water and Sewer systems of
the City of Meridian.";
LOS ALAMITO3 NO. 3 - FF/CL Page 7
that the R-4 zoning district requires a minimum of 1,400 square
feet to be included in houses in that zone; that in annexation the
City may, as a condition of annexation, require a higher minimum
house size than 1,400 square feet.
20. That the Applicant submitted an application for
preliminary plat along with the application for annexation and
zoning which application included a preliminary plat.
21. That the land is adjacent to the land annexed and being
developed as Los Alamitos No. 1 & 2, which is now in the process oi:
development.
22. 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."
23. 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 .
24. 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."
LOS ALAMITOS NO. 3 - FF/CL Page 8
25. That the Meridian Comprehensive Plan, under Population,
Housing Policies, at page 66, it states as follows:
"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 persons, 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."
26. 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.
27. 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
LOS ALAMZTOS NO. 3 - FF/CL Page 9
residents of the City; that the City knows that the increase in
population does not sufficiently increase the tax base to offset
the cost of providing fire, police, emergency health care, water,
sewer, parks and recreation services; and the City knows that the
increase in population does not provide sufficient tax base to
provide for school services to current and future students.
28. 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, anc:
safety of the citizens of the City of Meridian.
29. 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."
30. 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."
31. 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;"
32. That Section 11-9-605 K states as follows:
LOS ALAMITOS NO. 3 - FF/CL Page 10
"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."
33. 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
Desian Manual for Ada County (as prepared by Ada County
Highway District) when reviewing bicycle and pedestrian
pathway provisions within developments.
34. That proper notice was given as required by law and all
procedures before the Planning and Zoning Commission were given and
followed.
LOS ALAMITOS NO. 3 - FF/CL Page li
coNCLVSxoxs
1. That all the procedural requirements of the Local
Planning Act and of the Ordinances of the City of Meridian have
been met, including the mailing of notice to owners of property
within 300 feet of the external boundaries of the Applicant's
property.
2. That the City of Meridian has authority to annex land
pursuant to 50-222, Idaho Code, and Section 11-2-417 of the Revised
and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian; that exercise of
the City's annexation authority is a Legislative function.
3. That the Planning and Zoning Commission has judged this
annexation and zoning application under Section 50-222, Idaho Code.
Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code, the Meridian City Ordinances, the
Meridian Comprehensive Plan, as amended, and the record submitted
to it and things of which it can take judicial notice.
4. That all notice and hearing requirements set forth in
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
LOS ALAMITOS NO. 3 - FF/CL Page 12
is not upon the initiation of the City of Meridian.
8. That since the annexation and zoning of land is i
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.
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 & 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
LOS ALAMITOS NO. 3 - FF/CL Page 13
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 require#d 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, R, 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
and loss of City services, if the requirements of this paragraph
are not met.
14. That the house size requirements for the R-4 district may
be increased as a condition of annexation and therefore the R-4
requirement of 1,400 square feet shall be exceeded so that the
minimum house size shall be 1,500 square feet.
15. That proper and adequate access to the property is
available and will have to be maintained; that access to and from
the adjacent property owners and the school, to be located in the
area, will have to be worked out and included in the development
agreement, or the property will not be annexed or, if annexed, it
will be de-annexed.
16. That these conditions shall run with the land and bind
LOS ALAMITOS NO. 3 - FF/CL Page 14
the applicant, the titled owners, and their assigns.
17. With compliance of the conditions contained herein, the
annexation and zoning of R-4 Residential, with 1,500 square foot
minimum sized houses, would be in the best interest of the City of
Meridian.
18. That if these conditions of approval are not met the
property shall be subject to de-annexation.
APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts and
approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions.
ROLL CALL
HEPPER
COMMISSIONER ROUNTREE
SEEARER
COMMISSIONER ALIDJANI
CHAIRMAN JOHNSON (TIE BREAKER)
VOTED ,, ~,"i~,`~~'" `
VOTED
VOTED
VOTED/ 7~~9~f
VOTED /
LOS ALAMITOS NO. 3 - FF/CL Page 15
DECISION AND RECONMENDATION
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 that the minimum house size
shall be 1,500 square feet, and that the Applicant and owners be
specifically required to the all ditches, canals and waterways,
specifically including the Hunter Lateral, as a condition o
annexation and that the Applicant meet all of the 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:
~ /~9s~
LOS ALAMITOS NO. 3 - FF/CL Page 16
•
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING: JULY 11.1995
APPLICANT: FARWEST DEVELOPERS AGENDA I TEM NUMBER: 15 8~ i6
REQUEST: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR ANNEXATION. ZONING WITH A
PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR SALMON RAPIDS SUBDMSION N0.3
AGENCY
CITY CLERK:
CITY ENGINEER:
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR:
CITY ATTORNEY:
CITY POLICE DEPT:
CITY FIRE DEPT:
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT:
MERIDIAN POST OFFICE:
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT:
ADA COUNTY STREET NAME COMMITTEE:
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH:
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION:
SETTLERS IRRIGATION:
IDAHO POWER:
US WEST:
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION:
FINDNGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
a ~ ~~~~
0J~
~~,~r
ASS ~
~ ~, (t
~ ~w~ ~~
L /
r,
k Jvn ~ ~ ~ i/
l~
All Materials presented at pubNc meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
• ORIGINAL
BEFORE THE MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
FARWEST DEVELOPERS
ANNEXATION AND ZONING
N 1/4 SW 1/4 OF SECTION 19, T.3 N., R.1 E., B.M.
MERIDIAN, IDAHO
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The above entitled annexation and zoning application having
come on for consideration on June 13, 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 appearing through a
representative, Marty Goldsmith, 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 anc?
zoning was published for two (2) consecutive weeks prior to the
said public hearing scheduled for June 13, 1995, the first
publication of which was fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing;
that the matter was duly considered at the June 13, 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
SALMON RAPIDS NO. 3 - FF/CL Page i
approximately 23.26 acres in size; it is in the Northeast 1/4 of
Southeast 1/4 of Section 19, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Ada
County, Idaho.
3. That the property is presently zoned by the County RT
(Rural Transition); that the Applicant has requested that the
property be zoned R-4 Residential.
4. The general area surrounding the property is usec:t
agriculturally and residentially; that much of the residential
property in the area is zoned R-4 Residential with some of it
developed at less density than allowed in the R-4 zone; that Salmon
Rapids No. 1 and No. 2, which was previously annexed, is an R-4
development, a housing size of 1,400 square feet.
5. That the property is adjacent and abutting to the present
City limits.
6. The Applicant, Marty Goldsmith, is the owner of record of
the property.
7. That the property included in the annexation and zoning
application is within the Area of Impact of the City of Meridian.
8. 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.
9. That the Application requests that the parcel be annexed
and zoned R-4 Residential; that the applicant indicated that the
intended development of the property is for single family dwellings
with a density of 3.4 dwelling units per acre; Applicant stated at
the hearing that for this phase No. 3 that the square footage was
5ALMON RAPIDS NO. 3 - FF/CL Page
1,400 and 1,500 square feet where the houses bounded Meridian
Greens within 500 feet.
10. That in the Rural Area section of the Comprehensive Plan,
Section 6.3, it does state that land in agricultural activit~~
should so remain in agricultural activity until urban services can
be provided.
11. That the property can be physically serviced with City
sewer; that there is a question in the mind of the City Engineer,
regarding water service and water service is contingent upon
positive results from a hydraulic analysis by the City's computer
model.
12. That the Eight Mile Irrigation Lateral traverses the site
in a southeast to northwest direction and is located within an 80-
foot wide easement.
13. That there was no public testimony given at the hearing.
14. Meridian Police Department, Meridian Fire Department, the
Meridian City Engineer, Ada County Street Name Committee, the
Central District Bealth Department, Nampa Meridian Irrigation
District, Meridian School District, U. S. West and the Meridian
Planning Director, submitted comments and such are incorporated
herein as if set forth in full.
15. That the Meridian City Engineer's assistant, Bruce
Freckleton 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
SALMON RAPIDS NO. 3 - FF/CL Page 3
association, with written confirmation of said
approval submitted to the Public Works Department;
that no variances have been requested for tiling of
any ditches crossing this project;
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. Determine the seasonal high groundwater elevation,
and submit a profile of the subsurface soil
conditions as prepared by a soil scientist with
street development plans;
d. That water service to this development is
contingent upon positive results from a hydraulic
analysis by computer model;
e. That a determination of ground water level and
subsurface soil conditions should be made.
Applicant will be responsible to construct the
sewer mains to and through this proposed
development via the existing mains installed in
prior phases of this development; manholes shall be
provided to keep the lines on the south and west
side of the centerline;
g. Applicant will be responsible to construct the
water mains to and through this proposed
development via existing mains installed in prior
phases of this development; that the well proposed
to be located in the No. 1 phase of this
subdivision needs to be in operation ahead of this
No. 2 phase development.
16. That Shari Stiles, Planning and Zoning Administrator
specifically commented stating as follows:
a. That any existing irrigation/drainage ditches
crossing the property, included in this project,
shall be tiled per City Ordinance 11-9-605; that
regardless of ownership, the developer will be
required to the the Hunter Lateral unless a
variance application is submitted and approved by
the City Council;
b. That any existing domestic wells and/or septic
SALMON RAPIDS NO. 3 - FF/ CL Page 4
systems within this project shall be removed from
their domestic service except that the wells be
used for non-domestic purposes such as landscape
irrigation, per City Ordinance;
c. That perimeter fencing and fencing of the Eight
Mile Lateral is to be in place prior to obtaining
building permits for housing;
d. Submit protective covenants for subdivision in
accordance with City Ordinance Section 11-9-605.1.;
e. That the Applicant is to enter into a development
agreement as authorized by 11-2-416.L. and 11-2-
417.D.; that the Development Agreement shall
address, but not be limited to, the inclusion into
the subdivision of the requirements of 11-9-605 C.,
G., H.2., K. and L, and the goals expressed in the
Meridian Comprehensive Plan;
f. That the Applicant indicates a minimum house sizc-
of 1,400 square feet; that Phase 1 developmen'~
agreement and restrictive covenants require a
minimum house size of 1,500 square feet;
g. That the Comprehensive Plan indicates that a school
and park site is needed in this section.
17. The Meridian School District submitted comments in prior
annexations in this area, that there is no excess capacity in the
schools of the District and that residents of the new subdivisioi;
could not be assured of attending the neighborhood schools; the
School District asked for support for a development fee or a
transfer fee to help offset the costs of building additional
schools.
18. That the R-4, Residential District is described in the
Zoning Ordinance, 11-2-408 B. 3. as follows:
(R-4) LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT: The purpose of
the (R-4) District is to permit the establishment of low
density single-family dwellings, and to delineate those
areas where predominantly residential development has, or
is likely to occur in accord with the Comprehensive Plan
SALMON RAPIDS NO. 3 - FF/CL Page 5
or the City, and to protect the integrity of residential
areas by prohibiting the intrusion of incompatible non-
residential uses. The (R-4) District allows for a
maximum of four (4) dwellings units per acre and requires
connection to the Municipal Water and Sewer systems of
the City of Meridian.;
that the R-4 zoning district requires a minimum of 1,400 square
feet to be included in houses in that zone; that in annexation the
City may, as a condition of annexation, require a higher minimum
house size than 1,400 square feet.
19. That the Applicant submitted an application for
preliminary plat along with the application for annexation and
zoning which application included a preliminary plat.
20. That the land is adjacent to the land annexed and being
developed as Salmon Rapids No. 1 & 2, which is now in the process
of development.
21. 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."
22. 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 .
.'
23. 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
SALMON RAPIDS NO. 3 - FF/CL Page 6
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."
24. That the Meridian Comprehensive Plan, under Population,
Housing Policies, at page 66, it states as follows:
"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 persons, 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."
25. 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.
26. 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,
SALMON RAPIDS NO. 3 - FF/CL Page 7
parks and recreation services to its current residents and to those
moving into the City; the City is also concerned that the increase
in population is burdening the schools of the Meridian School.
District which provide school service to current and future
residents of the City; that the City knows that the increase in
population does not sufficiently increase the tax base to offset
the cost of providing fire, police, emergency health care, water,
sewer, parks and recreation services; and the City knows that the
increase in population does not provide sufficient tax base to
provide for school services to current and future students.
27. 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 ir.
the City, because of the imperilment to the health, welfare, and
safety of the citizens of the City of Meridian.
28. 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."
29. 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."
