Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993 01-12 A G E N D A MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING JANUARY 12, 1993 ITEM: MINU'IT'S OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING HELD DECII~ER 8, 1992:(APPROVED) 1: FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS ON PROPOSID AMII~IDMQ~TPS TO THE CCMPREHINSIVE PLAN: (APPROVED) 2: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS ON ANNEXATION & ZONING REQUEST W/PRELIMINARY PLAT ON RUNNING BROOK ESTATES: (APPROVED) 3: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION & ZONING W/PRELII~IINARY PLAT ON ELK RUN SUBDIVISION: (FINDINGS TO BE PREPARED) 4: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT BY SAM FISHEL FOR RENTAL CAR FACILITY AT 804 EAST FIRST STREET: (FINDINGS OF FACT TO BE PREPARED) 5: PUBLIC HERRING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PEId~1IT FOR AUTO REPAIR & PAINT SHOP BY L.B. PROPERTIES: (FINDINGS OF FACT TO BE PREPARED) 6: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT BY HUNEMILLER-WURTZ ENTERPRISES PRIVATE STREETS, BRIDGE WOOD PARK SUBDIVISION: (FINDINGS TO BE PREPARED) 7: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR. ANNEXATION & ZONING, DAVE LEADER, CHERI MEADOWS: (FINDINGS OF FACT TO BE PREPARED) 8: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION & ZONING W/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT BY WEST SIDE BIBLE CHAPEL & DENNIS HICKS: (FINDINGS TO BE PREPARED) MERIDIAN PLANNING 8 ZONING JANUARY 12 1993 The Regular Meeting of the Meridian Planning 8 Zoning Commission was called to order by Chairman Jim Johnson at 7:30 P. M.: Members Present: Charlie Rountree, Tim Hepper, Jim Shearer, Moe Rlidjani: Others Present: Spagnolitti, Dan Leody, Gary Lei Edwards, Roger 8 Lenberg, Michael Steve Bradbury, Smitchger, Alvin Mr. 8 Mrs. C. L. Morgan, Sam Fishel, Jim Wood, Raleigh Hawe, Don Bryan, Jack Boone, Dave ~, Norm Lacombe, Harrell Thorne, Art 8 RueLa Gini Allen, E. A. Thierhause, Dean Briggs, 0. T. Caven, Wayne Thowless, Nancy Miller, Jim Boyd, Dennis Baker, Don Smitchger, Bob Lintz, Virgil Stoeger, Harry Yost, Wayne Crookston, MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING HELD DECEMBER 8, 1992: The Motion was made by Rountree and seconded by Shearer to approve the minutes of the previous meeting held December 8, 1992 as written: Motion Carried: R11 Yea: ITEM #11: FINDINGS OF FACT 8 CONCLUSIONS ON PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Motion was made by Rountree and seconded by Shearer that the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts and approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions. Roll Call Vote: Hepper - Yea; Rountree - Vea; Shearer - Yea; Rlidjani - Yea: Motion Carried: R11 Yea: The Motion was made by Rountree and seconded by Shearer that the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council that the Planning and Zoning Commission's Proposed Amendments to the Meridian Comprehensive Plan be approved and adopted. Motion Carried: All Yea: MERIDIRN PLANNING & ZONING JRNUARY 11, 1993 PAGE 2 ITEM 1t2: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS ON ANNEXATION & ZONING REQUEST W/PRELIMINARY PLAT ON RUNNING BROOK ESTRTES: The Motion was made by Rountree and seconded by Shearer that the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts and approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions. Roll Call Vote: Hepper - Yea; Rountree - Yea; Shearer - Yea; Alidjani - Yea; Motion Carried: All Yea: The Motion was made by Rountree and seconded by Shearer that the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council of the City of Meridian that if the property is included in the Urban Service Planning Area as it likely will be, they approve the annexation and zoning request by the applicant for the property described in the application with the conditions set forth in the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and in compliance with the Ordinances of the City of Meridian. It is also recommended that annexation and zoning not occur until the Urban Service Planning Area is in fact amended. Motion Carried: All Yea: The Motion was made by Shearer and seconded by Rountree that the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission recommend approval of the preliminary plat. Motion Carried: All Vea: ITEM #3: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION 8 ZONING W/PRELIMINARY PLAT ON ELK RUN SUBDIVISION: Johnson: I will open the Public Hearing. Is there a representative of the applicant who wishes to testify? Gary Lee, JUB Engineers, 1750 N. Summertree, was sworn by the attorney. Lee: As you know this application is for an annexation request and zoning to R-8 and it's also for preliminary plat approval for a 57 lot subdivision. This is situated on S. Meridian Road south MERIDIAN PLRNNING 8 ZONING JRNURRY 12, 1993 PAGE 3 of Overland about 750 feet on the west side. This property was formerly owned by the Davenport family. Vou have before you a revised preliminary plat that we submitted to the City two or three weeks ago at the request of Ada County Highway District. After reviewing the initial submittal they found that through the previous subdivision you just recommended approval on that we align the collector street that they have coming on to Hwy 69 and that was the basic reason for resubmittal, to indicate the dedication of right-a-way for Calderwood Street. It will line up with the future road going to the east. The basic redesign of course took that into account, we changed a few streets around to accommodate that and of course some lots. The annexation for this particular piece of ground, it's bounded to the north by two commercial uses and we felt that an R-8 zone would be appropriate in this particular situation for a transitional zone. The request on the R-8 zone is for the minimum lot size of 6500 square feet. You'll notice on the preliminary plat that our minimum is about 6700 square feet and goes up from there. Most of the lots are fairly deep. We have some ranging anywhere from 112 to about 120 feet in depth. The density of this particular piece of ground works out to about 3.7 units per acre. Sanitary sewer is currently at Meridian Road and State Highway 69, the intent is to extend that sewer south along the Highway on the west side to this project site. Water is basically in the same location and we'll extend it as well along the easterly side. Both will be done in accordance with the sewer master plan and the City's requirements for water extensions. There will be a 10" water trunk line that will be extended for the City's grid policies. All the streets on the project will be public streets, they will be RCHD standard. We'll have 36' back to back street sections with 5' sidewalks, both sides. The roads and the property itself drains west to east so we'll handle out storm water in such a way that it will match existing ground topography and flow into an existing storm drain crossing pipe on Hwy 69. The Kennedy Lateral, which is part of Nampa Meridian Irrigation District's system, traverses along the westerly boundary and the center of that ditch is the boundary line. At the request of Nampa Meridian Irrigation, we'll dedicate 35' on our side for irrigation easements. That easement will be fenced off to the public. At this point and time the owner/developer is considering participating in the City's well fund. Any questions? Rountree: Lot 5 in Block 1 seems to be arranged rather tightly there in that culdesac, is there any provisions far doubling that adjacent property similar to what your proposing to do along State Hwy 69? MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING .TRNUARY 12, 1993 PAGE 4 Lee: It will be fenced off there along the property lines. We've got the minimum width of 65' and the depth is about 98 at the shortest distance. It will be situated as a side lot arrangement. Rountree: Do you see any conflict between that particular lot and the activity that exists or may exist in that hold out piece there? Lee: Not to my knowledge. Rountree: Have you looked at the potential noise problem that these lots will be facing that border State Hwy 69? If so, what do you propose to minimize that? Lee: We've got a 10' buffer landscape lot plan along Hwy 69 right of way and the backs of those lots. It is the intent to develop a berm to help deflect some of the noise to those back yards. Rountree: What height are you talking about? Lee: We'll I'm not sure at this point and time, I'd would suspect in 10' you might get three maybe four feet of height. Rountree: Do you know if noise is a particular problem to those people and complaints start arising that the developer would be inclined to remediate the noise problem, if in fact there was one. Lee: I guess you probably ought to talk to the developer, he is here tonight. Rountree: Have you requested and/or received an access permit from the State Highway Department? Lee: I've been working with the State Highway Department about the access point. Rt this point and time the property is served by two 20' access lanes in two separate locations. They have tentatively agreed to allow us to combine those two access lanes into one major street intersection. Clerk Niemann: Have you looked at tiling the Kennedy Lateral at all? MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING JANUARY 12, 1993 PAGE 5 Lee: No it's a pretty good size lateral through there. Niemann: That's the way our Ordinance reads is that is has to be tiled. Lee: Can't it be fenced? Niemann: We'd have to have a variance or something wouldn't we Wayne? Crookston: Yes. Johnson: You'd have to have a variance if you don't want to t he that. Lee: I suspect the developer would want to request a variance. Johnson: Thank you. Let's here from the developer now. Bill Hart, 1095 So. Meridian, was sworn by the attorney. Hart: I'm not the developer, I'm an agent of the developer. The types of homes we're going to be building are fully fenced and fully landscaped. There will be 12 different variations of homes for the public to choose from. They range from 1369 up to 1500 hundred square feet. Our back yards range from 30 to 45 feet along with adequate side on the side yards for R.V. parking. Johnson: Basically we talking about three floor plans. Hart: We have three floor plans and from those we have three different elevations, so we have nine different variations in the 57 lots along with three different roof colors and ten different color schemes. Johnson: What type of fencing are you talking about? Hart: 4" Cedar, six foot fence, one side yard gate. Every lot will have a fence. Johnson: Thank you. Anyone else to testify? MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING JANUARY 12, 1993 PAGE 6 William Howell, 497 White Cloud, Boise, was sworn by the attorney. Howell: Questioned the noise screening from the commercial development. If complaints arise are they prepared to handle the situation. Rnother question is availability to sewer and water to our property where it would be running along our east edge. Johnson: But your out of the City. Howell: We've applied for annexation. Johnson: You would have to be annexed into the City. It is our policy that once your annexed into the City then you have to hook u p. Howell: Costs? Johnson: You can get those costs from our City Engineer. Rountree: What hours do you operate? Howell: We are 24 hours a day. Rountree: I assume with that you have a fair amount of lighting. Howell: Yes. The whole property is not developed but we intend to. Another question I have is there's a lot of grade difference between our property and the Davenport property. I wonder if they plan to blend in the grade any better than it is. Johnson: How large is your property? How much is undeveloped of what you've got? Howell: We are 8.2 acres and the service station is on one acre. Johnson: Thank you. Rnyone else to testify? No response. I will close the public hearing. I will re-open the public hearing. Lee: The question Mr. Howell had about the elevation difference - the property is situated now where the property line is on the top of the slope and all the slope that goes down to his property is on the commercial side. Those particular homes that will back up to the north boundary line will have a fenced yard right along MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING JRNUARY 12, 1993 PAGE 7 the existing fence line. There isn't any plans or any need that we can see to do any grading in that area. The screening, again these homes of course set up above that commercial property like Mr. Howell said and there will be a fence in addition to that. Hepper: Is there any assurance that the people that buy these lots on the north side abutting the commercial property that they will be informed that that's commercial and could potentially be a problem to them later on. Example given. Lee: I suppose something like that could be addressed in the covenants and restrictions. You might review that with your attorney. Hepper: I don't know exactly how it would be done but I feel it should be. Johnson: I will close the public hearing now. Discussion (see tape) The Motion was made by Rountree and seconded by Shearer to have the attorney prepare the Finding of Fact and Conclusions of Law. Motion Carried: R11 Yea: Johnson: For the record Moe Alidjani has left, he is ill. ITEM q4: PUBLIC HERRING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT BY SRM FISHEL FOR RENTAL CRR FACILITY AT 804 EAST FIRST STREET: Johnson: I will now open the public hearing. Is there a representative present for Mr. Fishel or Mr. Fishel to come forward? Before you testify, we have received a letter we need to enter into the record from Mr. Jay Johnson opposing this request. (Letter on File) Sam Fishel, 734 Pennwood Street, was sworn by the attorney. Fishel: I bought an Ugly Duck Rent a Car franchise because they are nationwide and because they do carry a standard of quality. I'm here to make a contribution to the City of Meridian and I'm a first class act. A just think this lot is the greatest place in the world to promote a nice beautiful business and what I'm planning on doing is taking that building and making it look just as good or better than anything else on the other four corners. It's a great contribution to the City of Meridian. MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING JANUARY 12, 1993 PRGE 8 Rountree: Have you had an opportunity to review the comments from RCHD? Fishel: Yes sir I have and they have approved it. Rountree: They did make an important comment about no access on Idaho Street. Fishel: That is correct, there is no access. Also they have a question about the parking, gentleman what are people coming to look for when they come into my place. They don't have a car, they are there to rent a car so I don't believe parking would be a problem. Johnson: With respect to the comments made by ACHD regarding parking, have you come up with any sort of lay out or design or what you would propose where the vehicles might be parked? Fishel: The drawings we did, and I did them wrong, it looks like it's parking all the way out to the street and just eating up the City's sidewalk, but it's up to the sidewalk. I've measured and parked a couple of cars in at an angle along the Idaho Street area. It will only hold two cars, it will also hold another car directly in front of the place because we don't want to take anything away from the eye appearance of what we're planning on doing with that building. I'll only park a maximum of five cars ever. Shearer: Do you recall what the dimensions of the building are? Fishel: I don't know what the building is, the entire lot is only 60x60. There will be no mechanical work done here. All we're looking at is a good looking facility, a first class operation. Hepper: What age of cars would you have? Fishel: We're talking about nice automobiles. We're talking about a good looking 82 or on up. Listed various automobiles he has purchased for rental. (See tape) Johnson: Thank you. Anyone else to testify? Eric Theirhause, 6520 Holladay Drive, Boise, was sworn by the attorney. MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING