Loading...
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 TABLED JUNE 22, 1995: ACCESSORY USE PERMIT TO SELL AN OCCASIONAL FIREARM BY JIM COMBE: (APPLICATION WITHDRAWN) 3.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