30. That Section 11-9-605 H 2. states as follows:
SALMON RAPIDS NO. 3 - FF/CL Page 8
"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;"
31. That Section 11-9-605 K states as follows:
"The extent and location of lands designed for linear open
space corridors should be determined by natural features and,
to lesser extent, by man-made features such as utility
easements, transportation rights of way or water rights of
way. Landscaping, screening or lineal open space corridors
may be required for the protection of residential properties
from adjacent arterial streets, waterways, railroad rights of
way or other features. As improved areas (landscaped), semi-
improved areas (a landscaped pathway only), or unimproved
areas (left in a natural state), linear open space corridors
serve:
1. To preserve openness;
2. To interconnect park and open space systems within rights
of way for trails, walkways, bicycle ways;
3. To play a major role in conserving area scenic and
natural value, especially waterways, drainages and
natural habitat;
4. To buffer more intensive adjacent urban land uses;
5. To enhance local identification within the area due to
the internal linkages; and
6. To link residential neighborhoods, park areas and
recreation facilities."
32. 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.
33. That proper notice was given as required by law and all
SALMON RAPIDS NO. 3 - FF/CL Page 9
procedures before the Planning and Zoning Commission were given and
followed.
CONCLUSIONS
1. That all
Planning Act and of
been met, including
within 300 feet of
property.
2. That the
the
the
the
the
~ity
procedural requirements of the Local
Ordinances of the City of Meridian have
mailing of notice to owners of property
external boundaries of the Applicant's
of Meridian has authority to annex land
pursuant to 50-222, Idaho Code, and Section 11-2-417 of the Revised
and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian; that exercise of
the City's annexation authority is a Legislative function.
3. That the Planning and Zoning Commission has judged this
annexation and zoning application under Section 50-222, Idaho Code,
Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code, the Meridian City Ordinances, the
Meridian Comprehensive Plan, as amended, and the record submitted
to it and things of which it can take judicial notice.
4. That all notice and hearing requirements set forth in
Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code, and the Ordinances of the City of
Meridian have been complied with.
5. That the Commission may take judicial notice of
government ordinances, and policies, and of actual conditions
existing within the City and State.
6. That the land within the annexation is contiguous to the
SALMON RAPIDS NO. 3 - FF/CL Page 10
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.
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
Nampa & 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
Eight Mile Lateral, shall be tiled as a condition of annexation;
that a variance was granted for tiling of the Eight Mile Lateral in
SALMON RAPIDS NO. 3 - FF/CL Page 12
Phase 1 provided the ditch is fenced with chain link or wrought
iron fence on both sides of the right-of-way and if not 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 require#d 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
and loss of City services, if the requirements of this paragraph
are not met.
14. That the house size requirements for the R-4 district may
be increased as a condition of annexation and therefore the R-4
requirement of 1,400 square feet shall be exceeded so that the
minimum house size shall be 1,500 square feet.
15. That proper and adequate access to the property is
SALMON RAPIDS NO. 3 - FF/CL Page 12
available and will have to be maintained; that access to and from
the adjacent property owners and the school, to be located in the
area, will have to be worked out and included in the development
agreement, or the property will not be annexed or, if annexed, it
will be de-annexed.
16. That these conditions shall run with the land and bind
the applicant, the titled owner, and his assigns.
17. With compliance of the conditions contained herein, the
annexation and zoning of R-4 Residential, with 1,500 square foot
minimum sized houses, would be in the best interest of the City of
Meridian.
18. That if these conditions of approval are not met the
property shall be subject to de-annexation.
APPROVAL OF FINDIN(i,S OF FACT AND
The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts and
approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions.
ROLL CALL
COMMISSIONER HEPPER
COMMISSIONER ROUNTREE
COMMISSIONER SHEARER
COMMISSIONER ALIDJANI
CHAIRMAN JOBNSON (TIE BREAKER)
VOTED
VOTED ~
VOTED
VOTED Lf 7Si~'+
VOTED
~ti~~
~~ (t/~~/
SALMON RAPIDS NO. 3 - FF/CL Page 13
DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION
The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends
to the City Council of the City of Meridian that they approve Y.he
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 that the minimum house size
shall be 1,500 square feet, and that the Applicant and owners be
specifically required to the all ditches, canals and waterways,
specifically including the Hunter Lateral, as a condition of
annexation and that the Applicant meet all of the 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 condition are not met that the property be de-annexed.
MOTION:
APPROVED: DISAPPROVED:
7~I1' jS
SALMON RAPIDS NO. 3 - FF/CL Page 14
MERIDIAN PLANNING 8 ZONING COMMISSION MEETING: JULY 11.1995
APPLICANT: STEINER DEVELOPMENT AGENDA 1 TEM NUMBER: 19 8 20
REQUEST: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING WITH
A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR THE LAKE AT CHERRY LANE NO 5 & 8
AGENCY
CITY CLERK:
CITY ENGINEER:
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR:
CITY ATTORNEY:
CITY POLICE DEPT:
CITY FIRE DEPT:
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT:
MERIDIAN POST OFFICE:
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT:
ADA COUNTY STREET NAME COMMITTEE:
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH:
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION:
SETTLERS IRRIGATION:
IDAHO POWER:
US WEST:
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION:
C$~7i~ u
FINDNGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
/ ~~c/l
r~V~ ~i
app ~~-'
Chi'
p
~F!' Y~~
~~
~~
~~
~ Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of tha City of Meridian.
BEFORE THE MERIDIAN PLANNINC~_AND ZONINB
THE LASE AT CHERRY LANE NO. 5 ~ 6 - 3TSINSR DEVELOPMENT
ANNESATION AND ZONING
SE 1/4 NE 1/4 SECTION 3. T 3N R 1W
MERIDIAN. IDAHO
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The above entitled annexation and zoning application having
come on for consideration on June 22, 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, the Planning and Zoning Commission having
heard and taken oral and written testimony, and the Applicant
appearing through attorney Steve Bradbury, spokesperson for Steiner
Development, and having duly considered the matter, the Planning
and Zoning Commission makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
A. That notice of public hearing on the annexation and
zoning was published for two (2) consecutive weeks prior to the
said public hearing scheduled for June 22, 1995, the first
publication of which was fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing;
that the matter was duly considered at the June 22, 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.
B. That the property included in the application for
annexation and zoning is described in the application, and by this
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Pacxe 1
THE LAKE AT CHERRY LANE NO. 5 & 6
reference is incorporated herein; that the property is 40.18 acres
in size; that the property is on the west side of Ten Mile Road
between Ustick and Cherry Lane; that the adjacent property to the
east is part of the Cherry Lane Subdivision; that the entire 40.18
acres is not being developed at the same time.
C. The Applicant is not the owner of record of the property,
but the owner of record William E. Teeter, has consented to the
annexation and zoning application and the Applicant has an option
to purchase the property.
D. That the property is presently zoned R-T (Rural
Transitional) in Ada County.
E. That the Applicant has made several presentations to the
Commission regarding the development of this 40 acres; that stated
below is a summary of what was represented to the Commission at
various meetings or hearings, to wit:
1. That at the November 9, 1994, at a Planning and Zoning
Commission meeting, the Applicant presented a concept
plan for development, which is incorporated herein as if
set forth in full; that on the concept drawing there was
a list of things that would be included in the
development; comments were made that the development
would be high value detached and high value attached
house; that there would be 20 acres of R-4 and 20 acres
of R-15; that there would be elderly garden one level
homes with gated, high security clusters with liberal
common area and private roads to the Garden homes and to
town houses; that there would be restrictions on children
living there; it would be for people of 55 years and
older; that the homes would be of high quality; that they.
were donating afire station and that they were working
on a school site; that there would be 20 acres in phase
one.
2. That at the January 10, 1995, public hearing the
Applicant's representative, Steve Bradbury, stated the
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 2
THE LARE AT CHERRY LANE NO. 5 & 6
request is to have some of the land zoned R-4 Residential
and some R-15 Residential; the representative had two
concept drawings that showed a portion being developed at
this time to R-4 Residential with a total of 54
residential lots and a portion being developed at this
time to R-15 Residential on about 11 acres with a total
of 30 residential lots to be develop into single family
attached and detached mixed dwellings such as patio homes
similar to those in River Run Development in Boise; the
R-15 would have 5,000 square foot minimum size lots; it
was stated that the concept is to have smaller parcels
with extensive landscaping and common facilities and
areas; that the center portion would have a club house
with a recreation center and a swimming pool; that there
is a 6.5 acre parcel to the north that also would be R-15
and it was stated that it would be about the same as the
previously mentioned R-15 area and it was the intent to
come back with a conditional use permit or a planned unit
development, but that it was the desire to hold off on
the specific design; it was stated that there would be a
significant amount of landscaping improvements included
in the first phase of the project carried over to the
second phase - about $180,000.00 worth of landscaping;
that there would be a block wall behind the 20 foot
landscaping area on Ten Mile Road; the wall would vary
between six feet with wrought iron on the top of it down
to four feet with afoot of wrought iron on top; the main
thoroughfare would have center dividers; the
representative stated that the idea is to do a really
nice higher end well done project; that they would have
tight covenants; that it would be a project similar in
aesthetics to Island Woods Subdivision in Eagle or the
River Run in Boise; that pressurized irrigation would be
installed; he stated that all of the City Engineer's
conditions were acceptable; he additionally stated that
perhaps the Application could be approved and simply have
the R-15 approved with the designation that it would be
conditioned upon approval of a specific site plan; that
the Developer would dedicate to the Meridian Fire
Department a 160 X 160 square parcel of ground free of
charge; the representative also stated that the first
phase would be south of the road and the second phase
would be the north half of the property.
That at the January 10, 1995, there was no specific
discussion that the development would be for people of 55
years and older, about garden or patio homes, or the
items that were included on the concept drawing submitted
to the Commission on November 9, 1994; that Mr. Bradbury,
in response to a question from Mr. Hepper, stated "Yes"
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Paae 3
THE LARE AT CHERRY LANE NO. 5 & 6
to the question that the land on both sides of the road
as you come in (along Teter Boulevard) would be developed
later and brought before the Commission, and stated,
"Yes, that is right, both of those areas that are
easterly of the areas that have lots drawn on them
would be submitted. The design for those areas
would be submitted in a separate application under
either the conditional use provision or the planned
unit development provision of your code.";
that the property was not shown to be developed in north
and south halves but in east and west halves.
3. That at the public hearing, held on June 22, 1995, for
this current Application, Steve Bradbury and Doug Campell
represented that development would be in four (4)
portions; one (1) would be 17.37 acres of R-4 single
family with 50 lots, meeting all of the R-4 requirements,
minimum house size of 1,400 square feet, 8,000 square
feet lots, and a density of 2.88 dwelling units per acre;
another portion would be 5.30 acres of R-15 single family
units on lots of at least 6,000 square feet, minimum
house size of 1,300 square feet, a density of 4.72 per
acre, but at the hearing it was stated by Mr. Bradbury
that this area could be done as an R-8 Planned Unit
Development with lots of 6,500 square feet, 65 foot
frontages, two car garages, all single family detached
houses of a minimum size of 1,301 square feet, no
duplexes or multi-family structures; another portion
would be 7.50 acres of R-15 single family attached units,
with a street width of 30 feet, three (3) duplex units,
thirteen (13) four-plex units, 7.74 units per acre, which
would be a townhouse condominium project developed as a
Planned Unit Development (PUD) or under a conditional use
permit; the final portion would be 10.01 acres of R-15
zoned land, 63 units, 1,301 square feet detached homes
and 900 square feet attached homes, a street width of 40
feet, two car garages, and would have a private club
house, pool, patio, recreation center, gated security
entrance, land for afire station , and other amenities,
and this portion was designed to be specifically for
people 55 years old or older.
F. That the Application showed the number of acres to be
included in each portion of the development; that it was stated at
the hearing that the intent was to develop the southern one-half of
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Paae 4
THE LARE AT CHERRY LANE NO. 5 & 6
the project first.
G. That all of the annexation application documents and the
testimony presented are incorporated herein as if set forth in
full.
H. That Gary Smith, City Engineer, and Bruce Freckleton
Assistant to the City Engineer, submitted comments for the January
10, 1995, hearing and for the June 22, 1995, hearing and comments
from Bruce Freckleton and Shari Stiles, Planning and Zoning
Administrator, submitted comments for the March 14, 1995, hearing,
and all are incorporated herein as if set forth in full; that some
of their comments were that the local streets need to be 50 feet
wide with 37 feet between the backs of curbs and include 5 foot
sidewalks; that the high seasonal ground water needed to be
established; that existing ditches crossing the property need to be
tiled; that cul-de-sacs shall not be longer than 450 feet; that
water service is contingent upon positive results from a hydraulic
analysis; that sidewalks, to meet City ordinance, must be
constructed; that the R-15 Planned Residential Area shall be
submitted under the Conditional Use Permit process; that any duplex
will be required to be submitted and approval of a variance is
required or they must be included as part of a Planned Unit
Development under the conditional use process; that Phase 2 will
require submittal and approval under the Conditional Use Permit
process; that block some lengths exceed 1,000 feet; that a 20 foot
landscape easement should be platted as a separate maintenance lot
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 5
THE LAKE AT CHERRY LANE NO. 5 & 6
for maintenance by the home owners association; that perimeter
fencing is required prior to obtaining building permits; and that
a development agreement is required as a condition of annexation,
which shall be approved and executed prior to or concurrent with
the final plat approval.