JANUARY 12, 1993 PRGE 9 Theirhause: We own the adjacent property to the Ugly Duckling. I present the Theirhause families, which we do own the piece of property behind and to the left of the diagram. I really don't have to much problem with the Ugly Duckling. Explained parking concerns on the north. There is an entrance that we go in and out of and if it's blocked off there would be no entrance to my particular property. Explained entrance off Idaho Street. (See tape) Johnson: Rnyone else from the public to testify? No response. Sam Fishel: Eric is The very easy thing customers problem to there would be no hin Johnson: Rnyone else public hearing. right and that is a concern of mine too. to eliminate that problem is to use the the right instead of the left. That way derance to Eric's property. to testify? No response. I will close the The Motion was made by Hepper and seconded by Rountree to have the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law prepared. Motion Carried: All Yea: ITEM #5: PUBLIC HERRING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONRL USE PERMIT FOR AUTO REPRIR B PRINT SHOP BY L.B. PROPERTIES: Johnson: I will open the public hearing at this time and enter into the record a letter dated January 4, 1993 from Irene Chastain with several comments. (Letter was read and is on file) Is there a representative from L.B. Properties that would like to come forward. John Connolly, 134 S. 5th Street, Boise, was sworn by the attorney. Connolly: I'm here representing L.B. Properties. Rs you may or may not remember the subject piece of property was before you last summer on an annexation rezone and conditional use permit request. On September 15, 1992 the City Council granted the annexation and the rezone to C-G for the approximate 8 acres that we're dealing with here tonight. On October 6, 1992 the City Council granted a conditional use permit to allow that that existing automobile sales lot which had been granted a conditional MERIDIAN PLRNNING & ZONING JANURRY 12, 1993 PRGE 10 use permit in 1991 by Ada County to continue in operation on site rather than allowing that just to be grandfathered in we asked for approval of the City Council with the issuance of a conditional use permit. The application before you tonight is to expand that approved conditioned use, the automobile sales lot to allow for a structure to be built which will allow the repair of automobiles. Just by way of explanation there have been two site plans submitted to the City. The original site plan had a repair facility on the north end of the building and a body shop on the south end. The original site plan submitted had the building set back from the southern boundary at a set back of about 78'. The original site plan that we submitted had a 6' wooden fence on the south and on the east side to provide screening. A representative of the developer met with the neighbor to the south, Mr. Baker, he also met with Mr. and Mrs. Morgan who are I believe the neighbors to the east and in response to some of their concerns we submitted a new site plan. Presented a blow up plan for Commission to view. The new site plan is modified in that it moves the auto body shop portion of the building to the far north side of the building to address some concerns they had for potential noise and reverses the repair facility to the south. The entire building was moved sixty feet to the north so that instead of 78' from separating the building from the southern boundary we now have 138'. The developer has offered to increase the height of the fence from a 6' wooden fence to a 7' wooden fence subject to the City's permission to do so. It's our understanding that there is a limitation a 6' for fences in the City of Meridian, In discussions with Jack we understand that if this Commission recommends to the Council and the Council approves the higher fence that that is possible. We are willing to do that. If you look at the site plan we anticipate if there is any objection, we suspect there will be and that noise or the need for screening will be a concern of some of the neighbors. Rs you may or may not recall when we came in to get the commercial zoning last summer the developer to the south, Mr. Baker wanted a 300' set back for any uses that might conflict with the subdivision. I think that the City did not impose that type of limitation. To address potential concerns about noise and site problems there is an existing row of pine trees here that are in the 10-15' tall range that were put there when the original auto MERIDIRN PLANNING & ZONING JANUARY 12, 1993 PAGE L1 display area went in. They are proposing to remove that whole row of trees and move then down on the south border. Directly to the south of the facility that's being sought to be built and along the entire east side the developer is proposing an 8' wide planting bed with a double staggered row of bushes in front of the 7 foot tall wooden fence. We feel that that should provide a significant amount of buffer. The 8 foot wide planting bed runs the entire length of the southerly border and along the east side. It's 58B feet along the south and 490 feet along the east. There are four hundred bushes being proposed to provide the screening. These type bushes will be five feet when they go in and they will be as tall as the fence and then a couple years after that they will be greatly in excess of the fence. The pine trees will also provide a significant buffer. We are proposing 588' of 7' tall wooden fence on the south and another 585' on the east. The cost of providing that screening is significant and we wanted the commission to know that this is not something that is coming free gratis to the developer. The estimates from contractors that we've been able to put together estimate about E2500.00 to remove an relocate those pine trees. About 53500.00 for an irrigation system. f10,500.00 for the bushes to buy them and plant them and 113,500.00 far a seven foot fence. We're talking 130,000.00 to provide the screening. We don't have a problem with that but we do feel that that is a substantial effort and will accomplish the goal of providing adequate screening for the neighbors. We feel that this is a use allowed by the City Ordinances. It's a use which is harmonious with the Comprehensive Plan. Given the approval of the automobile sales lot which is part of this parcel, we feel that the use is harmonious in character with the general vicinity. We don't have any hazardous uses here. We don't think that with the screening and the buffer that we are providing that it will be disturbing to the neighboring uses. The Highway District has already approved the application. We received that in the mail this week. We won't be demanding any really public facilities. There will be no excessive production of traffic from this site or noise. We are providing more than minimum amount of parking and there is no natural or scenic feature of significant importance that we're disturbing here. ~~ MERIDIAN PLRNNING & ZONING JRNUARY 12, 1993 PRGE 12 Those were the Findings of this Commission for the application last summer. We feel that they are equally applicable to the application before you tonight and we would respectfully ask far approval or a recommendation of approval to the City Council. If it's permissible I would like an opportunity to any potential negative testimony. Hepper: I'd like to remind you at the time that you were in last summer that when we approved that it was mentioned that possibly some low impact use such as storage units might be pursued for that piece of property. Connolly: That's correct. Hepper: I think the first plans that you had said that the area to the south said that it would be employee parking only? Connally: Yes it did. Hepper: Okay is that the same far this revised addition? Connolly: Yes it is. Hepper: I think we need to make that a part of the plat so that we don't have damaged cars sitting out there and cars that are being worked on. What about the bays for the auto service and the shop, are they going to be drive through bays or are they going to bays that have doors on just one side of the building? Wayne Thowless, Latham & Cron Rrchitects, 4914 Bond St., Boise was sworn by the attorney. Thowless: In response to the first question, there are access doors on both sides of the building, on both the west and the east. There aren't doors at every service bay as was stated by Mr. Connolly. Rlmost all of the service bays are accessed by an internal aisle way inside the building but there are doors that do face the east property line in response to your second question. Hepper: That would be on both sections Thowless: Yes. You can see in the shop down here I believe if my memory basically just one at this location. I many doors we actually have along th shop. of the building? north in the auto repair serves me correct there's can't recall off hand how at side of the auto body MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING JANUARY 12, 1993 PAGE 13 Hepper: What's the use of the property on the other side of the fence there? Is that residential to the east right there? Thowless: I believe that Mr. & Mrs. Morgan live there and the rest of the land is pasture. Crookston: I think it would be appropriate since we don't have real showing facilities that you show the drawing to the audience and explain some of those features to them. Connolly: Showed plan to public and gave explanation. Johnson: Thank you. Anyone else to testify? Steve Bradberry, 300 N. 6th St., Boise, was sworn by the attorney. Bradberry: I'm an attorney representing Dennis Baker the developer of Danbury Fair Subdivision located to the south of the subject property. There are others here tonight also who are speaking in opposition to the proposal. I do have a petition which was signed by many of them in opposition, which I would like to submit to you now and ask that it be made part of the record. Read the petition given to the Commission (On File). There has been a little bit of background given to you but I think it might help to get some feel for how things have developed over the last couple of years. I've been advised by Mr. Baker that the preliminary plat, the Danbury Fair Subdivision, was approved and in the summer of 1991 that he got final plat approval for Phase I in the winter of 92 and then of course as Mr. Connolly mentioned this property was at that time zoned R-T. Then of course this last fall there was the application to annex it and rezone it to the commercial designation and it ultimately got the conditional use permit for the then existing use. It's a little bit disconcerting to Mr. Baker and other property owners that they are now facing an automobile repair facility that's only a few feet away from the residential subdivision that was only just approved a few months prior. I also brought some additional maps for you to look at to give you an idea of the proximity of the proposed use with the residential subdivision. I would ask that these all be submitted as well. MERIDIRN PLANNING & ZONING JANUARY 12, 1993 PAGE 14 The first one that I'm handing you is a copy of the preliminary plat and the second is a copy of the final plat on Phase I and the third is a copy of the new site plan with the residential subdivision lots drawn in to give you an idea of just where those are. On the preliminary plat map that you have the property that's under consideration here today is roughly where you'll see the compass indicating pointing to the north. On the final plat it's where all that curve data is. My clients major concern with the project of course is that proposal will create an unwarranted conflict with the adjacent residential properties and it would lower the value of those properties. Feels that the facility would not be harmonious with surrounding area. Expressed concerns about noise, odors, traffic, additional lighting, and visual intrusion. (See tape for testimony) Having these uses directly adjacent to residential uses just seems to me to be an unreasonable expectation. Your own Zoning Ordinance at Section 2-402 R-5 reads "to protect residential, commercial, industrial and civic areas from the intrusion of incompatible uses". This is a residential use that was approved first, ahead of the proposed commercial use and it seems to me that that ought to be considered. Mr. Connolly mentioned some of the general standards and the general criteria for the approval of a conditional use permit and those are set out of course in the Ordinances as well. Among those are that the use would be designed, constructed, operated and maintained to he harmonious and appropriate in appearance with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and that such use will not change the essential character of the same area. I think we can all agree that the essential character of the area is at least in the area we're talking about is residential and that an auto repair facility certainly differs from that. Another criteria is that the use would not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or future neighboring uses. Another criteria would be that the use will not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property, or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors and I think that all those things are certainly obvious when you put an auto facility right next to residential structures. I'm urging you, on behalf of my client to reject the proposal. If however you folks can't see your way clear to simply rejecting it and telling the applicant MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING JANUARY 12, 1993 PRGE 15 ~J to find something that is less intrusive then at a minimum I would suggest that we try to find and take some appropriate steps to minimize that conflict. One of those might be to simply relocate the facility so that it is not quite so near to the adjacent residential facilities. The site plan that has been shown to you shows a great deal of open space northerly of the proposed location, I guess it would be northerly and westerly of the proposed location and if instead of the building running north-south or east west you could keep them quite a bit further away from the residential properties. That would be perhaps one alternative. Another of course is that the Ordinance gives you the option and opportunity to impose such safeguards as will uphold the intent of the Ordinance. Of course, the intent being to protect the adjacent uses. At a minimum we should be talking about some sort of buffering that will truly do some good for the residential uses that are so near to this proposed use. (Further examples of buffers - see tape) Johnson: We're going to take a five minute break and then we'll ask questions. Meeting called back to order. Rountree: You mentioned one of your problems as noise, do you have any specifics as to type of noise, etc.? Bradberry: I can't give you any data, we have not conducted any studies. The use of common sense I think we all know that auto repair facilities are going to generate a good deal of traffic and that they are going to generate conflicts with the nearby residential uses. Rountree: Your comparison of Waremart and this facility my common sense tells me that the traffic at Waremart if significantly different than this would be here. Bradberry: The buffering at Waremart is very likely above and beyond the call of duty but the purpose of that is just to show you. Rountree: You talk about the potential risk of hazardous materials or hazardous wastes with respect to the body shop operation. You sighted some references from EPA. Does the State of Idaho, Division of Health and Welfare regulate those activities? Have you investigated that? MERIDIAN PLRNNING & ZONING JANUARY 12, 1992 PRGE 16 Bradberry: It is my understand that the Department of Environmental Quality does in fact have regulations in place that are intended to protect against discharges of toxic and hazardous chemicals. I guess what I would suggest to you is that although the risk of contamination may in todays new environmental climate may be small the consequences can be great. It seems to me that we ought to take into consideration