I. That the Meridian School District commented that it still
needed a school site designated in this section.
J. That the Meridian Police and Fire Departments, Ada County
Highway District, Central District Health Department, the Nampa
Meridian Irrigation District, City Planning Director, Idaho Power,
did submit comments and such are incorporated herein as if set
forth in full.
K. That the property is adjacent and abutting to the present
City limits.
L. That the property included in the annexation and zoning
application is within the Area of Impact of the City of Meridian
and the parcel is included within the Meridian Urban Service
Planning Area as the Urban Service Planning Area is defined in the
Meridian Comprehensive Plan.
M. That the property is shown on the Meridian Comprehensive
Plan as being in a Single Family Residential area.
N. That in the Rural Area section of the Comprehensive Plan,
Land Use, Rural Areas, Section 6.3, it does state that land in
agricultural activity should so remain in agricultural activity
until urban services can be provided.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Paae 6
THE LAKE AT CHERRY LANE NO. 5 & 6
O. That Meridian has, and is, experiencing a population
increase which is likely to continue; that there are pressures on
land previously used for agricultural uses to be developed into
residential subdivision lots.
P. That the property can be physically serviced with City
water and sewer via mains currently installed in Ten Mile Road.
Q. That the R-4 and R-15 Residential Districts are described
in the Zoning Ordinance, 11-2-408 B. 3 and 5 as follows:
(R-4) LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT: The purpose of
the (R-4) District is to permit the establishment of low
density single-family dwellings, and to delineate those
areas where predominantly residential development has, or
is likely to occur in accord with the Comprehensive Plan
or the City, and to protect the integrity of residential
areas by prohibiting the intrusion of incompatible non-
residential uses. The (R-4) District allows for a
maximum of four (4) dwellings units per acre and requires
connection to the Municipal Water and Sewer systems of
the City of Meridian.
fR-15) Medium High Density Residential District - The purpose
of the (R-15) District is to permit the establishment of
medium-high density single-family attached and multi-family
dwellings at a density not exceeding fifteen (15) dwelling
units per acre. All such districts must have direct access to
a transportation arterial or collector, abut or have direct
access to a park or open space corridor, and be connected to
the Municipal Water and Sewer systems of the City of Meridian.
The predominant housing types in this district will be patio
homes, zero lot line single-family dwellings, town houses,
apartment buildings and condominiums;
that the R-4 zoning district requires a minimum of 1,400 square
feet to be included in houses in that zone and detached houses of
1,301 square feet are required in the R-15 zone and there is no
minimum square footage requirement for attached single family
dwellings in the R-15 zone.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 7
TBE LAKE AT CHERRY LANE NO. 5 & 6
R. That Section 11-2-411 B states as follows:
"All new residential housing developments in the City of
Meridian shall be designed to insure compatibility with
adjacent existing and/or proposed developments."
S. 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, town houses, apartments,
condominiums, etc.) for the purpose of providing the City with
a range of affordable housing opportunities."
T. 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."
U. That the Meridian Comprehensive Plan, under Housing,
Housing Policies, at page 66, states as follows:
"1.1 The City of Meridian intends to provide for a wide
diversity of housing types (single-family, modular, mobile
homes, multi-family, town houses arrangements), ."
"1.3 An open housing market for all persons, 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."
V. The General Land Use Map of the Comprehensive Plan
designates the land involved in this Application as being in a
single family residential area.
W. That in prior requests for annexation and zoning in this
area the previous Zoning Administrator commented that annexation
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 8
THE LAKE AT CHERRY LANE NO. 5 & 6
could be conditioned on a development agreement including an impact
fee to help acquire a 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; that such comment is equally
applicable to this Application; that the Applicant has indicated it
is donating land for a fire station.
X. 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,
parka and recreation services to its current residents and to those
moving into the City; the City is also concerned that the increase
in population is burdening the schools of the Meridian School
District which provide school service to current and future
residents of the City; that the City knows that the increase in
population does not sufficiently increase the tax base to offset
the cost of providing fire, police, emergency health care, water,
sewer, parks and recreation services; and the City knows that the
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 9
THE LAKE AT CHERRY LANE NO. 5 & 6
increase in population does not provide sufficient tax base to
provide for school services to current and future students.
Y. 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.
AA. That Section 11-9-605 C states as follows:
"Right-of-way for pedestrian walkways in the middle of long
blocks may be required where necessary to obtain convenient
pedestrian circulation to schools, parks or shopping areas;
the pedestrian easement shall be at least ten feet (10')
wide."
AB. That Section 11-9-605 G 1. states as follows:
"Planting strips shall be required to be placed next to
incompatible features such as highways, railroads, commercial
or industrial uses to screen the view from residential
properties. Such screening shall be a minimum of twenty feet
(20') wide, and shall not be a part of the normal street right
of way or utility easement."
AC. That Section 11-9-605 H 2. states as follows:
"Existing natural features which add value to residential
development and enhance the attractiveness of the community
(such as trees, watercourses, historic spots and similar
irreplaceable amenities) shall be preserved in the design of
the subdivision;"
AD. That Section 11-9-605 K states as follows:
"The extent and location of lands designed for linear open
space corridors should be determined by natural features and,
to lesser extent, by man-made features such as utility
easements, transportation rights of way or water rights of
way. Landscaping, screening or lineal open space corridors
may be required for the protection of residential properties
from adjacent arterial streets, waterways, railroad rights of
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Pacie 10
THE LAKE AT CHERRY LANE N0. 5 & 6
way or other features. As improved areas (landscaped), semi-
improved areas (a landscaped pathway only), or unimproved
areas (left in a natural state), linear open space corridors
serve:
1. To preserve openness;
2. To interconnect park and open space systems within rights
of way for trails, walkways, bicycle ways;
3. To play a major role in conserving area scenic and
natural value, especially waterways, drainages and
natural habitat;
4. To buffer more intensive adjacent urban land uses;
5. To enhance local identification within the area due to
the internal linkages; and
6. To link residential neighborhoods, park areas and
recreation facilities."
AE. That Section 11-9-605 L states as follows:
Bicycle and pedestrian pathways shall be encouraged within new
developments as part of the public right of way or as separate
easements so that an alternate transportation system (which is
distinct and separate from the automobile) can be provided
throughout the City Urban Service Planning Area. The
Commission and Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider
the Bicvcle-Pedestrian Desicin Manual for Ada County (as
prepared by Ada County Highway District) when reviewing
bicycle and pedestrian pathway provisions within developments.
AF. That Section 11-9-605 M, PIPING OF DITCHES, reads in part
as follows:
Tiling of irrigation ditches, laterals or canals. All
irrigation ditches, laterals or canals, exclusive of natural
waterways, intersecting, crossing, or lying adjacent and
contiguous, or which canals, ditches or laterals touch either
or both sides of the area being subdivided, shall be covered
and enclosed with tiling or other covering equivalent in
ability to detour access to said ditch, lateral or canal. The
City may waive this requirement for covering such ditch,
lateral or canal if it finds that the public purpose requiring
such will not be served in the individual case. Any covering
program involving the distribution system of any irrigation
district shall have the prior approval of that affected
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 11
THE LAKE AT CHERRY LANE NO. 5 & 6
irrigation district. No subdivision plat shall be approved
where the subdivision is arbitrarily or artificially laid out
to avoid being adjacent to any waterway, irrigation ditch,
lateral or canal to which it would otherwise be naturally
adjacent or which it would otherwise naturally include.
AG. That proper notice was given as required by law and all
procedures before the City Council were given and followed.
CONCLUSIONS
A. That all the procedural requirements of the Local
Planning Act and of the Ordinances of the City of Meridian have
been met, including the mailing of notice to owners of property
within 300 feet of the external boundaries of the Applicant's
property..
B. That the City of Meridian has authority to annex land
pursuant to 50-222, Idaho Code, and Section 11-2-417 of the Revised
and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian; that exercise of
the City's annexation authority is a Legislative function.
C. That the City Council has judged this annexation and
zoning application by the provisions contained in Section 50-222,
Idaho Code, Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code, the Meridian City
Ordinances, the Meridian Comprehensive Plan, as amended, and the
record submitted to it and things of which it can take judicial
notice.
D. That all notice and hearing requirements set forth in
Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code, and the Ordinances of the City of
Meridian have been complied with.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Pace 12
THE LAKE AT CHERRY LANE NO. 5 & 6
E. That the City Council may take judicial notice of
government ordinances, and policies, and of actual conditions
existing within the City and State.
F. That the land within the proposed annexation is
contiguous to the present City limits of the City of Meridian and
the annexation would not be a shoestring annexation.
G. That the annexation application has been initiated by the
Applicant and not upon the initiation of the City of Meridian.
H. That since the annexation and zoning of land is a
legislative function, the City has authority to place conditions
upon the annexation of land. Burt vs. The Citv of Idaho Falls, 105
Idaho 65, 665 P.D 1075 (1983).
I. That the development of annexed land must meet and comply
with the Ordinances of the City of Meridian and in particular
Section 11-9-616, which pertains to development time schedules and
requirements, Section 11-9-605 M., which pertains to the tiling of
ditches and water ways, and Section 11-9-606 B 14, which pertains
to pressurized irrigation; that the Applicant will be required to
connect to Meridian water and sewer; that the development of the
property shall be subject to and controlled by the Zoning and
Subdivision and Development Ordinances; that, as a condition of
annexation the Applicant shall be required to enter into a
development agreement as authorized by 11-2-416 L and 11-2-417 D;
that the development agreement shall address the inclusion into the
subdivision of the requirements of 11-9-605 C, G., H 2, R, L and M;
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 13
TEE LAKE AT CHERRY LANE NO. 5 & 6
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
development fee or transfer fee adopted by the City; that there
shall be no issuance of building permits until the requirements of
this paragraph are met or, if necessary, the property shall be
subject to de-annexation and loss of City services, if the
requirements of this paragraph are not met. The development
agreement shall also address the landscaping and maintenance
thereof, by a mandatory home owners association rather than the
individual lot owners. The Applicant shall adopt Covenants,
Conditions and Restrictions, for each portion of the project, as a
condition of annexation, they shall require a mandatory homeowners
association which can assess dues and fees, they shall address
building requirements for each portion, and they shall be approved
by the City Council.
J. That the development of the Applicant's property would be
in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan if it meets the
conditions contained herein, and therefore the annexation and
zoning Application would be in conformance with the Comprehensive
Plan.
R. That the description of R-15, in 11-2-408 B 5., indicates
that the R-15 zone must have direct access to a transportation
arterial or collector, abut or have direct access to a park or open
space corridor, and be connected to City sewer and water; that the
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 14
THE LAKE AT CHERRY LANE N0. 5 & 6
land desired to be zoned R-15 meets the above first and third
requirements but does not meet the second requirement of abutting
or having direct access to a park or open space corridor.
L. That if annexed, the requirements of the Meridian City
Engineer, the Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District, Meridian Fire
Department, Idaho Power, the comments of the Meridian Planning and
Zoning Director, and these Findings and Conclusion, shall be met
and addressed in a development Agreement.
M. That if annexed, all ditches, canals, and waterways shall
be tiled as a condition of annexation and if not so tiled the
property shall be subject to de-annexation; 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.
N. That if annexed, 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 Zoning and
Subdivision and Development Ordinances.
O. It is concluded that the Applicant has changed the
development plan from what was presented to the Commission at
previous meetings and hearings; that development of the R-4 portion
of the property is satisfactory since that is the type of
development that has been done in the area in the past and is being
done now in Cherry Lane Village and in other portions of The Lake
at Cherry Lane; that the land desired to be zoned R-15 does not
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Paqe 15
THE LAKE AT CHERRY LANE NO. 5 & 6
abut or have direct access to a park or open space corridor; that
the Applicant could place a park in the subdivision of sufficient
size to be acceptable to the City to meet that requirement and
should be given the opportunity to do so; that if the Applicant
does not desire to do so, that portion of the Application
requesting zoning of R-15 should be denied; that if Applicant does
place a park in the subdivision and wants to have the land zoned R-
15 it then should be so annexed and zoned, but development shall
be approved on a conditional use basis and procedure, or similar
conditions and procedures.
P. That the Applicant was agreeable to changing the R-15
shown in red on the map on the page designated as "Tab 6" to an R-8
zone and to meeting the requirements of that zone; that if it was
changed to R-8 it would not have to abut or have direct access to
a park or open space corridor; that if the zoning of that land is
changed to R-8 it should be developed as an R-8 Planned Unit
Development, but shall have minimum house sizes of 1,400 square
feet and meet all R-8 requirements, except the 1,301 house size
requirement.
Q. That as a condition of annexation and to meet the 11-2-
411 B compatability requirement, all lots that abut land or lots
that are now zoned R-4, such as in the prior portions of The Lake
at Cherry Lane and Cherry Lane Village, but not limited thereto,
shall have a minimum lot size of 8,000 square feet and shall have
single-family homes built thereon and meet all of the R-4 requirements.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 16
THE LAKE AT CHERRY LANE NO. 5 & 6
R. That it is concluded that the property requested to be
annexed and zoned R-4 should be annexed and zoned R-4.
S. That it is concluded that the Applicant shall be required
to meet the comments of the City Engineer, Gary Smith, Bruce
Freckleton Assistant to the City Engineer, Shari Stiles, Planning
and Zoning Administrator, which specifically include their comments
on the streets, the Meridian Police and Fire Departments, Ada
County Bighway District, Central District Bealth Department, the
Nampa Meridian Irrigation District, and Idaho Power.
T. That proper and adequate access to the property is
available and will have to be maintained; that the minimum house
size of 1,400 square feet in the R-4 District and the R-8 District,
if Applicant changes to an R-8 District, must be met.
U. That these conditions shall run with the land and bind
the applicant, the titled owners, and their assigns.
V. With compliance of the conditions contained herein, the
annexation and zoning of R-4 Residential would be in the best
interest of the City of Meridian and the Applicant should be given
the opportunity to change a portion from R-15 to R-8 and meet the
other conditions of these Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.
W. That if these conditions of approval are not met the
property shall not be annexed.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Paae 17
THE LAKE AT CHERRY LANE NO. 5 & 6
APPROVAL OF FINDINO8 OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts and
approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions.
ROLL CALL
COMMISSIONER HSPPER
COxaII33IONER ROUNTREE
SBSARER
COMMI3SIONSR ALIDJANI
CHAIRMAN JOHNSON (TI8 SREARER)
xoxxoN:
APPROVED:
RECO~Q~NDATION
VOTED
VOTED ~~~--
VOTSD-~~~ -kU
VOTED
DISAPPROVED:
v .~
-~~~r ~y~
The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends
to the City Council of the City of Meridian that the property
requested to be zoned R-4 be annexed and so zoned and that the
Applicant be given the opportunity to meet these Findings of Fact
and Conclusions of Law so that the remaining portions of the land
can be annexed and zoned and that if the conditions are not met,
the property now requested to be zoned R-15 not be annexed.
xoTION:
APPROVED• DISAPPROVED:
~-%t-f.~
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Paae 18
THE LAKE AT CHERRY LANE NO. 5 & 6
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING: JULY 11.1895
APPLICANT: MICHAEL PRESTON AGENDA I TEM NUMBER: 17
REQUEST: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLU310N3 OF LAW FOR ANNEXATION. ZONING TO C-G
AGENCY
CITY CLERK:
CITY ENGINEER:
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR:
CITY ATTORNEY:
CITY POLICE DEPT:
CITY FIRE DEPT:
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT:
MERIDIAN POST OFFICE:
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT:
ADA COUNTY STREET NAME COMMITTEE:
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH:
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION:
SETTLERS IRRIGATION:
IDAHO POWER:
US WEST:
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION:
FINDNGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
~c~~
~ (~ ~°y~'
y a
i Y1~'~
r~~~;
~~~ V
~~ ~~a~~C
P
~ Materials presented at public meetings shall become properly of the Cily of Meridian.
• • ORIGINAL
BEFORE THE MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
SHERINAH INDUSTRIES, INC.
D. MICHAEL PRESTON
ANNEBATION AND REZONE APPLICATION
SW CORNER OF FRANKLIN ROAD AND LOCUST GROVE ROAD
MERIDIAN, IDAHO
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The above entitled matter having come on for public hearing
April 11, 1995, at the hour of 7:30 o'clock p.m., the Petitioner,
Shekinah Industries, Inc. appearing through D. Michael Preston,
before the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Meridian
and the Commission having duly considered the evidence and the
matter, made and adopted Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
but tabled the matter to allow the Applicant to provide the
Commission additional information before making a recommendation to
the City Council, and the Applicant submitting additional
information at the June 22, 1995, meeting, the Commission makes the
following Amended Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. A. .That notice of a public hearing on the Annexation
Application was published for two (2) consecutive weeks prior to
the said public hearing scheduled for April 11, 1995, the first
publication of which was fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing;
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PRESTON Page 1
that the matter was duly considered at the April 11, 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.
B. That this property is located within the City of Meridian
and the titled owners are Montee and Beverly McClure and IVADCO,
Inc.; that no consent by the owners of record has been given to the
City for the rezone of the property; that consents for annexation
and zoning shall be filed by the titled owners prior to proceedings
before the Meridian City Council; the property is described in the
application which description is incorporated herein.
C. That the property is presently zoned by Ada County as R-T
and is used for agricultural purposes; that the Applicant requests
that the property be zoned C-G, General Retail and Service
Commercial; that no specific use for the property was presented.
D. That the property has frontage on Franklin Road, is south
of industrial zoned land, is easterly of the Meridian Cemetery, is
north of undeveloped land and the State of Idaho Department of law
Enforcement land and building; that there is very low density
residential development to the east and south of the land.
E. That the C-G District is described in the Zoning
Ordinance, 11-2-408 B. 9. as follows:
(C-G) GENERAL RETAIL AND SERVICE COMMERCIAL: The purpose
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PRESTON Page 2
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.
F. That the land is 30 acres and the present use of the land
to be annexed is one home and pasture land for cattle and horses.
G. That D. Michael Preston testified that as he was meeting
with various people it came to his attention that a residential
zone for this area was evidently not in the interest of the City of
Meridian. He stated he decided that he would look at this property
from a commercial basis, so the concept that he submitted was
purely a concept. This was not something that he was ready to
submit to the Commission; this request was purely for annexation
and rezoning. He stated that he had high intensity service retail
on the corner of Franklin and Locust Grove and that someday that
would be appropriate there; that he also had retail along the
westerly side of this office complex. Toward the rear of the
property, as we get closer to the State Training facility, he would
turn that into a supply type commercial like a lumber yard or
something .like that, pipe supply or whatever. If the neighbors are
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PRESTON Page 3
not interested, he could re-arrange the streets very quickly and
easily and leave them in peace, which he said he would definitely
do if that is their desire. He stated that he was really trying
hard to get along with them this time and do something that was
more agreeable to them. He stated that the access road that he had
there would be a very convenient rear access from the Meridian
interchange to the Nahas-Hon commercial development. He thought
that this was something that would be good for the City and he had
every intent of developing it somewhat in that fashion with
additional input. He just wanted to emphasize that the layout was
concept only. He stated that he could certainly pull back and that
he would do so.
He stated that he had reviewed all the comments by the City
staff and had no problem with any of their comments and was
agreeable to all of them. He also stated that he had seen the
comments from ACRD and had no problems with them.
That at the June 22, 1995, meeting Mr. Preston stated many
things but in summary he testified that the he had submitted a
revised concept plan which gives the Commission the idea of the
type of landscaping, parking, fir protection facilities, access,
ingress/egress to each of the facilities; what the office complex
might look like, which could change because he does not have any
tenants at this time; that there is professional office complex
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PRESTON Page 4
next to the neighborhood homes, which is a quiet use; that he has
added a six foot high masonry wall all the way around the project
and with that he is trying to totally sound proof the area; also he
will have a twenty foot landscape strip which is called for by City
Ordinance; that with the 35 foot landscape strip they will not
disturb any of the wet lands and they will not impact that in
anyway and their landscaping will make it prettier than it is
today; that they will not be digging in the creek and they will not
impact Five Mile Creek in any way. He also testified that the
spine road, with water and sewer facilities, is planned to be in by
next spring; that in response to a question from Commissioner
Hepper regarding what can be performed on the land, he testified
that they had to come back for conditional uses from the Commission
to anything and that the Commission has total control over control
through those conditional uses.
H. That there was testimony at the hearing on April 9, 1995,
objecting to the Application which was principally as follows:
1. That Robert Smith stated he would still like to oppose
this type of rezoning. I don't think it benefits us
people that live on Locust Grove or Franklin Road right
now. The way that the City is 'growing with the
commercial and light industrial proposals that seem to be
coming in at a regular rate, Z don't think right now
would be an appropriate time with the condition that
Franklin Road is unless it is rebuilt and Locust Grove
Road is rebuilt. These don't look to be done at any near
future dates so I think it would really be a detriment to
our properties. I hope you will not change your zoning on
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PRESTON Page 5
this, thank you.
2. That Jim Witherell testified he was one of the affected
parties that already submitted a letter in writing
saying they opposed this thing, saying the annexation was
attempted under questionable circumstances. One thing
.has come out that I would like to add that we did not
know at the time. Mr. Preston does not own this
property. He told that to us at the meeting. He said he
does represent the developer, but he had a letter of
intent on this at one time and that expired last May.
3. That Morgan Plant stated he would like to recommend to
the Planning and Zoning Commission that this request be
totally denied. This type of development is not
warranted; it is not called for and it is not compatible
with the residences in that area. We are, although not
bordered by this property, dramatically affected. There
are open areas in there which will be zoned and approved
for residential areas and commercial in our back yard
would certainly be detrimental. I recommend that you
soundly refuse this request. It is not compatible for
that area whatsoever. It will greatly depreciate our
property.
I. That a petition was submitted to the Commission signed by
eight people, some of whom testified at the public hearing; that
the petition is incorporated herein as if set forth in full; that
the petition sets forth objections to the Application and requests
that it be denied; that a summary of the objections is as follows:
1. That Applicant's petition for commercial development
includes land owned by those objecting and they do not
desire their land to be so developed.
2. That the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for
Applicant's previous application prohibit this
Application for development.
3. That the Application is inconsistent with the Meridian
Comprehensive Plan.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PRESTON Page 6
C~
4. That since there was no use submitted as part of the
Application, that the Application was frivolous.
S. That because the Application is frivolous, it is also
litigious.
6. That a portion of the land to be developed is wet land
area and is also regulated by the Federal Emergency
Management Agency and the Bureau of Reclamation.
J. That there was testimony in favor of the Application from
Wayne Forrey who testified as follows:
That he owned land in Meridian and he had a business
relationship with another property owner who owned land that
is closer to this and it is annexed into the City. That as a
property owner in Meridian along Franklin Road, Ed Bews, the
owner of property very near this area, is in favor of this
request and hope that you would approve it. Always there is
going to be some type of conflict, real or perceived between
a commercial property and a residential property. The City
does have the ability to ask a developer to buffer and screen
and provide transitions. That is in the Comprehensive Plan.
It is in the zoning and development ordinance and it is
probably something the developer or the applicant here would
be willing to negotiate with the City. I can understand that
other property owners out there may have some reservations
about commercial zoning. I do not I think it would be good
for the City to annex this property at the C-G zoning.
K. .That Bruce Freckleton, Assistant to the City Engineer,
submitted comments; that any existing irrigation/drainage ditches
crossing the property and included in this project, shall be tiled
per City Ordinance 11-9-605 M unless a variance application is
submitted; that any existing domestic wells and/or septic systems
will have to be removed from their domestic service but that wells
may be used for non-domestic purposes; that water service is
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PRESTON Page 7
contingent upon positive results from a hydraulic analysis by the
City computer model and domestic water is presently located in
Franklin Road approximately 3,150 feet west of Locust Grove Road;
that City policy requires extension of City utility lines to and
through a development; that a 12-inch diameter water line will need
to be built in Franklin Road from its point of connection to
existing water east to Locust Grove Road and south along the length
of this property's frontage; that sewer service would be via
connection to the Five Mile Creek Sewer Trunk Line; that a new
legal description needs to be submitted pursuant to Meridian City
Resolution No. 158 that includes said Rights-of-Way.
L. That Planning and Zoning Director, Shari Stiles submitted
comments; that this area is designated as Mixed/Planned Use
Development, which requires that all uses be approved under the
conditional use permit process; pathways for pedestrian/bicycle
access must be incorporated throughout the development; plans will
be required to be submitted in conformance with the requirements of
Section 11-9-607; Applicant is to enter into a development
agreement with the City; a minimum of ten percent of the site must
be landscaped; a minimum setback of 35' beyond the required rights-
of-way along Franklin Road shall be provided; a minimum landscape
setback of 20' beyond the required rights-of-way along Locust Grove
Road shall be required; that a minimum of 45 feet from the
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PRESTON Page 8
centerline of Locust Grove Road shall be required; that a minimum
of 20' landscaped setback will be required adjacent to residential
development; that Nampa & Meridian will have to be contacted for
approval of any rerouting of irrigation and other water lines; that
a portion of the site appears to be in the 100-year flood plain and
that will have to be addressed by the Applicant.