the consequences in equal footing with what the risks of an actual occurrence are. Rountree: You indicated that leading into the buffer discussion that a whole host of uses could be applied to this particular property, could you identify some of those? Bradberry: I'd have to look at your ordinance. Hepper: How far away would the building have to be relocated to be suitable far your client? Bradberry: I can't answer that. Johnson: As I recall Mr. Baker's development he has some commercial to the north of his development. Bradberry: Yes it's to the north and to the east I guess. Johnson: Is he planning the same type of Waremart buffering for that area that your requesting for L.B. Properties? Bradberry: I haven't discussed that specifically with him. Johnson: Thank you. Anyone else to testify? Dennis Baker, 3519 Grover Court, Boise, was sworn by the attorney. Baker: I would like to make mention of the letter that I wrote back at the initial hearing on the rezone and annexation and rezone for this property for L.B. and Roundtree and Mrs. Johnson. When I spoke to the 300' buffer I spoke in terms of both landscape buffer. Using R-3 and L-0 in that 300' area. I meant develop it as R-3 or Limited Office or in your case R-15 where you get multi-family against commercial and industrial helping to ease the stress of the intense use of commercial and industrial. That's what I was speaking of then. What I'm saying now is that I've spent over 5700,000.00 putting in the first phase alone of MERIDIAN PLRNNING & ZONING JRNURRY 12, 1993 PAGE 17 Danbury Fair, given the approvals of this Commission and by the City Council. I feel greatly damaged and I feel that the people who have purchased lots either for development to build spec houses on in this subdivision or to purchase out right a number of people have already purchased four of which are backing up to this property at this time, who have purchased the property. These people have purchased in good faith relying upon this Commission and relying on the City Council of Meridian to protect them and their rights. If you have questions I'd be happy to answer them. Rountree: The storage shed concept that was originally proposed that doesn't pose a particular problem for you? Baker: I feel that their should 6e buffering from the storage facilities but a storage facility is the type of a use that would fit compatibly with R-3 and L-O. I would like to tell you that yes I do have six acres at the old United Rrtist site there and yes I would like to be held to these standards and want to go on record that way. In fact, let me inform you that I will be coming to this Commission soon with a proposal for a two acre R- 15 Multi Family Development for the south portion of that property. Rountree: You object to the fence height primarily because of the proximity to the property or the fence height? You've indicated a 7' high wood fence adjacent to the lots, not acceptable but an 8' high masonry fence or higher some given feet away from the property is an acceptable buffer. Baker: I would think that that would go along way toward mitigating some of the site and the sound. Rountree: So it's more of a proximity thing as opposed to - Baker: I think both. Johnson: Thank you. Rnyone else to testify? Scott Rnderson, 1474 Stonehenge, was sworn by the attorney. Anderson: I'd like to go on record as opposing this proposal. Our lot was approved as a residential area before this commercial was approved and believe me I wouldn't have bought an expensive there if I would have known it was going to be right behind an auto body shop. Expressed concerns about property value and value of his home in the future. MERIDIRN PLANNING d ZONING JANURRY 12, 1993 PRGE 1B Johnson: Just in feet, in distance, how far are you from that lot? Anderson: We're the existing pine trees that they are talking about, we're right by that. Johnson: Thank you. Anyone else to testify? Bernadine Morgan, was sworn by the attorney. Morgan: I have the common fence to the east. One problem that no-one knows since they don't live close to it, except us is at night a lot of times people will come in on their lot that exists now and we get all kinds of horns honking from burglary alarms. Then the lights are very bright because they do shine very bright and we haven't complained because we didn't think anything would be done about it. We did not see this second plan here tonight so I don't know how far the buildings are from our fence. This ditch that Irene wrote the letter about is on the east side there, right along the fence and eight feet simply is not enough buffering in there because they will have to be tiling below that for the irrigation pipe and there's probably a lot of other things. I did really think honestly that this was going to be a storage unit. I sure would like a copy of where the proposed buildings are going to go. Johnson: Thank you. I will close the public hearing. I will re-open the hearing for Mr. Connelly to respond. Connelly: Mr. & Mrs. Morgan are planning on putting multiple family housing next door to this site and Mr. Baker feels that multiple family housing is perfect next to a commercial use so I don't know if that's a mixed message or what. Mr. Baker's attorney makes it appear as though we're building a nuclear power facility here and everyone is going to start lighting up in the middle of the night, but Mr. Baker thinks that putting in apartments here you know between the repair facility and his houses is just fine. There seems to be a real mixed message there as well. The Waremart standard I would invite the Commission to go look at what was attempted to be screened at the back of the warehouse. There are at least six loading docks that are receiving refrigerated trucks and semi-trucks all night long. The type of noise and the time that that noise is generated may be did create a need for extraordinary screening. MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING JANUARY 12, 1993 PAGE 19 We're not talking about a facility here that's going to be repairing cars at 2:00 in the morning when people are trying to sleep. We're talking about a day time business. I'm at a loss to understand why the vegetation would be on the residential side of any fence, that just doesn't seem to serve the purpose of blocking noise to put it on the other side of a block fence. I thought that vegetation like we're proposing here was intended to suck up noise before it reached the residential areas. If you will look at the site plan submitted by Mr. Baker that shows the location of the Danbury lots you'll note that these lots are 100' deep, the distance between the southern fence line and the building that's being proposed is 138' which is greater than the distance between the fence and the house across Stonehenge Way. (Explained further - see tape) Johnson: Thank you. I would like to ask the architect a couple of questions if you could come forward. One of the people testifying in objection mentioned maybe redesign relocation of the buildings creating a larger distance between their lot line and the shops. I assume you've studied that, is that feasible? Thowless: I think it's feasible but I'm not prepared tonight to be able to speak for our client in terms of exactly what would be acceptable to them. Johnson: Thank you. I will close the public hearing. The Motion was made by Shearer and seconded 6y Hepper to have the attorney prepare Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. Motion Carried: All Yea: ITEM #6: PUBLIC HERRING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT BY HUNEMILLER-WURTZ ENTERPRISES PRIVRTE STREETS, BRIDGE WOOD PARK SUBDIVISION: Johnson: I will open the public hearing. Is there a representative present or the applicant. MERIDIAN PLANNING 8 ZONING JANUARY 12, 1993 PAGE 20 Dean Briggs, Briggs Engineering, 1111 So. Orchard, Boise, was sworn by the attorney. Briggs: This is a 6 acre parcel of ground currently zoned R-15. It's approximately i600 feet north of Cherry Lane on Meridian Road at the end of James Court. We've had an opportunity to go through all the comments. There seems to be one overriding issue, that being the access. I guess the best way to put this is it's presently zoned for apartments, it could house approximately 88 apartments without a conditional use. The developer seeking to maintain Meridian's high standards elects to go into a different type of development, more of a four plea type development on individual lots in a platted subdivision. It seems to me that the issue of access is somewhat mute in that the development can occur one way or the other without going through the process of platting. I would like however to address perhaps the fire departments issues from kind of a unique point of view. Prepared a sketch that was passed around that shows the orientation of the apartments directly to the west off of James court. Vou will see that they have one U-shaped access and parking lot to the north and another one that starts a little bit to the west and the loops hack and actually dead ends into this property. Both of those are used for fire access and what we would propose to do is along the westerly side of this plat is to connect the fire access that comes in from the westerly side through the apartments as a secondary access. We think this provides an alternative for the fire and police services if they need a secondary access. The option of widening the road I think is best put by the Highway District's recommendation that that be done when the property to the north develops. Clerk Niemann: Have you done a traffic study? Briggs: No we haven't we don't see the need for that until such time as that northerly property develops. Johnson: The way this is zoned now without requesting any changes you could go in there and build low income housing right now, correct? This is a deeded easement is it not. Briggs: That is correct. Johnson: It would appear to me that the time to address that would be when that other property is annexed to the north. MERIDIRN PLANNING & ZONING JRNURRY 12, 1993 PAGE 21 Hepper: Are they all going to be the same style building? Is the developer going to build all these or is he going to sell lots and let different builders build them or what are we looking at? Briggs: I think for the most part they would be the same basic plan. There's probably going to be some minor variations. The way these are planned it does have a carport for each unit plus another additional off street parking space. Hepper: I agree this is probably the highest and best use for this piece of property. I don't agree with not having any sidewalks, I think that's something that we need. Rountree: Would you show me here on the map the points of access. The discussion about waiting until the property to the north is developed when you've got a sixty foot easement on James Court. Clerk Niemann: It's only thirty for some reason. (Discussion to determine it is a sixty foot easement) Crookston: The road into James Court is a private road? Briggs: Yes it is. Crookston: Do you have easement rights to use that? Briggs: Yes. Crookston: Is that recorded? Briggs: Yes. Crookston: I'd like to have you send that to the City so we can review. Briggs: We can do that. Shearer: I have to agree with Tim that we need sidewalks. Johnson: Thank you. Anyone else to testify? MERIDIAN PLRNNING & ZONING JRNUARY 12, 1993 PAGE 22 Raleigh Hawe, 530 Blue Heron Lane, was sworn by the attorney. Howe: I own a piece of property that is east of this complex being proposed right now and I have several reservations about this particular unit. I don't have any objections to the type of use that is being set forth. The problems that I have with it are the roads and the access that serve this particular piece of property also additional traffic. (Further explanation - see tape) Johnson: Thank you. This foot traffic that you mentioned, are their other access and they just use that for convenience sake or what's your feeling on that? Howe: Kids are going to be moving through these areas, they did migrate to that corner, they did run the school buses through on my private road, I'm not sure that they are supposed to be doing that but they are. It is fine as far as I'm concerned because of the safety of the kids. There are sidewalks within the units themselves but I don't believe there's even a curb on the north side of this particular road. Johnson: Anyone else to testify? No response. I will close the public hearing. The Motion was made by Shearer and seconded by Rountree to have the attorney prepare Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. Motion Carried: All Yea: ITEM ~t7: PUBLIC HERRING: REQUEST FDR ANNEXRTION & ZONING, DAVE LERDER, CHERI MERDOWS: Johnson: I will open the public hearing. Is there a representative present to testify? Dave Leader, 110 Parkway Drive in Boise, was sworn by the attorney. Leader: I am the applicant on this rezoning and annexation request. The site is adjoined by the City of Meridian on the east boundary. That property is presently zoned with an L-0 zone and a PUD overlay. The surrounding property I believe the rest of it is still in the County and is zoned R-T as is this subject property we're talking about. I believe the request for MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING JANURRY 12, 1993 PAGE 23 annexation and the zoning of R-8 meets the conditions of the Comprehensive Plan of Meridian and also I believe this is in the Meridian utility district and service area. It will allow the orderly and extension of existing sewer to service this property and also the property to the east of it. The water line exist to the east also and the extension and the development of this property will facilitate tying the existing water system into the subdivisions that now exist. I believe the subdivisions that have developed, Chateau Meadows, Mirage Meadows and Kearney were all rezoned R-8 when they were developed so I think this is appropriate zoning for this property also. I do have the preliminary plat that I plan to submit tomorrow. We do anticipate access off of Hickory which would be a collector street to the east of this and Dixie Lane would only service as an emergency access. I would be happy to answer any questions. Johnson: On the plat you submitted it shows minimum lot size 6,000 square feet. Leader: I don't think there's anything there that is 6,000. I don't think the engineer had updated his ordinance there but I'll see that it gets corrected before we get that in tomorrow. Crookston: Do you have right to use Dixie Lane? Leader: Yes as the deeds read back from 1913 I believe that they designated it as an access street. Crookston: To this property that your talking about? Leader: To this as well as some others is my understanding. Johnson: Thank you. Anyone else to testify? Nancy Miller, 2005 E. Oakcrest Drive, was sworn by the attorney. Miller: We live on a lot right there at the very corner of Mirage Meadows, the closest lot to this subdivision and our major concern was kind of what is actually happening with Oakcrest, and it looked to us like on the plat that we got in the mail that this Cherry Meadows would have another lane coming into Dixie. What is happening to Dixie? Concerns about additional traffic and water pressure. Discussion of streets. MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING JANUARY 12, 1993 PAGE 24 Johnson: Thank you. Anyone else to testify? Don Bryan, 207th N. Locust Grove, was sworn by the attorney. Bryan: There's a few problems I'm going to have. Number one is the way this subdivision is platted and it shows all the lots backed up along this fence line, now my headgate is located in this corner. The ditch comes down this property and my headgate separates the water going to the south and going down to my property dawn here. My access to that headgate is down Dixie Lane. That's a concern how are they going to deal with that irrigation situation? Rre they going to put fencing along the ditch to keep kids out of it? Clerk Niemann: If it's along the fence line then they will have to the it. Bryan: I'm real uncomfortable with Dixie Lane. It is my understanding that that lane is designated