M. 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.
N. That the Meridian Police Department, the Meridian Fire
Department, Central District Health Department and the Nampa
Meridian Irrigation District all submitted comments and they are
incorporated as if set forth in full.
O. That the property included in the annexation and zoning
application is within the Area of Impact of the City of Meridian.
P. That the parcel of ground requested to be annexed is
presently included within the Meridian Urban Service Planning Area
(U.S.P.A.) as the Urban Service Planning Area is defined in the
Meridian Comprehensive Plan and in the Meridian Area of Impact.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PRESTON Page 9
Q. That Meridian has, and is, experiencing a population
increase; that there are pressures on land previously used for
agricultural uses to be developed into residential subdivision lots
and other uses.
R. That the property can be physically serviced with City
water and sewer if the Applicant extends and constructs the lines
and facilities.
S. That the following pertinent statements are made in the
Meridian Comprehensive Plan:
1. Under ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, Economic Development Goal
Statement.
Policies, Page 19
1.1 The City of Meridian shall make every effort to
create a positive atmosphere which encourages
industrial and commercial enterprises to locate in
Meridian.
1.2 It is the policy of the City of Meridian to set
aside areas where commercial and industrial
interests and activities are to dominate.
1.3 The character, site improvements and type of new
commercial or industrial developments should be
harmonized with the natural environment and respect
the unique needs and features of each area.
1.5 Strip industrial and commercial uses are not in
compliance with the Comprehensive Plan.
1.6 It is the policy of the City of Meridian to support
shopping facilities which are effectively
integrated into new or existing residential areas,
and plan for new shopping centers as growth and
development warrant.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PRESTON Page 10
1.8 The City of Meridian intends to establish a Design
Review Ordinance which will foster compatible land
use and design within the development, and with
contiguous developments; and encourage innovations
in building techniques, so that the growing demands
of the community are met, while at the same time
providing for the efficient use of such lands.
2. Under LAND USE, Mixed-Use Areas Adjacent to I-84,
Overland Road and Franklin Road, Page 28.
5.6 The development of a variety of compatible land
uses should be provided in specific plans and
proposals for future development.
5.8 Development in these areas should be based on
functional plans and proposals in order to ensure
that the proposed uses conform to the Comprehensive
Plan policies and are compatible with the
surrounding neighborhoods.
5.9 The integrity and identity of any adjoining
residential neighborhood should be preserved
through the use of buffering techniques, including
screen plantings, open space and other landscaping
techniques.
5.10 Development should be conducted under Planned Unit
Development procedures and as conditional uses,
especially when two or more differing uses are
proposed.
5.11 The character, site improvements, and type of
development should be harmonized with previously-
developed land in the area, and where located
adjacent to or near any existing residence or
residential area, shall be harmonized with
residential uses, and all reasonable efforts shall
be made to reduce the environmental impact on
residential areas, including noise and traffic
reduction.
5.12 Strip development within this mixed-use area is not
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PRESTON Page 11
in compliance with the goals and policies of the
Comprehensive Plan.
5.13 Clustering of uses and controlled access points
along arterials and collector streets will be
required.
5.14U Because these areas are near I-84, Franklin and
Overland Roads, high-quality visual appearance is
essential. All development proposals in this area will
be subject to development review guidelines and
conditional use permitting procedures.
S.15U The mixed-use area in the vicinity of the
Overland Road/Franklin Road/ Eagle Road/I-84
interchange is a priority development area.
3. Franklin Road (East and West entrances) are listed as
Minor Arterials and as Entryway Corridors.
4. Under COMMUNITY DESIGN, Policies, at Page 73
1. Entrance Corridors Goal Statement - Promote,
encourage, develop and maintain aesthetically
pleasing approaches to the City of Meridian.
2. Policies,
a. 4.3U Use the Comprehensive Plan, subdivision
regulations, and zoning to discourage strip
development and encourage clustered, landscaped
business development on entrance corridors.
b. 4.4U Encourage landscaped setbacks for new
development on entrance corridors. The City shall
require, as a condition of development approval,
landscaping along all entrance corridors.
4. Neighborhood Identify Goal Policies, Page 74
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PRESTON Page 12
C~
a. 6.4U Limit the conversion of predominantly
residential neighborhoods to nonresidential
uses, and require effective buffers and
mitigation measures through conditional use
permits when appropriate nonresidential uses
are proposed.
T. 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."
U. .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.
V. That Section 6.7U, of the LAND USE section of the
Comprehensive Plan, states as follows:
"Existing rural residential land uses and farms/ranches shall
be buffered from urban development expanding into rural areas
by innovative land use planning techniques."
W. That the property is included within an area designated
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PRESTON Page 13
on the Generalized Land Use Map in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan
as a Mixed/Planed Use Development area.
X. That Planned Development is defined in 11-2-403 B, at
page 20 of the Zoning Ordinance booklet, as follows:
"An area of land which is developed as a single entity for a
number of uses in combination with or exclusive of other
supportive uses. A PD may be entirely residential,
industrial, or commercial or a mixture of compatible uses. A
PD does not necessarily correspond to lot size, bulk, density,
lot coverage required, open space or type of residential,
commercial or industrial uses as established in any one or
more created districts or this Ordinance."
and a Planned General Development is defined as follows:
"A development not otherwise distinguished under Planned
Commercial, Industrial, Residential Developments, or in which
the proposed use of interior and exterior spaces requires
unusual design flexibility to achieve a completely logical and
complimentary conjunction of uses and functions. This PD
classification applies to essential public services, public or
private recreation facilities, institutional uses, community
facilities or a PD which includes a mix of residential,
commercial or industrial uses."
Y. That under 11-2-409, ZONING SCHEDULE OF USE CONTROL, B
Commercial, Planned Commercial Development is a permitted use in
the C-G district and Planned Unit Development - General, is an
allowed conditional use in the C-G district.
Z. That Section 11-2-416 E 2. c. provides that this
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PRESTON Page 14
~i
Commission is to transmit its recommendation to the City Council
within forty-five (45) days, but also states that the Commission
may continue the matter from meeting to meeting if it finds that it
does not have sufficient information to make a decision.
AA. That proper notice was given as required by law and ali
procedures before the Planning and Zoning Commission and City
Council were given and followed.
CONCLUSIONS
A. That all the procedural requirements of the Local
Planning Act and of the Ordinances of the City of Meridian have
been met; including the mailing of notice to owners of property
within 300 feet of the external boundaries of the Applicant's
property.
B. That the City of Meridian has authority to annex land
pursuant to 50-222, Idaho Code, and Section 11-2-417 of the Revised
and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian; that exercise of
the City's annexation authority is a legislative function.
C. That the Planning and Zoning commission has judged these
annexation, zoning and conditional use applications under Idaho
Code, Section 50-222, Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code, Meridian
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PRESTON Page 15
City Ordinances, Meridian Comprehensive Plan, as amended, and the
record submitted to it and things of which it can take judicial
notice.
D. That all notice and hearing requirements set forth in
Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code, and the Ordinances of the City of
Meridian have been complied with.
E. That the Council may take judicial notice of government
ordinances, and policies, and of actual conditions existing within
the City and State.
F. That the land within the proposed annexation is
contiguous to the present City limits of the City of Meridian, and
the annexation would not be a shoestring annexation.
G. That the annexation application has been initiated by the
Applicant, and is not upon the initiation of the City of Meridian.
H. That since the annexation and zoning of land is a
legislative function, the City has authority to place conditions
upon the annexation of land. Burt vs. The Citv of Idaho Falls, 105
Idaho 65, 665 P.D 1075 (1983).
I. That the development of annexed land must meet and comply
with the Ordinances of the City of Meridian and in particular
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PRESTON Page 16
Section 11-9-616, which pertains to development time schedules and
requirements, and Section 11-9-605 M., which pertains to the tiling
of ditches and waterways and 11-9-606 14., which requires
pressurized irrigation.
J. That the City adopted the Comprehensive Plan at its
meeting on January 4, 1994, and has not amended the Zoning
Ordinance to reflect the changes made in the Comprehensive Plan;
thus, uses may be called for or allowed in the Comprehensive Plan
but the Zoning Ordinance may not address provisions for the use; it
is concluded that upon annexation, as a condition of annexation,
the City may impose restrictions that are not otherwise contained
in the current Zoning or Subdivision and Development Ordinances.
K. The Applicant has now stated or represented intention as
to development and stated proposed use of the property; therefore
it can be determined if the use would be in compliance with the
Comprehensive Plan. Any uses would have to comply with the Zoning
Ordinance and any conditions placed on the property as part of this
annexation.
L. That it is concluded that the City should annex the
property and zone it C-G because it is shown in the Meridian
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PRESTON Page 17
Comprehensive Plan as being in a Mixed/Planned Use Development
area, which requires that all uses be approved under the
conditional use permit process or planned development process and
therefore the City will have control over the development and the
uses of the property pursuant to the Comprehensive Plan, the Zoning
Ordinance, and the Subdivision and Development Ordinance.
M. That it is concluded that since the Comprehensive Plan,
under LAND USE, Page 28, Mixed-Use Areas Adjacent to I-84, Overland
Road and. Franklin Road, in Section 5.10, states that all
development should be conducted under Planned Unit Development
procedures and as conditional uses, the City will have control over
any uses that are to be placed on the land. It is therefore
concluded that development of the parcel of land, if annexed,
should be conditioned on being developed as a Commercial Planned
Development, which is allowed in the General Retail and Service
Commercial (C-G) district, or under the conditional use permit
process.
N. Therefore, it is concluded that the property should be
annexed and zoned General Retail and Service Commercial (C-G), but
only capable of being developed as a planned commercial development
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PRESTON Page 18
and under the conditional use permit process.
O. That if annexed, as a condition of annexation and the
zoning of C-G, the Applicant shall be required to enter into a
development agreement as authorized by 11-2-416 L and 11-2-417 D;
that the development agreement shall address, among other things,
the following:
1. Inclusion into the development of the requirements of 11-
9-605
a. C, Pedestrian Walkways.
b. G 1, Planting Strips.
c. H, Public Sites and Open Spaces.
d. K, Lineal Open Space Corridors.
e. L, Pedestrian and Bike Path Ways.
f. M, Pressurized Irrigation
2. Payment by the Applicant, or if required, 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.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PRESTON Page 19
8. Submission and approval of individual building, drainage,
lighting, parking, and other development plans under the
Planned Development guidelines, including plans for the
storage units.
9. Harmonizing and integrating the site improvements with
the existing residential development.
10. Establishing a 35 foot landscaped setback and landscaping
the same.
11. Addressing the comments of the Planning Director, Shari
Stiles.
12. The sewer and water requirements.
13. Traffic plans and access into and out of any development.
14. And any other items deemed necessary by the City Staff,
including design review of all development, and
conditional use processing as required under the Meridian
Comprehensive Plan.
P. That Section 11-2-417 D of the Meridian Zoning Ordinance
states in part as follows:
"If property is annexed and zoned, the City may require or
permit, as a condition of the zoning, that an owner or
developer make a written commitment concerning the use or
development of the subject property. If a commitment is
required or permitted, it shall be recorded in the office of
the Ada County Recorder and shall take effect upon the
adoption of the ordinance annexing and zoning the property, or
prior if agreed to by the owner of the parcel. .";
it is concluded, however, that it is more appropriate for a
development agreement to be entered into when plans for development
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PRESTON Page 20
are better known and therefore as a condition of annexation a
development agreement must be entered into prior to issuance of a
building permit or prior to plat approval, which ever comes first.
Q. That it is concluded that the annexing and zoning of the
property would be in the best interests of the City of Meridian,
and it is concluded that the annexation should be conditioned on
meeting the requirements of these Findings of Fact, particularly
paragraphs S. and V. and the Conclusions of Law, and if they are
not met the land should not be annexed or, if annexed, it should be
de-annexed.
R. That the requirements of the Meridian City Engineer, Ada
County Highway District, Meridian Planning Director, Central
District Health Department, and the Nampa & Meridian Irrigation
District, shall be met and addressed in a development agreement if
the property is annexed.
S. That if annexed, all ditches, canals, and waterways shall
be tiled as a condition of annexation and _if,not so tiled, the
property shall be subject to de-annexation and that pressurized
irrigation shall be installed and constructed, and if not so done
the property shall be subject to de-annexation.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PRESTON Page 21
T. That if annexed, 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 Zoning and the
Subdivision and Development Ordinances and the development
agreement, and it shall only be developed as a commercial planned
development or under the conditional use process.
U. That if annexed, these conditions shall run with the land
and bind the applicant and its assigns.
V. With compliance of the conditions contained herein, the
annexation and zoning of General Retail and Service Commercial (C-
G), would be in the best interest of the City of Meridian.
W. That if these conditions of approval are not met, the
property shall not be annexed, or if already annexed, it shall be
de-annexed.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PRESTON Page 22
APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts and
approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions.
ROLL CALL
HEPPER
COMMISSIONER ROUNTREE
COMMISSIONER SEEARER
COMMISSIONER ALIDJANI
CHAIRMAN JOHNSON (TIE BREAKER)
VOTED_~' ^, /,,
VOTED
VOTED
VOTED~C.N I
VOTED
DECISION AND REC07+MEDIDATION
~~~
~~(T~~S~
The Meridian Planning and Zoning Coaanission hereby recommends
to the City Council of the City of Meridian that they approve the
annexation and zoning as stated above for the property described in
the application with the conditions set forth in the Findings of
Fact and Conclusions of Law and that the Applicant and owners be
specifically required to the all ditches, canals and waterways as
a condition of annexation and that the Applicant meet all of the
Ordinances of the City of Meridian, specifically including the
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PRESTON Page 23
C~
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 shall not be annexed, or if annexed, it shall be de-
annexed.
MOTION:
(1
APPROVED• DISAPPROVED:
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PRESTON Page 24
r
N
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING: _ _ _ ,JULY 11.1995
APPLICANT: GEM PARK 11 PARTNERSHIP AGENDA I TEM NUMBER: 1011. d~ 12
REQUEST: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR ANNEXATION. ZONING WRH A
PRELIMINARY PLAT AND A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT HIGHLANDS RANCH SUBDNISION
ENCY COMMENTS
CITY CLERK:
CITY ENGINEER:
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR:
CITY ATTORNEY: FINDNGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
CITY POLICE DEPT:
CITY FIRE DEPT: ~ ~~ I C
CITY BUILDING DEPT: ' ~ ~~ "
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: ~ I~"e ~ ~.~~
MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: /] ~ ~ r '/ ~ ~ ~ YY~" ~
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: V ` J~ P
ADA COUNTY STREET NAME COMMITTEE: ~~
`ti~~ ~`~
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH:
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: ~ ~ Q ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~;
SETTLERS IRRIGATION: ~~t,/?,~ ~~
IDAHO POWER: ~Y~ ~
US WEST: I ~~"~~
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: 4 ~ {, /~~
V
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION:
All Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
~ • ORIGINAL
BEFORB THS !lERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
WSSTPARR COMPANY
GEMPARR II PARTNERSHIP
ANNE%ATION AND ZONING
PORTION OF SECTION 20. T. 3N. R. lE. BOISE MERIDIAN
MERIDIAN. IDAHO
FINDINGS OF FACT AND
OF LAW
The above entitled matter having come on for public hearing
June 13, 1995, at the hour of 7:30 o'clock p.m., Wayne Forrey,
representing the Petitioner appeared in person, the Planning and
Zoning Commission of the City of Meridian having duly considered
the evidence and the matter, makes the following Findings of Fact
and Conclusions of Law:
FINDINGS OF FACT
A. That notice of a public hearing on the request for
annexation and zoning was published for two (2) consecutive weeks
prior to the said public hearing scheduled for June 13, 1995, the
first publication of which was fifteen (15) days prior to said
hearing; that the matter was duly considered at the June 13, 1995,
hearing; that the public was given full opportunity to express
comments and submit evidence; and copies of all notices were
available to newspaper, radio and television stations.
B. The property is approximately 180.9 acres; that the
property is located near and adjacent to the City of Meridian and
that the Applicant is not the owner of the property; that the
RANCH - ANNEBATION FF & CL Paqe - 1
r
owners are: Dale A. or Pamela G. Nixon, Harold Killgore and
Rayelene Allen, Clayton or Susan Record, Richard S. or Linda E.
Schaffer and Sally D. Martin; that each of the above mentioned
parties are the titled owners of certain parcels and each have
granted their permission for this application and to be annexed.
C. That the Application was initially submitted requesting
annexation and zoning of R-8 Low Density Residential, R-15 Medium
High Density Residential and L-O Limited Office to be developed for
future land use of mixed residential, a school, park, pathway,
public and limited office. That in the letter accompanying this
Application, Greg Johnson, President of Westpark Company, Inc.
stated that the Applicant amended its annexation and development
approach to include a corporate office park and planned development
residential community and is requesting R-4 zoning with a
conditional use permit for planned development residential and
limited office zoning to develop a corporate office park. Mr.
Johnson also stated the Application had been revised and updated to
achieve several planned development objectives, which are
incorporated herein as if set forth in full. He stated that the
design was done to minimize the impact to adjoining properties and
achieve compatible land uses in the neighborhood.
D. At the Public Hearing Wayne Forrey explained the proposed
development as follows:
He stated that the project was high quality residential
and offices; that they had changed from an application for R-8
and R-15 to L-O and R-4 with a campus office park, some R-4
development, and a planned development with cluster homes
because some lots are less than 8,000 square feet; that there
HIt3HLANDS RANCH - ANNE]CATION FF & CL Page - 2
l'
M
was 10.5 acres of common open space which did not include the
path along the Ridenbaugh Canal; he showed a summary of the
development features; that there would be 900 square foot and
larger homes but that many would be larger; that the Meridian
Comprehensive Plan talks about "flex" size homes; that there
is to be 25~ variation in a planned development; that a 250
reduction, due to the planned development, would mean that the
homes could be 1,050 square feet in the R-4 zone, or 25~ of
the required 1,400 square foot requirement in the R-4 zone;
that this would provide for mixed use development along Eagle
Road; he showed pictures of a development in Ketchum. Idaho.
He also stated that the Applicant had no problem with the
comments of the City, except for the comment about having a
bridge to Los Alamitos Subdivision, but with regard to that
they would allow the Ada County Highway District to decide
that issue.
He also stated that this was a community rural area and
that they would work with the neighbors; that under the
Comprehensive Plan, Section 6.4 and 6.8U, the land was to be
developed as an urban area, but they would not ignore the
neighbors comments, such as those made by Mrs. Glick.
Mr. Forrey also testified after the public testified in
rebuttal of some of the comments and such is incdrporated
herein as if set forth in full. In regard to the testimony
being that the people were not contacted by the developer
about the development, Mr. Forrey stated that the developer,
Greg Johnson, did make an attempt to meet with the neighbors
but it did not get done; he stated that he dropped the ball as
well; that the best thing that can be done now is to send
another letter and meet with anyone that wants to and we will
do that; then in response to Mrs. Glick's request, which was
that six or seven houses on an acre next to her 2.2 acres is
not an adequate transitional density and having one to two
acre lots abutting her would be more transitional and in line
with the land use section which requires comparable lot sizes
be adjacent to rural residential, he stated as follows:
"Let's increase the size of those lots next to the Glick
property. I don't know how large at this point. We
wouldn't want rural acreage. This is in the Urban
Service Planning area. Maybe they could be double that
size, 16,000 to 18,000 square foot , almost half acre
lots. Maybe that would be palpable. We will work that
out."
E. Pat Dobey also testified on behalf of the Applicant and
he stated as follows:
That he had prepared a traffic study in July of 1994 for the
previous plan; that it had been revised as a result of the
changes to delete the previous multi-family that was included
ANDS RANCH - ANNS%ATIdN FF & CL Page - 3
in the plan and the addition of some office use added; that
traffic study is in the process of change and should be
completed in two weeks; that the changes from the addition o£
the office space primarily effect Eagle Road and the
recommendations of the previous traffic plan were to widen
Eagle Road from a 2 lane to a 3 land road onto Overland Road;
that the changes made in the plan should not significantly
alter the conclusions of ACRD; that delaying action tonight
would serve the development very well or would serve the needs
of the community.
F. In the Annexation and Zoning Request, it is stated, in
part, as follows:
7. That the present land use is farm land.
9. That the proposed use is planned development
residential, school, park, pathway, public and
limited office; that the proposed districts are R-
4, Planned Development Residential (PD-R) and L-o
Limited Office.
10. That the characteristic of the property which make
the zoning amendment desireable is that the
property is that the property is adjacent to the
City and located in an area where the comprehensive
Plan directs future land use to be mixed
residential, single family residential and mixed
planned development.
G. That there were people at the hearing that testified;
that a summary of there testimony is as follows:
1. Cindy Woodington testified that she had a question
about the L-O zone on Locust Grove Road because of
the shape of the parcel and therefore there would
be no use for the land; she wondered about a
temporary office; she stated that it was an R-4
development but that 369 lots out of 450 are less
than 1,400 square feet.
2. Karen Gallagher of ACRD testified that ACRD had not
yet received the updated traffic study; that they
do have concerns, that as Pat Dobey would probably
not affect the layout of the subdivision; that
there may be an alignment problem for access on
Locust Grove Road; that there is a bridge at that
location that needs to be re-constructed and the
bridge may need to be doubled in size; that there
RANCH - ANNSBATION FF & CL Page - 4
are concerns about the southern road that comes out
of the corporate park into the residential next to
the cluster development and until we receive the
traffic study we are not sure of the amount of
traffic and type of road that will be needed or the
alignment may need to be altered; that ACHD's
preference is that the matter be tabled until the
Commission has received the comments from ACRD.
3. John Shipley testified that had a question about
where they need to widen the bridge; that there is
a weir where they might come in with the new road;
it is right on my border line at the corner of
Locust Grove Road; that canal water is needed to
continue to provide service to the other properties
which go north.
4. Trevor Roberts testified that he had three
questions dealing with Eagle Road and the traffic
situation of the northeast part of the property;
that there is a rise in the ground there around the
Ridenbaugh Canal; that there will be a traffic
problem there; that a light is going to be needed
where the L-O goes into Eagle Road; that he daes
not see that they are going to have any access into
the school.
5. Jim Allen testified that his concern was Victory
Road where it comes into Eagle Road due to the
accidents that have been there; that wanted to know
what type of school was going there and how much
.ground was needed. He also later question whether
there was enough room in the cul-de-sacs to get
fire equipment in and out. a/sv ,Sa,bm~~ttd mrti~ten telh~++o>.
Mr. and Mrs. Allen and such is incorporated `y
herein as if set forth in full.
6. Rex Young testified that he had concerns about the
subdivision; that R-4 was acceptable if it was four
units to the acre; that the project would likely be
a good project but the lots needed to be larger and
the homes need to be larger than 1,400 square feet;
that over 1/3 of the homes would be 1,000 square
feet of less; that there needs to be a transitional
area arrangement with the density being shifted
with larger lots; that he had concern over his well
going dry and with development, the ground water
may not get recharged; that the land use goal of
the com plan is to protect and maintain residential
property values and enhance the quality of life of
RANCH - ANNESATION FF & CL Page - 5
~J
the residents and cluster
that; that he is opposed
under 1,000 square feet.
homes is not going to do
to having over 1/3 of it
7. Bonnie Glick testified that she wanted a letter
from Betty Bermansolo entered into the record,
which the Board Chairman said had been done; that
Wayne Eorrey had stated that the developer was
going to contact the neighbors to see what they
wanted, but that had not been done; that she would
like to talk to the developer and the matter should
be tabled; that six or seven houses on an acre next
to her 2.2 acres is not an adequate transitional
density; that having one to two acre lots abutting
her would be more transitional and in line with the
land use section which requires comparable lot
sizes be adjacent to rural residential; that the
house sizes bother her; that these small houses
would not maintain her value; that she was
concerned about her well water; that the schools
would be severely impacted.
Mr. and Mrs. Glick also submitted written
testimony and such is incorporated herein as if set
forth in full.
8. Herbert Papenfuss testified that no one approached
him about the matter; that he had been .informed
that should have gone to Ada County before it went
to the City; that they are in the Meridian Impact
Area but they have no say in what happens; that he
objects to the placement of the fire station; that
he had concerns with a foot bridge being used to
get to the school; that traffic is a problem and it
causes a loss in value; that where the canal
crosses Eagle Road is a blind area; that acreages
would be more in line with what is already there,
but the pint sized lots should not be next to
acreages.
9. Mr. Wes Garve testified about facts that showed
this development would have a significant impact on
the schools; that it would add 900 automobiles;
that the bride is unsafe; that the offices would
not be high property tax generators; that the berms
along Eagle Road would cause him not to be able to
see west; that the developer has not talked to the
people in the area; that we do not this kind of
saturation in the valley; that our infrastructure
is not going to be able to handle the levels these
developers want.
HIGHLANDS RANCH - ANNSBATION FF & CL Page - 6
10. Marvin Hansen testified that he had not been
contacted by anybody; that he abuts the project and
he does not want eight houses in his back yard; the
greenbelt along the canal is like opening a freeway
through his back yard; that his concerns are like
the other that have testified regarding the water,
roads, traffic, and schools; that the speed limit
should be dropped from 50 to 35; he also had
submitted written testimony that is incorporated
herein as if set forth in full.
Mr. and Mrs. Hansen also submitted written
testimony and such is incorporated herein as if set
forth in full.
11. Mary Creech testified that her concern was the
Ridenbaugh Canal and children being around it and
the green belt would only attract them; that
traffic was of concern to her.