owned by the property owners that dwell on that street. I believe if they do research that they own that lane and their the ones that control the access. That's all I have. Johnson: Thank you. Anyone else to testify? No response. I will close the public hearing. Discussion (See tape) The Motion was made by Rountree and seconded by Shearer to have the attorney pr epare Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. Motion Carried: All Yea: ITEM ~8: PUB LIC HERRING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION & ZONING W/CONDITIDNRL USE PERMIT HY WEST SIDE BIBLE CHAPEL & DENNIS HICKS: Johnson: I will now open the public hearing. Is there a representative present? Jim Boyd, 9272 Sholan Rve., Boise, was sworn by the attorney. Boyd: I'm speaking on behalf of West Side Bible Chapel and Dennis Hicks on their request for annexation and the conditional use for the West Side Bible Chapel. MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING JANUARY 12, 1993 PAGE 25 Boyd: The use is for the property commonly known as the Shoshoni Building located on Fairview Avenue. The property contains approximately 9.4 acres and there's a building on the property that is 23,850 square feet. Currently that building is a multi tenant type structure. West Side Bible Chapel plans to purchase the westerly 230' of that property along with the building and then the balance of the property to the east, which would be the easterly 516.7' will be purchased by Dennis Hicks. West Side Bible Chapel will occupy the front portion, which in an exhibit that you have in your file would spaces one and two which has approximately 6400 sq. ft.. The building will be utilized with the current tenants. The zoning that we're requesting is a C-G and a C-C zone. The C-C zoning will allow the church to occupy the building on a conditional use. The balance of the property is requested C-G, this will allow users similar to what's been utilized in that building over the last several years. Any questions I can answer. Crookston: Do we have legal's for the various zones that you are requesting? Boyd: You do not have separate legal for them. You will have. Crookston: We will need them. Boyd: Yes. Clerk Niemann: Did we decide that's going to require a comp. plan amendment, the zoning? Crookston: Yes. Johnson: So we'll have to amend the comp. plan. So we're looking at July before we can do that again. Discussion. (see tape) Crookston: I might advise Mr. Boyd that State Law only allows an amendment to your comp. plan every six months so we do have to abide by that. Niemann: Could we table it tonight and maybe let them reconsider changing their application. Crookston: Yes. MERIDIAN PLANNING 8 ZONING JRNURRY 12, 1993 PAGE 26 Johnson: ThanN you. I need to enter into the record a letter received. (Letter read and on file) Anyone else to testify? No response. I will close the public hearing. The Motion was made by Rountree and seconded by Shearer to have the attorney prepare Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. Motion Carried: All Yea The Motion was made by Shearer and seconded by Rountree to adjourn the meeting at iP1:42 P. M.: Motion Carried: All Yea: (TRPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) APPROVED: ~ ~~ JIM HN ON, HAIRMRN ATTEST: ~~~.~. r JACK%NIEMAIyI , CITY CLERK i / BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN SAM FISHEL AND MARIE WHITESEL CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 804 EAST FIRST STREET MERIDIAN, IDAHO FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS The above entitled matter having come on for public hearing January 12, 1993, at the hour of 7:30 o'clock p.m., the Petitioner appearing, the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Meridian having duly considered the evidence and the matter makes the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. That a notice of a public hearing on the Conditional Use Permit Application was published for two (2) consecutive weeks prior to the said public hearing scheduled for January 12, 1993, the first publication of which was fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing; that the matter was duly considered at the January 12, 1993, 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; the Applicant, Marie H. Whitesel, is the owner of the property and the Applicant, Sam Fishel, has a lease or proposed lease of the property; the application includes a description of the property which description is incorporated herein; that there is a structure on the premises; that there is no present use of the property and it is a vacant building; the property has been used in the past as lawn mower sales and repair shop; that the surrounding property is used for commercial purposes and there is a vacant lot adjacent to the north and east of the property. 3. That the property is zoned Old Town; that the zone requires a conditional use permit for the operation any business and particularly a vehicle rental office and location, which is the use proposed by the Applicants. 4. That the Old Town District is described in the Zoning Ordinance, 11-2-408 B. 10 as follows: (OT) Old Town District: The purpose of the (OT) District is to accommodate and encourage further expansion of the historical core of the community; to delineate a centralized activity center and to encourage its renewal, revitalization and gruwth as the public, quasi-public, cultural, financial and recreational center of the City. A variety of these uses integrated with general business, medium-high to high density residential, and other related uses is encouraged in an effort to provide the appropriate mix of activities necessary to establish a truly urban City center. The district shall be served by the Municipal Water and Sewer systems of the City of Meridian. Development in this district must give attention to the handling of high volumes of traffic, adequate parking, and pedestrian movement, and to provide strip commercial development, and must be approved as a conditional use, unless otherwise permitted. 5. That Old Town is addressed in the Comprehensive Plan at page 23, as follows: "Upon adoption of the Comprehensive Plan, Old Town should continue to serve as a shopping, as well as governmental and public activity, center. In recognition that its shape and character will change with additional population growth and development, the Comprehensive. Plan sets the stage for the rejuvenation of Old Town, as per mixed-land-use policies and per market and economic trends. Probable mixed-uses for Old Town could be special commercial, higher density, offices, medical facilities and public and semi-public facilities." 6. That the use proposed by the Applicant is not a listed permitted or conditional use in the commercial listings of 11-2- 408; that under 11-2-407 D. 1. it states as follows: "When a use is not sFecifically listed as a permitted use, such use shall be hereby expressly prohibited unless by application and authorization (as provided for under Conditional Use) it is determined that said use is similar to and compatible with listed permitted uses. Such uses may then be permitted as Conditional Uses." 7. That the use proposed by the Applicant is set forth above; that the applicant submitted a layout and design of the building and proposed parking for customers and for cars that would be rented. 8. That Ada County Highway District, Central District Health Department, Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District, City Engineer, Meridian Fire and Police Departments submitted written comments; That the Ada County District commented as follows: "The proposed parking layout does not show where the parking spaces will be in relation to the public right-of-way and sidewalks. The developer should not use the public right-of- way for required parking area and the vehicles should not be using the public sidewalks for maneuvering space. The site plan indicates parking spaces for vehicles about 10-feet in length and is unrealistic in its goals for access and circulation. There is no existing curb cut to Idaho Street and there shouldn't be due to the proximity to the intersection. District staff recommends that the City of Meridian delay consideration of the application until the developer provides and an acceptable site layout."; that the City Engineer commented that vehicular access to E. Idaho Avenue and East First street needs to be approved by the Ada County Highway District and that the proximity of these access points to this intersection may be a problem and that 1/3 of the sales lot shall be designated for cestomer parking. 9. That the property has immediate direct access to a transportation arterial, East First Street, and there is a significant amount of traffic on that street. 10. That Mr. Fishel represented at the hearing that he intends to improve the appearance of the existing structure on the property to make it look ~s good or better than the structures on the other three corners of the intersection; however, that no development plans or drawings were submitted. 11. That Eric Theirhause testified; his family is the owner of the property that is adjacent to the subject property on the north and east; he testified that he did not have objection to the proposed use; there was discussion, however, regarding the access to the Theirhause property and he stated that if the entrance that he uses to go in and out of his property is blocked, there would be no access to his property. 12. That this parcel of property is at the center of Meridian. 13. That sewer and water is already connected to the property, but the use may require additional charges or fees. 14. That Section 11-2-414 A. 1., 3., and 3. state as follows: 1. No building or structure shall be erected, substantially altered or its use changed unless permanently maintained off-street parking and loading spaces have been provided in accordance with the provisions of this Ordinance."; 3. "Whenever the existing use of a building or structure shall hereafter be changed to a new use, parking or loading facilities shall be provided as required for such new use."; 7. "All development applications shall include a site plan (drawn to a minimum scale of one inch equals fifty (50') which is fully dimensioned and shows any parking or loading facilities to be provided in compliance with this Ordinance. Such site plan shall be submitted to the Commission for approval when the required off-street parking is more than six (6) parking spaces and shall indicate ingreass to the area and traffic patterns in adjacent streets and alleuys and appropriate landscaping." 15. That the proposed use of a car rental office and lot is a new use; that Section 11-2-414 C. 6. states in part as follows: "In no case shall any part of a parking area be closer than four feet "4') to any established street or alley right-of- way. ' 1 that the applicant was not required to submit the parking plan to the Commission because, apparenly, the use does not require six parking spces but since all development application have to submit a site plan (drawn to a minimum scale of one inch equals fifty (50') which is fully dimensioned and shows any parking or loading facilities, the Applicant should have submitted a parking site plan that was dimensional. 16. The drawings submitted by the Applicants do not provide measurements and it is difficult to ascertain where the parking spaces are in relation to the streets; that other parts of the parking provisions of `.he Zoning Ordinance are noted and incorporated herein as if set forth in full, particularly the landscaping, sprinkling, and drainage requirements; no drainage design was submitted. CONCLUSIONS 1. That all the procedural requirements of the Local Planning Act and of the Ordinances of the City of Meridian have been met including the mailing of notice to owners of property within 300 feet of the external boundaries of the Applicant's property. 2. That the City of Meridian has authority to grant conditional uses pursuant to 67-6512, Idaho Code, and pursuant to 11-2-418 of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian. 3. That the City has the authority to take judicial notice of its own ordinances, 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 11-2-418(D) of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian, Idaho. 5. 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 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 does not appear to be capable of being designed and constructed to be harmonious in appearance with the character of the general vicinity; that parking for the subject use does not appear to be able to meet the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. d. That the use should not be hazardous nor should it be disturbing to existing or future neighboring uses; that traffic should not increase significantly because e proposed da care center however, vehicular access to, and parking for, the proposed use appears to be a problem; a common driveway with the adjacent parcel of property must be used for access; no agreement with the adjacent property owner was submitted showing that ,_ the facility would be guaranteed access. 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. The use, itself, 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 or noise; that the parking requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, however, do not appear to be capable of being met since the cars would have to be parked so that there is a minimum of four feet between the vehicle and the street and streets surround the subject property on two sides; that the ordinance requires that the parking lot be landscaped; there does not appear to be sufficient space for parking and landscaping; that the Ada County District pointed out that abutting sidewalks could not be used for parking or for maneuvering of vehicles. h. That sufficient parking, in layout and design, would have to be met since it is anew use, and such does not appear to be capable of being met. i. The development and uses will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural or scenic feature of major importance. 6. That it is ultimately concluded that it appears that the Ada County District requirements could not be met and that the Meridian Zoning Ordinance parking requirements could not be met and therefore the proposed conditional use should be denied. 7. That the City has judged this Application for a conditional use upon the basis of the guidelines and standards above mentioned 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 can take judicial notice. APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS The 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 ~ _G-~ CHAIRMAN JOHNSON (TIE BREAKER) VOTED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council of the City of Meridian that they deny the application for a conditional use. MOTION: APPROVED: `i'/'" DISAPPROVED: 3 y~`` ' No /~ ~ ~,~ ~°~ ~r° ~ ~~~~~ ~~ ~ CITY OF' MF.R ]:DIAN, ThgHfi ~~ EAST' IUAHD '3'1'RE:F."'T MEf~t I D I AN . I DA{10 ATTN{JACK NIffMANN,CTTY CIFRK ~~.19.~s /Jd1 ~ S is .TANUARY, 1995 I WLL3N TO EXPRESS MY DI6APPROVAL IN RC_CARD Ttl TWC AI'fLICATItlN 8URMSTTF..D BY HARIE H. WHITESE'_L ANb SAM FISMT:L AT THE L^CAT'14N COMMONLY KNOWN AH 964 EA9T FIR^3T. 7WE PURF'Uaki OF A RENTAL, CAR AOENCV AT TMA7 LOCATION, I FE:EI_ WOL.ILD E)E A llF_TRIMEN7 TO 7'ME DIRECTION ANtI IMROE T'hiE CITY OF MERIDIAN IEI F~'OLLOWING. H L.UT OF MONEY ANb T'IMF HRE SEEN '3PF_NT IN RECRUITING UPSCALE 9U3INE38EF3 IN•TWE CORE AREA. I DO NOT SEE THIS A9 "IiI0FiE9T AND BEST USE" FOR TMIS F'RUF'T:tt rv. 9~, ,R i~ CI. A. AY" JOWNSON i OWNER OF 403,417,921 E:ABT FIRST ST MERIDIAN, ID. • s BEFORE THE MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL L.B. PROPERTIES CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1005 E. Fairview Avenue MERIDIAN, IDAHO FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS The above entitled matter having come on for public hearing January 12, 1993, at the hour of 7:30 o'clock p.m., the Petitioner appearing through John P. Connolly, the Meridian 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 January 12, 1993, the first publication of which was fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing; that the matter was duly considered at the January 12, 1993, hearing; that the public was given full opportunity to express comments and submit evidence; 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 is owned by the Applicant, L.B. PROPERTIES, and is described in the application, which description is incorporated herein; that FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW PAGE 1 the property is located in what is referred to as the North Curve and is on Fairview Avenue west of Locust Grove Road; that in the findings of fact and conclusions of law that were adopted for the annexation of the property it was found that the property was in the EAST INDUSTRIAL REVIEW AREA as set forth in Policy Diagram in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan; that that finding was in error; that it is difficult to tell where a specific parcel of property is located on the Meridian Policy Diagram because there are no boundaries for the areas referenced on the Diagram and the more current Comprehensive Plaits have copied the Policy Diagram such that the colors are faded and often times the area of neighborhoods have faded out completely. 3. That the property is north of Danbury Subdivision; that Fairview Avenue is a principal arterial and carries a significant number of cars daily, 19,469 cars per day; that Fairview Avenue is listed in the Comprehensive Plan of Meridian as a principal arterial. 4. That the property that the proposed use is to be located on is south of the existing automobile sales building; that the property is now vacant land; that the property is zoned Service Commercial and General Retail. 5. That the proposed use is for an auto repair, body and paint shop. 6. That there was testimony submitted by Steven Bradbury, on behalf of Dennis Baker, the developer and owner of the property that abuts the subject parcel on the south; that Mr. Bradbury FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW PAGE 2 listed the major concerns of Mr. Baker as being an unwarranted conflict with the adjacent residential properties and that it would lower the value of those residential properties; that Mr. Baker feels that the proposed facility would not be harmonious with the surrounding area; Mr. Bradbury voiced concerns over noise, odors, traffic, lighting and visual intrusion. Mr. Bradbury urged that the application be denied but that if it could not be denied that the layout of the project be redesigned. He suggested that the facility be placed farther away from the Danbury Subdivision, possibly realigning the facility, and placing substantial buffers between the facility and the subdivision. 7. That Mr. Bradbury presented a petition objecting to the proposed use which was signed by thirteen people and Dennis Baker for his Corporation; he also submitted a pamphlet on vehicle maintenance which showed the hazardous wastes that can be generated from vehicle maintenance; he also presented pictures from the Waremart facility on Fairview Avenue in Boise which showed the buffering between that store and adjacent residences; a letter from Irene J. Chastain was also admitted into the record which showed the desire of Mrs. Chastain that her irrigation facilities not be interfered with, that there be no hazardous waste, and that there be no junk or unsightly vehicles on the premises. 8. Mr. Bradbury also submitted a pamphlet on vehicle maintenance which showed that hazardous waste can be by-products of vehicle maintenance; he also submitted pictures of a barrier and landscaping that was required by the City of Boise for the Waremart FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW PAGE 3 grocery store on Fairview Avenue in Boise; that the comment was made by John Connolly that such a barrier might be required for that grocery store because it had six loading docks and unloaded freight at all hours. 9. That Dennis Baker spoke on his own behalf; he suggested that a proper barrier would be a higher density residential use or a limited office use; when question he stated that an eight foot masonry fence, not adjacent to the subdivision lots but separated from the lots, would be preferable to the seven foot wood fence next to the lots. 10. That a lot owner in Danbury Subdivision testified objecting to the application basing his objection on the likelihood that the value of his home would decline; that a property owner to the east of the subject property testified that noise from the existing auto sales lot is a problem and that the lights from the automobile sales lot shine very bright. 11. That the General Retail and Service Commercial district is defined in the Zoning Ordinance as follows: "(C-G) General Retail and Service Commercial: The purpose of the (C-G) District is to provide for commercial uses which are customarily operated entirely or almost entirely within a 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 4istricts shall be connected to the Municipal Water and Sewer systems of the City of Meridian, and shall not constitute strip commercial development and encourage clustering of commercial development. That an automobile repair shop is an allowed conditional use in the General Retail and Service Commercial district. 12. That the use proposed by Applicant of an automobile FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW PAGE 4 repair shop and paint shop is an allowed conditional use in the C- G district pursuant to 11-2-409 B. 9., but does require a conditional use permit pursuant to 11-2-409 B., Automobile Repair Shop. 13. That there are commercial uses on both sides of Fairview, including a used car lot and a insect and pesticide spray busines to the west of the subject property; a paint shop across Fairview Avenue and one west of the subject property; a new fitness center is being constructed on the north side of Fairview; there are restaurants on the north side of Fairview; also on the north side of Fairview Avenue there is a carwash and an emergency medical office; that farther east on Fairview Avenue is an Intermopuntain Farmer retail store. 14. That sewer and water is available to the property. 15. That the use proposed by Applicant is an allowed conditional use in the CG district pursuant to 11-2-409 B., but does require a conditional use permit pursuant to 11-2-409 B. 16. That the comments of the Meridian City Engineer are noted and incorporated herein by this reference; that the comments of the Ada County Highway District, Central District Health Department, Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District and the Meridian Fire Department are noted and incorporated herein by this reference. 17. That section 11-2-418 d. states as follows: "In approving any Conditional Use, the Commission and Council may prescribe appropriate conditions, bonds, and safeguards in conformity with this Ordinance. Violations of such donditions, bonds or safeguards, when made a part of the terms under which the Conditional Use is granted, shall be deemed a violation of the Ordinance and grouds to revoke the FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW PAGE 5 Conditional Use. The Commission and Council may prescribe a set time period for which a Conditional Use may be in existence." 18. That proper notice has been 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 conditional uses pursuant to 67-6512, Idaho Code, and, pursuant to 11-2-418 of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian; 3. That the City of Meridian has authority to place conditions on a conditional use permit and the use of the property pursuant to 67-6512, Idaho Code, and pursuant to 11-2-418(D) of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian, Idaho; 4. That 11-2-418(C) of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian sets forth the standards under which the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Planning and Zoning Commission 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 FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW PAGE 6 • i 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 is in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan but the Zoning Ordinance requires a conditional use permit to allow the use; that the use should be harmonious with the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance and the surrounding area, including the residential area, if the conditions required herein are met and maintained. c. If the use meets the requirements herein, the use apparently would be designed and constructed, to be harmonious in appearance with the intended character of the general vicinity. d. If the use meets the requirements stated herein the proposed use the use would not necessarily be disturbing to existing or future neighboring uses; that the proposed use should be continuously reviewed. e. The property has sewer and water service available and will be adequately served by essential public facilities. f. If the requirements stated herein are met the proposed use should not create excessive additional requirements at public cost for public facilities and services unless the traffic problem must he resolved at the public expense, and the use would not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. g. If the requirements stated herein 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 there should be sufficient vehicular approaches to the property so as not to create an interference with traffic on surrounding public streets. i. The development and uses will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural or scenic feature of major importance. 5. That the comments of the City Engineer, Fire Department and the Ada County Highway District, Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District and other governmental agencies must be met and complied FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW PAGE 7 with. 6. That it is concluded that Fairview Avenue has had commercial businesses located thereon for a long time, and for a long time prior to adoption of the current Meridian Zoning Ordinance; that it could have easily been suspected and forseen, by a developer of property, that areas along Fairview Avenue would be developed in a commercial fashion; what is harder to say is that it would be, or could be, known, or suspected, how deep development would ocur either south or north of Fairview Avenue. It is further specifically concluded that it is the purpose of the Zoning Ordinance to try to promote and to protect the public health, safety, comfort, convenience, prosperity and general welfare. 7. That it is concluded that the location and layout of the proposed use on the property is likely to pose problems with regard to noise, glare, fumes or odors for the adjacent residential properties to the south anc~ east; that it is concluded that it is one of the purposes of the Zoning Ordinance to protects residential, commercial, industrial and civic areas from the intrusion of incompatible uses and to provide opportunities for establishments to concentrate for efficient operation in mutually beneficial relationships to each other and to shared services (11- 2-401 5.), but it is also the purpose of the Zoning Ordinance to encourage the proper distribution and compatible integration of neighborhood commercial uses into all residential areas of the City (11-2-401 11.). 8. That it is concluded that to make the proposed use FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW PAGE 8 harmonious and compatible to neighboring residential uses to the south and east the following requirements must be met, and continuously met; and these conditions should be reviewed by the City Council amended, added to, changed or delted as the City Council deems appropriate: a. The proposed building shall run east and west rather than north and south. b. That the proposed building shall be placed so that there is a minimum of 150.00 feet from the property's boundary lines, except the north boundary line and from that boundary line there shall be a minimum of 100 feet. c. That there shall be a seven foot fence constructed of masonry material or solid wood fence boards and a landscape strip ten feet in width adjacent to the east and south boundary line of the property; that the Applicant shall apply for a variance from the fence ordinance, if the City Council or fence committee denies the variance the fence shall be six feet in height, to meet City Ordinances. d. That there shall be a ten foot wide planting strip along the south and east boundary of the subject property of two staggered rows of six foot pyramidal arbor vitae or of six foot pine trees or similar variety (the Applicant may relocate the pine trees that are already on the property as was suggested at the hearing); that the vegetation shall not be allowed to grow more than twenty feet tall, but shall be watered and fertilized to encourage as much growth as soon as possible. e. That the building shall be so designed that the overhead doors for the entrance and exit of vehicles shall face north; that there may be two overhead doors that face south or east but they shall be in the nature of emergency exits and not used on a daily basis. f. That any and all lighting shall be constructed such that it does not glare, or shine, on any surrounding residential property. g. That the use of external loudspeakers shall be limited to business hours, only on Monday through Friday, and shall be limited to decibels; that the building shall be constructed to be as soundproof as reasonably possible. h. That there shall be no wrecked, demolished, or junk cars FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW PAGE 9 • ~ ~~ ~~1 kept or stored on the property, unless they are t ally screen from view. i. That there shall be no offensive fu or odor emitted from the property; that normal otorvehicl exhaust from passenger or pickup trucks shall med to be offensive; that all hazardous wastes shall be properly disposed of and shall not be maintained on the property. j. That all construction, including remodeling, fence construction, and plantings shall be subject to Design Review by the City of Meridian. 9. That the conditions stated herein, or as ultimately set by the City Council, shall be agreed to by the Applicant, in writing; that if they are not so agreed to the Application should be denied. 10 That it is stated, and concluded, for the benefit of the Applicant, those appearing at the hearing, and of all interested persons, that a conditional use under the Meridian Zoning Ordinance, in reality, is a use that is permitted in zoning districts where it is listed as a conditional use; the City may set reasonable requirements and conditions that must be met by the applicant to enable to operate the use; it is concluded that the conditions and requirements listed above are reasonable under the circumstances. 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 COMMISSIONER HEPPER VOTED COMMISSIONER ROUNTREE VOTED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW PAGE 10 COMMISSIONER SHEARER COMMISSIONER ALIDJANI CHAIRMAN JOHNSON (TIE BREAKER) VOTED ~~ VOTED ~"J VOTED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council of the City of Meridian that the City Council review these findings and, if desired by the City Council, change, alter or amend the conditions stated herein, and that if the conditions are agreed to and met by the Applicant, the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council of the City of Meridian that the City Council approve the conditional use permit; that the Commission further recommends that all construction, new and remodel, including buildings and vegetation planting be subject to Design Review; that the conditional use permit be reviewed annually for compliance with the conditions stated herein, and if there is not compliance, that the conditional use permit be revoked. That as an additional condition all irrigation facilities must be maintained such they continue to deliver water as it was delivered prior to development and if there are irrigation canals, drainages or other means of conveying water, located on the property that they be tiled. MOTION: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW PAGE 11 APPROVED: DISAPPROVED: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PAGE 12 Cc~~~~~~~_ ~ ~,/~svj?' ~L y` -~-Zs-~/~ s~.