12. Bill Clark testified that he represented James
Griffin who owns 80 acres on the north side of this
property; that he was not necessarily opposed to
the project but is suffering from a lack of
information; that they had not been contacted
13. Nancy Hansen testified that she and her husband had
not had been contacted and not had a chance to give
their input to the developer; that'iKr. forrey said
that they were willing make larger lots near the
neighboring lots, and if that is done she wants to
look at them; that with 369 lots out of 450 not
meeting the R-4 requirements then it is not R-4;
that she much prefers acreages.
14. Gordon Harris testified that they are in favor of
the development and they likes the limited office
next to them rather than the homes.
15. Lydia Aguerre testified that the density was too
high, that she had concerns over water and property
values, that 900 square foot homes diminishes the
values of homes that are 2,400 square feet or
better; that 1/3 of the homes are going to be less
than 1,000 square feet.
H. That Marleen Morgener submitted written comment stating
as follows:
That there is a need to preserve farmland with good irrigation
and a way to do that would be top develop acreages of from 2
HIGHLANDS RANCH - ANNS%ATION FF & CL Page - 7
to 10 acres to preserve the open, rural way of life we enjoy;
that.she was concerned about the domestic wells; that she had
concerns over taxes and what expenses the people who have
lived in the area will have to pay for public services and
schools for these people moving in; and that she would like
different choices to be made regarding the land further out of
the city.
I. That most of the property is presently zoned by Ada
County as R-T, Rural Transition with a two acre parcel in the
northeast portion of the land zoned as R-2; the land is adjacent
and abutting to Sundance Subdivision which has been annexed into
the City of Meridian.
J. The general area is used for farming with many of the
properties containing home sites.
R. That the property included in the annexation and zoning
application is within the Area of Impact of the City of Meridian.
L. That the entire parcel of ground is included within the
Meridian Urban Service Planning Area as the Urban Service Planning
Area is defined in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan.
M. That the R-4 and the L-O zoning districts are described
in the Zoning Ordinance, 11-2-408 B. 3. and 7., as follows:
(R-4) LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT: The purpose of
the (R-4) District is to permit the establishment of low
density single-family dwellings, and to delineate those
areas where predominantly residential development has, or
is likely to occur in accord with the Comprehensive Plan
or the City, and to protect the integrity of residential
areas by prohibiting the intrusion of incompatible non-
residential uses. The (R-4) District allows for a
maximum of four (4) dwellings units per acre and requires
connection to the Municipal Water and Sewer systems of
the City of Meridian.
(L-01 Limited Office District - The purpose of the {L-0)
District is to permit the establishment of groupings of
professional, research, executive, administrative, accounting,
HIGHLANDS RANCH - ANNSSATION FF & CL Page - 8
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.
N. That Planned Development and Planned Residential
Development are defined in the Zoning Ordinance, at page 20, as
follows:
Planned Development (PD) - An area of land which is developed
as a single entity for a number of uses in combination with or
exclusive of other supportive uses. A PD may be entirely
residential, industrial, commercial or a mixture of compatible
uses. A PD does not necessarily correspond to lot size, bulk,
density, lot coverage required, open space or type of
residential, commercial or industrial uses as established in
any one or more created districts of this Ordinance.
Planned Residential Development (PD-Rj -Any development which
is predominantly residential including those accessory
purposes customarily relating to residential uses with the
balance of such area, if any, being intended for such uses as
reasonably relate to the support or convenience of the
residential uses of other occupants.
0. That the City does have a Mixed Use Review Area District
which is set forth in the Zoning Ordinance in 11-2-408 B 17. and
reads as follows:
(MUR) Mixed Use Review Area - Those areas which, because of
their unique location and varied potential need to be planned
as a whole, have been designated in the Meridian Comprehensive
Plan as Mixed Use Review Areas. These areas shall be
developed as Planned Development General (PDGj, and must be
approved as a conditional use.
P. The comments of Shari Stiles, Planning and Zoning
Administrator are incorporated herein as if set forth in full; that
some of her principal comments were that any existing
HICiHLA8D8 RANCB - AHHESATIOg FF & CL Page - 9
irrigation/drainage ditches crossing the property and included in
this project shall be tiled per City Ordinance 11-9-605 M unless a
variance application is submitted; that any existing domestic wells
and/or septic systems will have to be removed; that the Applicant
is to enter into a development agreement; that abridge needs to be
built over the Ridenbaugh Canal to connect to the proposed stub
street in Los Alamitos No. 3 subdivision and that traffic should
not have to be routed to Eagle Road and Victory Road before getting
to the school site; that ACRD has not approved the traffic study or
configuration at this time; that pedestrian walkways shall be
provided; that easement shall be provided; that perimeter fencing
is to be in place prior to obtaining building permits for housing;
provide public sites and open spaces; that Applicant is to provide
the City with a deed for transfer of the school/park site property
prior to obtaining building permits for housing; that buffering of
adjacent low-density residential property is required; and that
Applicant shall provide and maintain planting and reserve strips.
Q. That the City Engineer, Gary Smith, and his Assistant,
Bruce Freckleton, commented and those comments are incorporated
herein as if set forth in full; that some of their principal
comments were that a perimeter legal description needs to be
submitted for each proposed zone, that the legal description shall
include 1/2 of adjacent public right-of-ways, that the description
shall be prepared by a registered land surveyor licensed by the
State of Idaho, and it shall conform to Meridian Resolution No.
158; that all irrigation and drainages laterals and ditches shall
HIGHLANDS RANCH - ANNE%PaTIOH FF & CL Page - 10
be tiled; that existing domestic wells and/or septic systems will
have to be removed but wells may be used for in-domestic purposes;
that a drainage plan is required; that outside lighting shall be
designed and placed so as not to direct illumination on nearby
residential areas; that the seasonal high ground water elevation
shall be determined; that water service is contingent upon positive
results from a hydraulic analysis by the City computer model; that
the Public Works Department shall be informed of anticipated waste
water flows and anticipated fire flows and domestic water
requirements; that a 100 X 100 well site shall be donated to the
City at the proposed site near the easterly boundary; that sanitary
sewer service will be via an extension of the Nine Mile Creek Sewer
Trunk Line and domestic water could be from an extension of the
mains located in South Locust Grove Road and Applicant shall be
responsible for extending the water and sewer lines to and through
the property.
R. That comments were received from the Meridian Fire and
Police Departments, Meridian School District, Ada County Highway
District, Central District Health, Nampa-Meridian Irrigation
District, Ada County Street Name Committee, US West and Idaho
Power; that such comments are incorporated herein as if set forth
in full.
S. The Meridian Fire Chief indicated that they will need
water for hydrants, afire station, including the land and firemen,
and that many lots will need better access for fire equipment.
T. That the Meridian Police Chief commented that there would
HZ(;HLANDS .RANCH - ANNSBATION F'F' & CL Page - 11
be a problem with serving a high density area this far from town
with the officers that he has now.
U. That the Meridian School District commented that this
area is in the attendance zones of Mary McPherson Elementary, Lake
Hazel Middle School and Meridian High School and that Mary
McPherson Elementary is at 117 of capacity.
V. That the Ada County Highway District submitted comments,
dated February 6, 1995, that it made for the first Application from
Applicant and stated that its report had not been updated; the
District then gave a submittal dated June 5, 1995, which stated
that the proposed modification of the Highlands Ranch Subdivision
is of sufficient size, and/or is expected to generate traffic
impacts that the District requests deferral of the public hearing
for this application until an updated traffic study has been
approved by the District's Traffic Services Department; that the
comments submitted on the initial application, dated February 6,
1995, in response to that application are incorporated herein as if
set forth in full.
W. That the Applicant submitted a subdivision plat
application showing how the property would be developed and such is
incorporated herein as if set forth in full.
X. That the portion of the property which is south of the
east-to-west half section line and east of the north-to-south half
section line, is shown on the Meridian Comprehensive Plan
Generalized Land Use Map as being in a Mixed Residential area; and
that portion of the property which is south of the east/west half
HIt~HLANDS RANCH - ANNEXATION FF & CL Page - 12
section line and west of the north-to-south half section line is
shown as being in a single family residential area.
Y. That in the Land Use section of the Comprehensive Plan,
under Comprehensive Plan Map, it does state in various sections, in
part, as follows:
"The land use element is based upon these objectives:
3. Quality residential neighborhoods, north, south,
east, and west of Old Town.
7. The importance of maintaining compatible land uses
to ensure an optimum quality of life.
Z. That in the Land Use section of the Comprehensive Plan,
under Land Use Goal Statement, 1. GENERAL POLICIES, it does state
as follows:
"1.4U Encourage new development which reinforces the
City's present development pattern of higher
density development within the Old Town area and
lower density development in outlying areas.
1.8U Promote the development of high quality and
environmentally compatible residential areas that
contain the necessary parks, schools and commercial
facilities to maintain and form identifiable
neighborhoods."
1.12U Support regional agricultural/agribusiness by
protecting productive agricultural operations when
requested by agribusiness land owners.
AA. That in the Land Use section of the Comprehensive Plan,
under Land Use Goal Statement, 2. RESIDENTIAL POLICIES, it does
state as follows:
"2.3U Protect and maintain residential neighborhood
property values, improve each neighborhood's
condition and enhance ita quality of life for
residents.
2.SU Encourage compatible infill development which will
HIGHLANDS RANCH - ANNEXATION FF & CL Page - 13
improve existing neighborhoods.
AS. That in the Rural Area section of the Comprehensive Plan,
Land Use, Rural Areas, Section 6.3, it does state that land in
agricultural activity should so remain in agricultural activity
until urban services can be provided.
AC. That also in the Land Use section of the Comprehensive
Plan, RURAL AREAS, it odes state as follows:
"6.7U Existing rural land uses and farms/ranches shall be
buffered from urban development expanding into
rural area by innovative land use planning
techniques.
6.8U
6.9U
6.10U New urban density development should provide
perimeter fencing to contain construction debris on
site and prevent windblown debris from entering
adjacent agricultural and other properties."
AD. 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.
AE. That the property can be physically serviced with City
water and sewer.
AF. That Section 11-9-605 C states as follows:
"Right-of-way for pedestrian walkways in the middle of long
HIGHLANDS RANCH - ANNESATION FF & CL Page - 14
Proposed urban density development which abuts or
is proximal to existing rural residential
development shall be subject to development review
committee approval.
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."
AG. 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 apart of the normal street right
of way or utility easement."
AH. 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;"
AI. 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
HIGHLANDS RANCH - ANNEBATION FF & CL Page - 15
recreation facilities."
AJ. That Section 11-9-605 L states as follows:
Bicycle and pedestrian pathways shall be encouraged within new
developments as part of the public right of way or as separate
easements so that an alternate transportation system (which is
distinct and separate from the automobile) can be provided
throughout the City Urban Service Planning Area. The
Commission and Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider
the Bicvcle-Pedestrian Design Manual for Ada County (as
prepared by Ada County Highway District) when reviewing
bicycle and pedestrian pathway provisions within developments.
AK. That Section 11-9-605 M states, in part, as follows:
Tiling of irrigation ditches, laterals or canals. All
irrigation ditches, laterals or canals, exclusive of natural
waterways, intersecting, crossing, or lying adjacent and
contiguous, or which canals, ditches or laterals touch either
or both sides of the area being subdivided, shall be covered
and enclosed with tiling or other covering equivalent in
ability to detour access to said ditch, lateral or canal. The
City may waive this requirement for covering such ditch,
lateral or canal if it finds that the public purpose requiring
such will not be served in the individual case. Any covering
program involving the distribution system of any irrigation
district shall have the prior approval of that affected
irrigation district. No subdivision plat shall be approved
where the subdivision is arbitrarily or artificially laid out
to avoid being adjacent to any waterway, irrigation ditch,
lateral or canal to which it would otherwise be naturally
adjacent or which it would otherwise naturally include.
AL. That the Meridian Comprehensive Plan, under HOUSING,
states, in part, as follows:
1.10 Local residents and organized community groups
should be encouraged to participate in neighborhood and
community planning in order to give direction to
environmental, housing, transportation, recreation, open
space, park, and other public facility needs.
1.18 As Planned Development methods and standards are
implemented by the City of Meridian, variations
pertaining to planned development - maximum density,
dimensional standards and other requirements - shall not
exceed 25~ of the existing requirements, and shall be
recommended when one or more of the Planned Development
design and developmental objectives are met.
HIGHLANDS RANCH - AHNSSATIOH FF & CL Page - 16
1.19 High-density development, where possible, should be
located near open space corridors or other permanent
major open space and park facilities, and near major
access thoroughfares.
1.20U Density transfers will be allowed in exchange for
school sites, open space dedications, or for access
easements to linear open space corridors, which contain
bicycle and pedestrian pathway systems.