-- i.yrrr.~~?ZC a-¢-Gs n~ ~2" p ~~/~/~ ,. 9 /, e `' d ~~ ~e:~~~~LE~J ; ,. ,~~ ~ ~ ~~ -~-' ~~- ~ ~., /~~^--rte ` ~ ~~•.z .~ GL-tL~~f~~~wCG~ /L e/ ~~ ~~-s'7~e ~ cytA ~1 ~ . ~o ~~/~{j~.{~+~ZR-~L ~-~GGG~-G_4.if- Gad-~S-iLG~J':?S2~L~,) ~~~~i L ~/ , /~~Gi~67i~L=' .// -'Y~/L4-arm//GLEE ~. LL-'_"/~LGG'-"~L~ G~8.7 ice(=k--'~ J /.~22~ ~~ ~-_-G ~G~c-rc.J .tic-~-~, // R // ~`,~L~/~-J ,CLr/ Z--2~-.-t~C-1 ~G.~aL.l : LLB'~~"/~-~4~'iG7~LGC4yzc..~... oo f~%~ / f / L tiG 'ate ~ ~1.~~ ~ // L J ~ Lam`%-~C,-' :v/y~l~f ~ - // /./~~. {/'~_ o J, P'S/ 0 X U ~o~.~l-air ~x-~~d~~', ~, .~rvc-e~e~c/ , ,/'__ /~ ; ~~G: ,~~ ~ o,~/ PETITION We, the undersigned property owners neighboring the property located at 1005 East Fairview Avenue, City of Meidian, State of Idaho, oppose the application of LB Properties for a conditional use permit to operate an automobile repair, body, paint and service shop on that property for the reason that the proposed use is not harmonious and conflicts with the nearby and adjacent residential uses by creating offensive sights, sounds, and odors and will have a negative impact on the value of our properties. Name (Please Print) /4~~ o,SS ~,~,L Addr ss ?it % rrrnr Si nature Name (Please Print) n / _ ~ ~~~"%~ ~"~/~'s'l//t'a~~ ~~~i~'/~~/~/,Y Address Signature Name (Please rint) F,~A,./ K. Sc rrs~RF[: nl Name (Please Print) /~/8 ~. SioNEN EN6E /,v ~q ~/ Addres S' nature ;`lame (Please Print~~)~- _ .. ~~ Name (Plea§e Print) %~>' ~~~ /~ /~ /'.r2 i7~1 /~L Address ~li 1 ~1tJ~~?~i rig ~`~(;i,~z Signature ~ _.,l ~~ ~ _ i' 1 i y.~`~~~-J~~ L~~ ~~~ l~iy tjl~~' ice! /~/{ T //Jc /j'lon/ /G Le Name (Please Print) ~/~SO ~/• Siog/FHEn/GE ^~EQi~i.~n~ Address ~, - / ,. Sij ature ~ Ch~~o~~ ~h~,~~l~~~,~ Name (Please Print) /,Sc ~'] /~ 5 io,y~NEn/G G Addr ss ~IC~tG~, /~ l e~/e~z ~ ~ ~, Signature LF~ (~ /"l- Ems' ~ ~~ Name (Please Print) Address , "~~(R-~-6 ~%' x.61-- Signa ure ~~ Name (Please Print) l~l~~ 5~~~~~',,-, ~~ %~~''~1;W,~ ~}' Ad less Signature iin "~ ~/_ -~~f. ~i ~i Name (P~e~s~e Pri t) i Ad ress _ ..~ ~ i ,.~ , ~-1 Signature /,3 . Gtl • /N G Name (Please Print) /O St 0 ~' fiN~' A~idres s _~ - - S~gaature ~( ENNlS i~ . /3AkcR Pkcs,DEN,- i3.w. iNc . Name (Please Print) F3LL UNSOLD L075 HNZ~ Rr M.gin/,NG PH/jSES Address aN~3 ~R}i G~7i.¢ SdC3 Div,., ~-~ _ ..~ •~ /_~~ , err.-- Si ature /~E~vNis ~,~ . /3AKr2 P2 ESiDEn/~ Name (Please Print) Address Signature ~~G~~~ ~ _ ' ~ ; ~ ~~ Name (P1 ase Print) ! 8 0 d Z G A ,o pc N m a -~ o z y m ~ m 2 O (n m C ~ F a d UN O Z '~ 0 T"'-w ?F 9^ >' x. vz ~n 'a~ ~F <~ .x ~'x cO nr . j f o i c s ~ 0 ` n - c o x ~ m o - 0 o S ~ 9 I I ~ m C I ~I. I i .. y x II y .. ' i ' ~ ~ i . I I JJ . , li. li I , III~IIIIIIII IIIIIII IIIII I a 1 A Cm G m 0 0 m T D m f n m 3 m ~_ _O D Z n r v 1 f v a -__i-_- I fl~ ~~ ~ r / `'1 ~~ ~_ ~~ L r c e ~.,_ ~~ \\ --- ,~ `\ ! e ~• ~ ~ ,.::., ,_ - .~ /~ f':r~ ao~-.~ ars 1 ~r a :,", t M 1 !~ e~ ~ x ...> ~. ~~ M' 4 O n ®® ®© ~ dN ®O ~ ~~ ®® ~g ®O A f. r ~~~~~ `, '` ~ %`! ~`~ a~F3 ~ ~~'xe; ~ "~~~$ p8!4 14~ 4 a~ x~ ®~ 0 ®O ®p ~~~ ~ ~~®8 O' ~• 0 Cy®a~®® ~C~ •~ v t M i uV Zj f\ L ~® ~® ga~ 9 ~~ n~ Y. O!e'Y l T3f' ..~. •,' ~ 3 - "' 4 ~• 4 s2 .p f r '~ a Siq l •' n _ ~ S ! ! S ',3l : k ~~ ~~ n n ~ R n r ~~ y~ a~ ~~ > Y r ~ :°~ ~~.. SB ~e ' ~~ " .~ '~~~ QA y~ ky ~ ~ F13E~ ~iY $ n E Q otS4 v r R i lYSI' L ~ L I. ...v Tm.M _ A O®°~®® a O® 4 ® 4 CCCYYY # ' ~ ~~$~ n d A nx yr a w. ~ i ~ M - _ -m'~,~' m ~ aaaa~ 6€ ~ ~ a4 ~~ y~ ~~ 4V ~ ~ ~ D ~'~ g~~ ~ ~' ~e ~6 ~~ 8 ~ ~ :a y ~Q4o ~ m ~53 N~~ ~ ~~ ~p F~ 4~ ~ Z m °~q ~aA ~~ ~t 'g~ ~~ ~ c ~ N ~1 ~ O ~~ ~~'$ v~ v~ ~~ °~ a X ~ Z ~{ ~~~ c~ ~ 8R s z 6~ g°e $sy g~ ~ g~ ~ ~ ° r rF ~4~ !4 ^~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ S 5~ ~~ ~ ~ 4'~ ~ m ? m Z ~ r ~ yz~~Jor~ ~ m c~ D \ r ~1 N > m ~ O ~ O ~ ~ °~~it iR~o..e of c mrn ~ z II I5 Z ~ ~D ~ ~ ~ ~ n Z N ~ • O ~ kg S = ~ O r~^I 6 a~~a~~~~b D v1 ~ ~ ~ m ~ ~ ~~€~~~~=6 ~1 Zo ~' ~; ~~~n ~~~~~ ~ = ~ O 5 j' 11 ~ o ~ `~o {y~ m Z H ~ ~ 9 ~~ m O ~~ - m r ~ r FF ~ O ;~ ! ~ ~ Mgt Q~ ~£~ IL ~ ~~ Z ~~ # ~ ~ f $# m•Q - i P ~~ yy' ~ \ aaQ _ ` ®® Y ~ a a a a e •, a s . _ ^ 1lRAiim O w~ - ~MIO MME Vehicle Mair~enance • Industry Overview If your business is in the vehicle maintenance category, then the products you use on the vehicles and on your equipment, tools, hands, or floor might contain hazardous materials, and [he waste generated by using these products might be hazardous waste. If you generate hazardous waste, you might be subject to Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) requirements covering the generation, transportation, and management of haz- ardous waste. Your business is classified under vehicle maintenance if you repair or maintain: • Vans • Tmcks • Vehicle Fleets • Heavy equipment • Farm equipment. Vehicle maintenance operations [hat might generate hazardous waste include: • Removing oil or grease • Removing rust, dirt, or paint • Repairing or rebuilding • Refinishing or restoring • Painting • Replacing lead-acid batteries. Hazardous Wastes from Vehicle Maintenance Everyday mechanics and body repair personnel use products containing hazardous materials. Products containing materials that are hazardous to human health and the environment include: Rust removers that contain strong acid or alkaline solutions Carburetor cleaners that contain Flammable or combustible liquids Parts cleaners and de¢reasers that contain tnsic chemicals Paint thinners or reducers that are ignitable or contain toxic constituents Motor oil and other petroleum products that are ignitable or contain toxic chemicals Auto and truck batteries. Waste that is eenerated as a result of using these products might be RCRA-regulated hazardous waste. Table 1 lists typical processes/operations that use products that might contain hazardous materials and that probably generate haz- ardous waste. If you generate 100 kilograms (220 pounds or about half of a 55-gallon drum) or more of hazardous waste per month, you must fill out a Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifest when you ship hazardous waste off your property. The Manifest requires the proper Department of Transportation (DOT) description for each waste. Table 2 lists proper DOT shipping descriptions for a number of wastes that might be generated during vehicle mainte- nance operations. Table 1 and Table 2 are not comprehensive lists. If you suspect any waste you generate is hazardous, check with your state hazardous waste management agency or Regional EPA office. There are special provisions in the regulations for spent lead- acid batteries and used oil. You do not have to use a Manifest when you ship used lead batteries [ha[ are destined for recycling or used motor oi] that is destined for recycling. If, however, you are disposing of used oil yourself or are sending it off-site for disposal, you generally should handle it as hazardous waste be- cause it is likely to be ignitable or toxic. Special requirements apply if you are burning used oil as fuel. Your state might have its own requirements for lead-acid batteries or used oil; check with your state hazardous waste management agency. Waste Minimization An effective waste minimization program can reduce the costs, liabilities, and regulatory burdens of hazardous waste manage- ment, while potentially enhancing efficiency, product quality, and community relations. Waste minimization techniques that can help you [educe the amount of hazardous waste that you generate include: • Production planning and sequencing • Process/equipment adjustment or modification • Raw material substitution • Loss prevention and housekeeping • W:IVIC '.I`L I'r (_:rli0tl !1011 Srltll(:Ilinll • Rccyclinr,. Training and supervision of employees implementing waste minimization techniques is an important part of your successful program. Call the RCRA/Superfund Hotline toll-free at 800-424- 9346 (or TDD R00-553-7672 for the hearing-impaired) for waste minimization information and publications. EPNSl0-$W-UO-n27a Pnntwl on rrevclal pnpcr Table 1 • Typieal Vehicle Maintenance Operations: Materials Used and Hazardous Wastes that Mlght be Gaated Process/Operation Materials Used Typical Material Ingredient General Types of Waste Generated Degreasing Degreasers (gunk), cafiuretor Petroleum distillates, aromatic hydrowr- Acid/alkaline wastes cleaners. engine cleaner, bons, mineml spirits, benzene, toluene. Spent Solvents solvents, acids/alkalies, petroleum naphtha Ignitable wastes cleaning fluids Toxic wastes Rust Removal Naval jelly, strong acids. strong Phosphoric acid, hydrochloric acid, Acid/alkaline wastes alkalies hydroFluoric acid, sodium hydroxide Paint Preparation Paint thinners. enamel reducers, Alcohols, petroleum distillates, oxygenated Paint wastes white spirits solvents, mineral spirits, ketones Spent solvents Ignitable wastes Toxic wastes Painting Enamels, lacquers, epoxies. Acetone, toluene, benzene. petroleum Paint wastes alkyds, acrylics, primers, distillates, epoxy esttt resins, methylene Spent solvents solvents chloride, xylene. VM&P naphtha, aromatic Ignitable wastes hydrocarbons, methyl isobutyl, ketones Toxic wastes Spray Booth. Spray Guns. Paint thinners, enamel reducers, Ketones, alcohols, toluene. acetone. Paint wastes and Bntsh Cleaning solvents, white spirits isopropyl alcohol, petroleum distillates, Spent solvents mineml spirits Toxic wastes Paint Removal Solvents, paint thinners. enamel Acetone, toluene, petroleum distillates, Paint wastes reducers, white spirits methanol, methylene chloride. isopropyl Spent solvents alcohol, mineral spirits, alcohols, ketones. Toxic wastes other oxygenated solvents Tank Cleanout Solvenu or cleaners to wash out Solvents, petroleum products in tanks Tank draws containing toxic residues tanks, residues Insmlling I<ad-Acid Used batteries of cars. trucks. Lead dmzs Acid/alkaline wasics Batteries boats. mommycles, and other Batteries (lead-acidl vehicles Table 2 Vehicle Maintenance Waste Descriptions' UN/NA Waste T e Desi natians/Trade Names DOT Shi in Name Hazard Class ID Number STRONG ACID/ALKALINE WASTES droxide monium H A Ammonium Hydroxide, NHyOH, Spirit Waste Ammonium Hydroxide tanuaining not ) i ` Cortosive Material NA2672 y m a 9c ammon less than 12% but not more than 44 of Hunshom, Ayua Ammonia lanvuining Icsx Than I'_~F anunallie) ORM-A NA2672 tlydl unru•ub A~W n~.l~.. b,..,,,1.. n..:.1. 1101 1\'wee. IIy.L,.l...,,,,6 nd.l u,.n ,,...,.. ,L..., iV'h r-m...vi... xlol..,lul UNI]ga s[rength) Muriulic Arid IICI hlorir Aril d I l W:IMC IIYJnwhlnric AciA Corrosive Material NA1789 Ilvdntchlurir Acid . , wr y Hydronuorie Acid Hydndluuric Acid. HF, Fluorohydric Waste Hydrulluunc Acid Corrosive Mutenal UN 1790 Acid Nitric Acid Nitric Acid. HNO,. Aquafortis Waste Nitric Acid (over 40%) Oxidizer UN2031 (40'90 or less) Corrosive Material NAI760 Phosphoric Acid Phosphorc Acid. HrPO•. Waste Phosphoric Acid Corrosive Maleri al UN1805 Onhophosphoric Acid Potassium Hydroxide Potassium Hydroxide, KOH. Potassium Waste Potassium Hydroxide Solmion Corrosive Material i l UNISI4 UN1813 Hydram. Caustic Powh. Potassa Dry Solid, Flake. Bead, or Granular Corrosive Mater a Sodium Hydroxide Sodium Hydroxide NaOH. Caustic Soda. tl I y l i l M UNI823 Soda Lyc. Sodium Hydrae ranular or G Flake, Bead D Sol d. rY a Cortosive ater Sulfuric Acid Sulfuric Acid, H,SOa, Oil of Vitriol Waste Sulturic Acid Cortosive Ma[enal UN1830 Chromic Acid Chromic Acid Waste Chromic Acid Solmion Corrosive Material UNI755 SPENT SOLVENTS AND IGNITABLE OB TOXIC WASTES CONTAINING: Ethylene Dichloride' Ethylene Dichloride, I,L- Waste Ethylene Dichloride Flammable Liquid'- UN1184 Dichloroethane ' B Waste Benzene (benzoq Flammable Ligwd UNI1l4 Benzene enzene luene T Waste Toluene ItoluoU Flammable Liquid UN1294 Toluene o E[hyl Benzene Ethyl Benzene Waste E[hyl Benzene Flammable Liyuid UN1175 Chlorobenzene• Chlorobenzene, Monochlorobenzene. Waste Chlorobenzene Flammable Liquid UN1134 Phenylchloride Cresols* o-Cresol, m-Cresoh p-Cresol (m.p)- Waste Cresol Cortosive Material UN2076 Cresol, (o,m,p)- Cresol Trichlorcethylene• TCE. Gemaleene, Lanadin, Le[hurin. Waste Trichlorcethylene ORM-A UN 1710 Nialk, Penn-a-Chlor Methyl Ethyl Ke[one• Methyl Ethyl Ketone. MEK. Methyl Waste Methyl Ethyl Ketone Flammable Liquid UN1193 Acetone. Meelco, Butanone, Ethyl _ Mclhyl KcMnc Chloruform• Chlorulnnn Waslc Chlowlorm ORM-A UN1888 Carbon Tetrachloride' Perchloromethune Tetraform. Carbons Waste Carbon Tetrachloride ORM-A UN1846 Halon 104 Hexachloroethane• Hexuchloroethane Waste Hcxachloroethane ORM-A NA9037 White Spirits, Varsol While Spirits, Mineral Spirits. Waste Naphtha Flammable Liquid UN?553 Naphtha I, 1,1-Trichloroclhane Acnahcne TT. Chlonen. Waste I,LI-Tri<hlomethanc ORM-A UN2831 Chlorcelhane. Methvl Chloroform. Alpha T. Chlorotene Petroleum llistillates Petroleum Distillates Waste Petroleum Disti llale Flammable Liyuid Combustible Liquid UN 1268 UN1268 ~ Table 2 c~on~rle~a> ~ Vehicle Maintenance Waste Descriptions' PAINT WASTES WITH HEAVY METALS Heavy Metal paints or paint sludges with: Lead' Nickcl• Chromium" OTHER WASTES Lead-Acid Batteries Used Oii Ignitable Waztes. NOS° Hazardous Wasu, NOS Hcavy Metal Paints Lead-Acid Batteries Names Various petroleum products Ignitable wastes Hazardous Wazte. Liquid or Solid. NOS't ORM-E NA9189 Lead Dmss (containing 39 or more free acid) ORM-C NA 1794 Waste Peroleum Oit, NOS Combustible Liquid NA 1270 Waste Petroleum OiI. NOS Flammable Liquid NA1270 Wazte Flammable Liquid. NOS Flammable Liquid UN1993 Wazte Combustible Liquid. NOS Combustible Liquid NA1993 Wazu Flammable Solid. NOS Flammable Solid UN1325 HazaMous Waste, Liquid or Solid, NOS ORM-E LIN9189 Toxicity Characteristic constituent. Any wazu maz results in a TCLP leachate containing a Toxicity Characuristic constituent equal to ar above regulatory levels is hazazdous. I These descriptions may change given variations in waste characteristics or conditions. Note that the DOT shipping name, hazard class, and I7NMA ID number do not necessarily cortespond to RCRA hazardous waste categories. 2 A flammable liquid has a flash point below 100°F. 3 A combustible liquid haz a Flash point between IIXI°F and 200°F. 4 NOS -Not otherwise specified. For further information call the RCRA/Superfund Hotline 1-800-424-9346 BEFORE THE MERIDTAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION HIINEMILLER and STUHR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT BRIDGEWOOD PARF SUBDIVISION MERIDIAN, IDAHO FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The above entitled matter having come on for public hearing January 12, 1993, at the hour of 7:30 o'clock p.m. Testi- mony was presented in favor of request, and also in opposition thereto. 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 1_ That a notice of public heazing on the Application for Rezone was published for two (2) consecutive weeks prior to the said public hearing scheduled for January 12, 1993, the first publication of which was fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing; that tkie public was given full opportunity to express comments and submit evidence; and that copies of all notices were avail- able to newspaper, radio and television stations. 2. That this property is located within the City of Meridian and is owned by Petitioner, HUNEMILLER and STUHR, and is described in the application which description is incorpor- ated herein. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - 1 3. That the property is zoned R-15 and the proposed use is proper and permitted in an R-15 zone. 4. That the applicants desire a conditional use Permit for said subdivision so as to allow for private streets within the subdivision, since the access to said subdivision is by private road. 5. That access to the subject property is by James Court Drive, a private road, an asphalt roadway 22 feet wide, and is a private road. 6. That an apartment complex,. known as James Court, borders the subject property on the west. That included in the Deed to the subject property, a 60 foot wide easement is reserved along the north side of the James Court property. However, an examination of the James Court premises clearly shows that the James Court property has been developed and constructed clear up to the south edge of the 22 foot roadway. Therefore, as a practical matter, any access to the subject property over and above the 22 foot roadway is not available. 7. That the development plan proposed by applicants does not provide for curbs and sidewalks within the subdivision_ 8. That city sewer and water is already available to the property, but the use may require additional charges or fees. 9. That notice was given to all property owners who are within 300 feet of the external boundaries of the land FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - 2 .~ being considered, and all property owners included within the property being considered. CONCLIISIONS OF LAW 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; including obtaining the consent of 75~ of the owners of property within 300 feet of the external boundaries of the applicant's property. 2. That the City of Meridian has authority to grant conditional uses pursuant to 67-6512, Idaho Code, and, pursuant to 11-2-418 of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian; and 3. That the City of Meridian has authority to place con- ditions on a conditional use permit and the use of property pur- suant 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 Ordin- ances 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: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLIISIONS OF LAW - 3 a. The use of private roads, would in fact, consti- tute a conditional use and a conditional use permit is required by ordinance. b. The use would be harmonious with and in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan but the Zoning Ordin- ance requires a conditional use permit to allow the use of private roads. c. The use appazently would be designed and constructed to be harmonious in appearance with the intended character of the general vicinity. d_ That the use would not be hazardous nor should it be disturbing to existing or future ne;ghboring uses. e. The property has sewer and water service available. f. The use would not create excessive additional requirements at public cost for public facilities and services and the use would not be detrimental, to the economic welfare of the community.' g. The use would not involve a use, activity, process, material, equipment or conditions of operation that would be detrimental to person, property or the general welfaze by reason of excessive production of traffic or noise. h. That sufficient pazking for the property and the proposed use will be required. That access to prop- erty, while minimum, is required. i. The development and uses will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural or scenic feature of major importance. 5. Curbs and sidewalks should be required in the sub- division. APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts and approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - 4 _~ ROLL CALL COMMISSIONER HEPPER COMMISSIONER ROUNTREE COMMISSIONER SHEARER COMMISSIONER ALIDJANI CHAIRMAN JOHNSON (TIE BREAKER) VOTED ~'(.~ ~ VOTEDE ( ~,Q.(n VOTED l/( VOTED ~(~-f VOTED 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 IIse Permit requested by the Applicant for the property described in the application with the condi- tions set forth in the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and that the property be required to meet the water and sewer requirements, the fire and life safety codes, and the Uniform Building Code, and other Ordinances of the City of Meridian. MOTION: APPROVED: Z~~ DISAPPROVED: Prepazed by: Jack C. Riddlemoser Attorney at Law Meridian, Idaho FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - 5 BEFORE THE MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION DAVID LEADER and JERRY P. RODMAN ANNERATION AND ZONING A PORTION OF THE SE 1/4 OF THE SW 14 OF SECTION 5, 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 January 12, 1993 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, Dave Leader, appearing in person 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 January 12, 1992, the first publication of which was fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing; that the matter was duly considered at the January 12, 1992, 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 FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 1 reference is incorporated herein; that the property is approximately 23.67 acres in size; it is north of Fairview Avenue, East of Locust Grove Road, and is adjacent to Dixie Lane. 3. That the property is presently zoned by the county as R- T (Rural Transition); that the Applicant requests that the property be zoned R-8 and stated that the use proposed would be for R-8 Residential development. 4. The general area surrounding the property is used agriculturally and residentially. 5. That the property is adjacent and abutting to the present City limits. 6. The Applicant, Jerry P. Rodman, is the owner of record of the property and he has requested this annexation and zoning. 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 requested to be annexed is 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; that the property is in or near the area designated in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan, Policy Diagram, as the NORTH CURVE, a Neighborhood; that it is difficult to tell where the NORTH CURVE Neighborhood ends and the Rural Residential Reserve adjacent thereto begins, as shown on the Meridian Policy Diagram on page 7 of the Comprehensive Plan; that Meridian has allowed a prior planned unit development east of the subject property; additionally there is property north of the subject property that FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 2 has been allowed to be developed as R-8 Residential which might be in the Residential Reserve Area adjacent to the North Curve Neighborhood. 9. As found above, the Application requested that the parcel be annexed and zoned R-8. The applicant has indicated that the intended development of the property is for an R-8 subdivision. 10. There were two people from the public testifying on the application; that one person's concern was over the use of Dixie Lane and the other person's concern was over access to his irrigation facilities and as to the use of Dixie Lane; they were not objecting to the application itself but were concerned over water for irrigation and traffic and use of Dixie Lane. 11. That in the Rural Area section of the Comprehensive Plan it does state that land in agricultural activity should so remain in agricultural activity -until it is no longer economical to exclude orderly growth and development to maintain agricultural pursuits. 12. 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. 13. That the property can be physically serviced with City water and sewer. 14. Ada County Highway District, the Meridian Fire Department, Central District Health Department, and Meridian City Engineer submitted comments and such shall be incorporated herein FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 3 as if set forth in full. 16. That the R-8, Residential District is described in the Zoning Ordinance, 11-2-408 B. 2 as follows: 2. (R-81 Medium Density Residential District: The purpose of the (R-8) Districts is to permit the establishment of jingle and two (2) family dwellings at a density not exceeding eight (8) dwelling units per acre. This district delineates those areas where such development has or is likely to occur in accord with the Comprehensive Plan of the City and is also designed to permit the conversion of large homes into two (2) family dwellings in well- established neighborhoods of comparable land use. Connection to the Municipal Water and Sewer systems of the City of Meridian is required. 17. That the rightful and lawful use of Dixie Lane was not shown. 18. That there have been other subdivisions in the area that have been zoned R-8 but have had a condition, on annexation, that no duplexes be constructed within the subdivision. 19. That proper notice was given as required by law and all procedures before the Planning and Zoning Commission were given and followed. CONCLUSIONS 1. That all the procedural requirements of the Local Planning Act and of the Ordinances of the City of Meridian have been met; including the mailing of notice to owners of property within 300 feet of the external boundaries of the Applicant's property. 2. That the City of Meridian has authority to annex land pursuant to 50-222, Idaho Code, and Section 11-2-417 of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian; that exercise of FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 4 C the City's annexation authority is a Legislative function. 3. That the Planning and Zoning Commission has judged this annexation and zoning use application under Idaho Code, Section 50- 222, Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code, the Meridian City Ordinances, Meridian Comprehensive Plan, as amended, and the record submitted to it and things of which it can take judicial notice. 4. That all notice and hearing requirements set forth in Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code, and the Ordinances of the City of Meridian have been complied with. 5. That the 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, owner of the property, 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. 9. That the development of annexed land must meet and comply with the Ordinances of the City of Meridian and the Meridian Comprehensive Plan; that since the property is included in the NORTH CURVE Neighborhood, or is adjacent thereto, and the City has approved other residential development in similar positions as the FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 5 present land, it is concluded that the application is in conformance with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. 10. That the property shall be subject to Site Planning Review and the Subdivision and Development Ordinance. 11. That the lawful and rightful use of Dixie Lane shall be established by the Applicant and/or the subject property and such shall be provided to the City prior to any final action. 12. That all ditches, canals, and waterways shall have to be tiled as a condition of annexation and if not so tiled the property shall be subject to de-annexation. 13. That the requirements of the irrigation district, Ada County Highway District, and City Engineer shall be met. 14. With compliance of the conditions contained herein, the annexation and zoning would be in the best interest of the City of Meridian. 15. Therefore, based on the Application, the testimony and evidence, the Meridian Comprehensive Plan, the above Findings of Fact and Conclusions, and the Ordinances of the City of Meridian, it is ultimately concluded that Applicant's property should be annexed. 16. The conditions shall be those stated above, that the Applicant meet the Subdivision and Development Ordinances, and any other conditions to be explored and established at the City Council level; that as with other R-8 developments in the area, an additional condition is that there shall be no duplexes constructed in any subdivision developed on the land. FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 6 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) VOTED 'eft' ~ G-~ VOTED VOTED VOTED-~ VOTED DECISION AND RECOMtdENDATION 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 of Law for the property described in the application with the conditions set forth in the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and that the Applicants 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 development time requirements and the conditions of these Finds and Conclusions and that if the conditions are not met that the property be de-annexed. MOTION: APPROVED DISAPPROVED: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PAGE 7 BEFORE THE MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION WARREN and ANNA DAVENPORT & DEVELOPMENT GROUP ANNEXATION AND ZONING A PORTION OF THE E. 1/2 OF THE N.E. 1/4 OF SECTION 24, T.3 N., R.1 W., B.M. MERIDIAN, IDAHO FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The above entitled annexation and zoning application having 3 come on for consideration on January 12, 199, 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 Council having heard and taken oral and written testimony and the Applicants appearing through their engineer, Gary Lee, 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 January 12, 1992, the first publication of which was fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing; that the matter was duly considered at the January 12, 1992, 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 • i approximately 15.53 acres in size; it is south of the southwest quadrant of the intersection of Meridian-Kuna Highway and Overland Road. 3. That the property is presently zoned by the county as R- T (Rural Transition); that the Applicant requests that the property be zoned R-8 and stated that the use proposed would be for R-8 Residential. 4. The general area surrounding the property is used agriculturally and residentially; that the property to the north is used commercially; that there is R-4 residential property to the east across the Meridian/Kuna Highway. 5. That the property is adjacent and abutting to the present City limits. 6. The Applicant, Warren and Anna Davenport are the owners of record of the property and they have requested this annexation and zoning. 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 requested to be annexed is not 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; that there is a pending application by the City of Meridian to change the U.S.P.A.; that the property would be included in the U.S.P.A. as changed by the current proposed amendment; that the property is included within the area designated in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan, Policy Diagram, as South Gate, a Rural Residential Reserve Area; that under the Comprehensive Plan, at page 25, it states that property outside the U.S.P.A. and in a Rural Residential Reserve area may not have more than one dwelling per net five acres; that under the RURAL AREAS section of the Comprehensive Plan, at page 39, it states: "Within the Urban Service Planning Area development may occur in densities as low as 4 dwelling units p[er acre if physical connection is made to existing City of Meridian water and sewer services and the property is platted and subdivided in accordance with Ada County Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances Policy."; that the County Ordinances would not be applicable if annexed. 9. As found above the Application requested that the parcel be annexed and zoned R-8. The applicant has indicated that the intended development of the property is for an R-8 subdivision and the Applicant has submitted a proposed preliminary plat. 10. There was one property owner, William Howell, in the immediate area that testified regarding the application; he was not objecting to the application but wanted it to be known that his business was located on the adjacent property before any development of the subject property; he testified that he owned about eight acres and the present business only occupied one acre; that he has plans to develop the remainder of the property; he also questioned how the subject property would be graded to mesh with his property. 11. That the property is in the SOUTH GATE Rural Residential Reserve as set forth in Policy Diagram in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan; that under Housing Development on, page 25 and 26 of the Comprehensive Plan, property inside the Urban Service Planning Area but outside the City limits, may not be developed at greater densities than one dwelling unit per acres; if the property was annexed, it would not necessarily be limited by the one dwelling per five acres restriction; but it is the policy that a density of greater than ] dwelling unit per 5 acres may not be exceeded outside of the Urban Service Planning Area. 12. That property outside the Urban Service Planning Area, but within the Area of Impact, may be annexed and developed but only at densities allowed, which would be one dwelling unit per five acres.. 