AM. That Section 11-9-607, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT, speaks to
that subject; that of import to this Application the above section
states, in part, as follows:
E MODIFICATION OF DISTRICT REGULATIONS
A PD shall be allowed only as a Conditional Use in each
district subject to the standards and procedures set forth in
this Section. A PD shall be governed by the regulations of
(Emphasis added.) The approval
for a PD may provide for such
t
signs, and other regulations (emphasis added) as may be
desirable to achieve the objectives of the proposed PD,
provided such exceptions are consistent with the standards and
criteria contained in this Section.
F GENERAL REGULATIONS FOR PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
Bonus Density - Developer is responsible for documentation of
change. The following bonus density may be granted within a
Planned Development, but shall not be treated as cumulative:
a. Provision for private, common open space in a PD
shall be considered cause for density increases not
to exceed twenty-five percent {25%);
b. Character, identity, and siting variation
incorporated in a PD shall be considered cause for
density increases not to exceed twenty-five percent
(25%). Factors which are deemed to make a
substantial contribution to such character,
identity and siting variation include, but are not
limited to, the following:
1) Landscaping - Streetscape, open space and
RAHCH - AHHSSATIOH FF & CL Page - 17
•
plaza use of existing landscape; pedestrian
and bicycle ways and recreational areas;
2) Siting - Visual focal points, use of existing
physical features such as topography, creeks,
view, sun and wind orientation, circulation
pattern, physical environment, variation in
building setbacks, building groups such as
clustering; and
3) Design Feature - Street sections,
architectural styles, harmonious use of
materials, parking areas broken by landscape
features, and varied use of dwelling types and
heights;
c. Publicly dedicated land in a PD shall be considered
cause for density increases not to exceed twenty-
five percent (25~) for facilities such as school,
library, fire station, park, recreational facility;
and
d. Density increases, not to exceed twenty-five
percent (25$), shall be considered when
environmentally sensitive areas (creeks, wetlands,
wooded areas) have been preserved in their natural
state.
AN. That in prior requests for annexation and zoning the
previous Zoning Administrator had commented that annexation could
be conditioned on a development agreement including an impact fee
to help acquire a future school or park site to serve the area and
that annexations should be subject to impact fees for park, police,
and fire services as determined by the city and designated in an
approved development agreement; that such comment is equally
applicable to this Application.
AO. 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
8I(;8LA8DS RA8C8 - ANNBBATION FF & CL Page - 18
of subdivision development on the ability of political
subdivisions of the state, including school districts, to
deliver services without compromising quality of service
delivery to current residents or imposing substantial
additional costs upon current residents to accommodate the
subdivision.";
that the .City of Meridian is concerned with the increase in
population that is occurring and with its impact on the City being
able to provide fire, police, emergency health care, water, sewer,
parks and recreation services to its current residents and to those
moving into the City; the City is also concerned that the increase
in population is burdening the schools of the Meridian School
District which provide school service to current and future
residents of the City; that the City knows that the increase in
population does not sufficiently increase the tax base to offset
the cost of providing fire, police, emergency health care, water,
sewer, parks and recreation services; and the City knows that the
increase in population does not provide sufficient tax base to
provide for school services to current and future students.
AP. 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.
AQ. That proper notice was given as required by law and all
procedures before the Planning and Zoning Commission were given and
followed.
HIdHI,ANDB RANCH - ANN88ATION FF & CL Page - 19
covcivsxoxs
A. That all the procedural requirements of the Local
Planning Act and of the Ordinances of the City of Meridian have
been met, including the mailing of notice to owners of property
within 300 feet of the external boundaries of the Applicant's
property.
B. That the City of Meridian has authority to annex land
pursuant to 50-222, Idaho Code, and Section 11-2-417 of the Revised
and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian; that exercise of
the City's annexation authority is a Legislative function.
C. That the Planning and Zoning Commission has judged this
annexation and zoning application under Section 50-222, Idaho Code,
Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code, the Meridian City Ordinances, the
Meridian Comprehensive Plan, as amended, and the record submitted
to it and things of which it can take judicial notice.
D. That all notice and hearing requirements set forth in
Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code, and the Ordinances of the City of
Meridian have been complied with.
S. That the Commission may take judicial notice of
government ordinances, and policies, and of actual .conditions
existing within the City and State.
E. That the land within the proposed annexation is
contiguous to the present City limits of the City of Meridian, and
the annexation would not be a shoestring annexation.
G. That the annexation application has been initiated by the
Applicant and is not upon the initiation of the City of Meridian.
RAHCH - ANNESATIOH FF & CL Page - 20
H. That since the annexation and zoning of land is a
legislative function, the City has authority to place conditions
upon the annexation of land. Burt vs. The City of Idaho Falls, 105
Idaho 65, 665 P.D 1075 (1983).
I. That the development of annexed land must meet and comply
with the Ordinances of the City of Meridian and in particular
Section 11-9-616, which pertains to development time schedules and
requirements, Section 11-9-605 M., which pertains to the tiling of
ditches and water ways, and Section 11-9-606 B 14, which pertains
to pressurized irrigation; that the Applicant shall be required to
connect to Meridian water and sewer; that the development of the
property shall be subject to and controlled by the Subdivision and
Development Ordinance; that, as a condition of annexation the
Applicant shall be required to enter into a development agreement
as authorized by 11-2-416 L and 11-2-417 D; that the development
agreement shall address the inclusion into the subdivision of the
requirements of 11-9-605 C, G., H 2, K, L, M, and 11-9-606 b. 14;
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
development fee or transfer fee adopted by the City; that there
shall be no annexation until the requirements of this paragraph are
met or, if necessary, the property shall be subject to de-
annexation and loss of City services, if the requirements of this
paragraph were not met.
J. That the Applicant's property is shown on the Generalized
HIQ~HLANDS RANCN - ANNE%ATION FF & CL Page - 21
Land Use Map as follows: That portion of the project that is south
of the east/west half section line and east of the north/south half
section line, including the two acre parcel in the northeast
corner, as being in a Mixed Residential area; and that portion of
the project that is south of the east/west half section line and
west of the north/south half section line is in a Single Family
Residential area; that development of the land in a residential
capacity would be in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, and
therefore the annexation would be in conformance with the
Comprehensive Plan.
R. That in the presentation by Mr. Forrey he indicated that
the planned development in an R-4 district would allow a 25~
reduction in the R-4 house size requirement of 1,400 square feet;
that the Planned Development Ordinance in the Subdivision and
Development Ordinance, in 11-9-607 E, F 1. , and F 7 . , state in
part, as follows:
"A PD shall be governed by the regulations of the district or
districts in which said PD is located. The approval of the
Final Development Plan for a PD may provide for such
exceptions from the district regulations governing use,
density, area, bulk, parking, signs, and other regulations as
may be desirable to achieve the objectives of the proposed PD,
provided such exceptions are consistent with the standards and
criteria contained in this Section.";
"Planned developments shall be subject to requirements set
forth in the Zoning Ordinance and also subject to all
provisions within this Ordinance."; and
"Developer is responsible for documentation of change. The
following bonus densities may be granted within a Planned
Development, but shall not be treated as cumulative: ."
and since the provisions of 11-9-607 do not specifically speak to
RANCH - ANNE%ATION FF & CL Page - 22
square footage reduction and since the 25$ deduction is spoken to
regarding density and not square footage, it is concluded that the
258 reduction is not applicable for the square footage designations
in 11-2-411 D.
L. Since the Comprehensive Plan states that there is an
importance to maintaining compatible land uses to ensure an optimum
quality of life, encourage new development which reinforces the
City's present development pattern of higher density development
within the Old Town area and lower density development in outlying
area s, protect and maintain residential neighborhood property
values, improve each neighborhood's condition and enhance its
quality of life for residents, encourage compatible infill
development which will improve existing neighborhoods, new urban
density subdivisions which abut or are proximal to existing rural
residential land uses shall provide transitional densities with
larger more comparable lot sizes to buffer the interface between
urban level densities and rural residential densities, the
development concept does not meet the residential goals of the
Meridian Comprehensive Plan.
M. That it is concluded that the requested zoning of Limited
Office along Saqle Road south of the east/west half section line
and east of the north/south half section line, including the two
acre parcel in the northeast corner, is in a Mixed Residential
area, as shown on the Generalized Land Use Map of the Comprehensive
Plan; that the idea of Limited Office Zoning along Eagle Road is
not objectionable to the Commission and the Comprehensive Plan is
HIGHLANDS RANCH - ANH~BATIOH FF & CL Page - 23
only a guide, but it is concluded that if Limited Office is desired
at that location a Comprehensive Plan amendment is required for the
Commission to allow that; that it would be desireable that the
Limited Office not extend so far west from Eagle Road.
N. The Limited Office proposed by the Applicant along Locust
Grove Road is likewise contrary to the Generalized Land Use Map of
the Comprehensive Plan, which shows that area as being a Single
Family Residential area; that Limited Office in that area is
objectionable to the Commission.
O. That since the Comprehensive Plan indicates that land
next to rural land should be developed with lots compatible with
the rural areas, protect and maintain residential neighborhood
property values, improve each neighborhood's condition and enhance
its quality of life for residents, encourage compatible infill
development which will improve existing neighborhoods, and the
importance of maintaining compatible land uses to ensure an optimum
quality of life, and because that 6.8U states that new urban
density subdivisions which abut or are proximal to existing rural
residential land uses shall provide screening and transitional
densities with larger more comparable lot sizes to buffer the
interface between urban level densities and rural residential
densities, and because Mr. Forrey stated, when considering the
comment of Mrs. Glick that she wanted larger lots that were more
compatible to her 2.2 acres, as follows:
"Let's increase the size of those lots next to the Glick
property. I don't know how large at this point. We wouldn't
want rural acreage. This is in the Urban Service Planning
HI(iHLAND3 RANCH - ANNEBATION FF & CL Paqe - 24
area. Maybe they could be double that size, 16,000 to 18,000
square foot , almost half acre lots. Maybe that would be
palpable. We will work that out.";
it is concluded that the Developer should comply with the statement
of its representative and increase the size of the lots that are
next to other property owners who own an acre or more. After the
placement of the increased size lots, which should be at least one-
half acre in size, R-4 lots would be acceptable.
P. That the above statement is equally applicable to the
land which is in the Single Family Residential area west of the
north-south half section line.
Q. That it is concluded that the annexation and zoning of
the land at the present time with the development plan, as shown
and represented, is not in the best interest of the City at this
time; that the development of Limited Oftice along Eagle Road not
as far west as is presently shown would be in the best interest of
the City after a Comprehensive Plan amendment; that if larger lots
were placed next to the existing land with homes on the land and
then having some R-2 or R-3 lots with R-4 development adjacent to
the R-2 or R-3, even under a planned development with the 25$
reduction in lot size but a reduction in the square footage
requirements, would be in the City's best interest.
R. That the requirements of the Meridian City Engineer, and
of the Ada County Highway District, Nampa & Meridian Irrigation
District, Meridian Fire and Police Departments, and the comments of
the Meridian Planning Director, would have to be met and addressed
in a development Agreement.
RANCH - ANNSSATION FF & CL Page - 25
~~
S. That with the comments of the Meridian Fire and Police
Departments, as a condition of annexation, the satellite fire
station should be constructed before the first seventy-five lots
have been sold and a satellite police station should also be
constructed along with the satellite fire station.
T. 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.
U. That if the property were annexed, these conditions would
run with the land and bind the applicant and its assigns.
V. That it is concluded that it would not be in the best
interest of the City of Meridian to annex the land at this time due
to the facts found above and the conclusions stated herein, but if
the changes suggested herein are made, annexation, and zoning
required to meet the suggestion made herein, would be in the best
interest of the City.
APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts and
approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions.
ROLL CALL
HEPPER
COMMISSIONER ROUNTREE
RAHCH - ANNBBATION FF & CL
VOTED Cam"'
VOTED '~
Page - 26
SHEARER
COMMISSIONER ALIDJANI
CHAIRMAN JOHNSON (TIE BREAKER)
VOTED~~
VOTED p,Y~~~~
VOTED
The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends
to the City Council of the City of Meridian that the Annexation and
Zoning proceed on to the City Council; that the Applications for a
preliminary plat and conditional use permit for a planned
development remain at the Planning and Zoning Commission until
action is taken on the annexation and zoning by the City Council;
that if the Applicant does not make the changes suggested by the
Commission before the City Council hearing, it is recommended that
the City Council deny the annexation and zoning application based
on the reasoning in the above Findings and Conclusions; that if the
changes suggested herein are made, annexation, and zoning required
to meet the suggestion made herein, would be in the best interest
of the City and the annexation and zoning would then be
recommended; that the Applicant would be required to meet these
Findings and Conclusions and the Ordinances of the City of
Meridian.
MOTION:
APPROVED:
HIGHLANDS RANCH - ANNH%ATION FF & CL
DISAPPROVED:
Page - 27