13. That in the Rural Area section of the Comprehensive Plan it does state that land in agricultural activity should so remain in agricultural activity until it is no longer economical to exclude orderly growth and development to maintain agricultural pursuits. 14. 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. 15. That the property can be physically serviced with City water and sewer but since it is outside the U.S.P.A.; the U.S.P.A. must be amended for the City to legally provide water and sewer service and other urban services. 16. Ada County Highway District, the Nampa Meridian Irrigation District, and the City Engineer submitted comments and such shall be incorporated herein as if set forth in full. 17. That the R-8, Residential District is described in the Zoning Ordinance, 11-2-408 B. 2 as follows: "(R-8) Medium Density Residential District: The purpose of the (R-8) Districts is to permit the establishment of single and two (2) family dwellings at a density not exceeding eight (8) dwelling units per acre. This district delineates those areas where such development has or is likely to occur in accord with the Comprehensive Plan of the City and is also designed to permit the conversion of large homes into two (2) family dwellings in well-established neighborhoods of comparable land use. Connection to the Municipal Water and Sewer systems of the City of Meridian is required." 18. That the R-4, Residential District is described in the Zoning Ordinance, 11-2-408 B. 1 as follows: (R-41 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 predominately residential development has, or is likely to occur in accord with the Comprehensive Plan of the City, and to protect the integrity of residential areas by prohibiting the intrusion of incompatible non-residential uses. Only Single Family Dwellings shall be permitted and no conditional uses shall be permitted except for Planned Residential Development and public schools. The (R-4) District allows for a maximum of four (4) dwelling units per acre and requires connection to the Municipal Water and Sewer systems of the City of Meridian.That the Applicant stated in the Application that Applicant intends to have a density of about 3.80 dwelling units per acre. 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 proper notice was given as required by law and all procedures before the Planning and Zoning Commission were given and followed. CONCLUSIONS 1. That all the procedural requirements of the Local Planning Act and of the Ordinances of the City of Meridian have been met; including the mailing of notice to owners of property within 300 feet of the external boundaries of the Applicant's property. 2. That the City of Meridian has authority to annex land pursuant to 50-222, Idaho Code, and Section 11-2-417 of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian; that exercise of the City's annexation authority is a Legislative function. 3. That the Planning and Zoning Commission has judged this annexation and zoning use application under Idaho Code, Section 50- 222, Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code, the Meridian City Ordinances, Meridian Comprehensive Plan, as amended, and the record submitted to it and things of which it can take judicial notice. 4. That all notice and hearing requirements set forth in Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code, and the Ordinances of the City of Meridian have been complied with. 5. That the 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, owners of the property, 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. 9. That the development of annexed land must meet and comply with the Ordinances of the City of Meridian and the Meridian Comprehensive Plan; that since the property is included in that area in the Comprehensive Plan known as SOUTH GATE, a Rural Residential Reserve Area, the Rural Areas policies of the Comprehensive Plan apply; that the rural areas policy is that property not occur in densities be low four dwelling units per acre even when connected to Meridian City water and sewer; that since the subject property is not in the U.S.P.A., the property cannot presently be provided with water and sewer service; that before development can occur, at -any density, the Applicant will either be required to request, and receive, an amendment to the Urban Service Planning Area or wait until the City application to amend the Urban Service Planning Area, amending the U.S.P.A. to include the subject land in the U.S.P.A., is passed, approved and adopted by ordinance; the land will not be able to be zoned R-8, as requested, due to the limitation contained in the Rural Areas policies unless an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan is adopted and approved removing the Rural Residential Reserve designation for the area the land is contained in; that even though the land apparently is designed to have less density than four dwelling units per acre, the lot sire requirements of the R-8 district allow smaller lots with less street frontage than do the R-4 requirements, which is part of the reason for the R-4 requirement, which is part of the reason for the R-4 designation. 10. That it is stated on page 39 of the Comprehensive Plan as follows: "Residential development is allowed in the rural areas provided that said development does not exceed the Rural Residential Agricultural density, unless it is inside an Urban Service Planning Area and City sewer and water is provided, then Low, Medium and High density may be considered. All residential development must also comply with the other appropriate section of the plan."; that it is concluded that law density lots, with larger lot size and dimensions, is appropriate south of Overland Road since the other subdivisions south of Overland Road are zoned R-4. 11. If the Applicant requests, and receives, an amendment to Meridian Comprehensive Plan to change the Rural Residential Reserve designation of the area where the Applicant's property is located and the property is included in the U.S.P.A., Applicant then could be annexed and zoned low density residential; this conclusion is made to inform the Applicant what would be necessary to approve his application, not to indicate that the Commission would necessarily approve such a request. 12. Upon amendment to the U.S.P.A. and the Comprehensive Plan, the Applicant would be required to connect to Meridian water and sewer; that the property would be subject to Site Planning Review and the Subdivision and Development Ordinance. 12. Therefore, based on the Application, the testimony and evidence, the Meridian Comprehensive Plan, these Findings of Fact and Conclusions, and the Ordinances of the City of Meridian, it is ultimately concluded that Applicant's property could be annexed. Land must be zoned at the time of annexation but the zone requested would be in violation of the Rural Residential Reserve requirements of the Comprehensive Plan and therefore the land cannot be zoned. Since the land cannot be zoned, annexation is not appropriate. If the Applicant does not consent to having the Application postponed to determine whether the land will be included in the Urban Service Planning Area, it is recommended that the Application be denied. 14. If the land is ultimately included in the Urban Service Planning Area and the Rural Residential Reserve designation is changed for the area that Applicant's land is located, the conditions should be those stated above and upon issuance of final platting and other conditions to be explored at the City Council level; with appropriate amendments, annexation would be orderly development and reasonable if the conditions are met. 15. That all ditches, canals, and waterways would have to be tiled as a condition of annexation and if not so tiled the property shall be subject to de-annexation. 16. That the requirements of the irrigation district, Ada County Highway District, and City Engineer shall be met. 17. With compliance of the conditions contained herein, the annexation and zoning would be in the best interest of the City of Meridian. 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 COMMISSIONER HEPPER VOTED~_ COMMISSIONER ROUNTREE VOTED COMMISSIONER SHEARER VOTED COMMISSIONER ALIDJANI VOTED CHAIRMAN JOHNSON (TIE BREAKER) VOTED '~ DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council of the City of Meridian that if the property is included in the Urban Service Planning Area and the designation of the Rural Residential Reserve is removed from the Comprehensive Plan where applicants' property is located, that they approve the annexation but at a zoning of R-4 or less; that the conditions set forth in the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and compliance with the Ordinance of the City of Meridian shall be met; that the owner be requested to allow the Application to be postponed until the Urban Service Planning Area and Comprehensive Plan issues of the Rural Residential Reserve are resolved and if the consent is not given, that the Application be denied. MOTION: APPROVED: DISAPPROVED: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PAGE 10 BEFORE THE MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION WESTSIDE BIBLE CHAPEL and DENNIS HICKS ANNEXATION AND ZONING AND CONDITIONAL USE A PORTION OF THE SE 1/4 OF THE SW 14 OF SECTION 5 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 3 come on for consideration on January 12, 199,x, 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 Jim Boyd 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 January 12, 1992, the first publication of which was fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing; that the matter was duly considered at the January 12, 1992, 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 and conditional use is described in the FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 1 application, and by this reference is incorporated herein; that the property is approximately 9.4 acres in size; it is north of Fairview Avenue, East of Locust Grove Road, and is adjacent to Dixie Lane, a private road. 3. That the property is presently zoned by the county as R- T (Rural Transition); that the Applicant requests that the southerly 125 feet of the westerly 230 feet of the property be zoned Community Commercial (CC) and the balance of the property zoned General retail and Service Commercial. 4. The general area surrounding the property is used agriculturally and residentially; that recently property to the east of the subject property was annexed and zoned and is planned for a planned unit development, but the subject property is not adjacent to this property; the owners of the property to the north and east of the subject property, David Leader and Jerry P. Rodman, have applied for annexation and that application was also heard by the Commission on January 12, 1993; that if the Leader/Rodman parcel is not annexed the subject parcel will not be contiguous to the city limits of Meridian. 5. That the property is only adjacent and abutting to the present City limits if the Leader/Rodman parcel is annexed. 6. The Applicants, Jerry P. Rodman and Dennis Hicks, are not the titled owners of the subject parcel; that the parcel is owned by the Turner Family Partnership and it has consented to the application for annexation and zoning. 7. That the property included in the annexation and zoning FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 2 application is within the Area of Impact of the City of Meridian. 8. That the parcel of ground requested to be annexed is 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; that the property is in or near the area designated in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan, Policy Diagram, as the NORTH CURVE, a Neighborhood; that it may be in the Residential Reserve Area that is next to the North Curve Neighborhood on the east; that it is difficult to tell where the NORTH CURVE Neighborhood ends and the Rural Residential Reserve, adjacent thereto, begins, as shown on the Meridian Policy Diagram on page 7 of the Comprehensive Plan; that Neighborhood is defined in the Comprehensive Plan as follows: "The neighborhood is a residential area with uniform characteristics of a size comparable to that usually served by an elementary school or a small business convenience center or a local park. Although neighborhoods occur in various shapes and sizes, a section of the city measuring one-half or one-and-one-half miles across is usually used for planning purposes. It has facilities within easy walking distances and provides the basis for community identification."; that the property is either in the North Curve Neighborhood or it is in the Residential Reserve Area adjacent to the east. 9. That the Policy Diagram is addressed at page 6 of the Comprehensive Plan; that it states in part as follows: "The Policy Diagram is to be used as a general guide for land use decision-making----not as a legalistic, literal and definitive map. As applications and proposals of land uses are submitted, the Policy Diagram is not intended to be used as the sole, authoritative means for decision-making. Rather, it is but one of the many tools which are available for public officials as they exercise their responsibility regarding the health, safety and welfare of the general public." FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 3 10. The property has an existing 23,850 square foot building located thereon; that the tenants in the building are retail/commercial uses except for the New Hope Christian Church; the proposed uses of the building will be the same continued uses except that the Westside Bible Chapel will use the southerly portion of the building which has been requested to be zoned Community Commercial with a conditional use permit for the operation of the church; that the present uses are either conforming uses allowed as grandfathered uses to the Ada County Zoning Ordinance. 11. There was no oral testimony from persons other than the Applicant at the hearing but there was a letter received from Harry Jensen that stated that he had no objection to the annexation but felt that the sewer needed to be extended. 12. That in the Rural Area section of the Comprehensive Plan it does state that land in agricultural activity should so remain in agricultural activity until it is no longer economical to exclude orderly growth and development to maintain agricultural pursuits. 13. That Meridian has, and is, experiencing a population increase; that there are pressures on land previously used for agricultural uses to be developed. 14. That the property can be physically serviced with City water and sewer. 15. Ada County Hichway District, the Meridian Fire Department, Central District Health Department, City Zoning FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 4 Administrator, and Meridian City Engineer submitted comments and such shall be incorporated herein as if set forth in full. 16. That the Community Business District is defined as follows: "(C-C) Community Business District: The purpose of the (C-C) District is to permit the establishment of general business uses that are of a larger scale than a neighborhood business, and to encourage the development of modern shopping centers with adequate off-street parking facilities, and associated site amenities to serve area residents and employees; to prohibit strip commercial development and encourage the clustering of commercial enterprises. All such districts shall have direct access to a transportation arterial and collector and be connected to the Municipal Water and Sewer systems of the City of Meridian." 17. That the General Retail and Service Commercial District is defined as follows: "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." 18. That proper notice was given as required by law and all procedures before the Planning and Zoning Commission were given and followed. CONCLUSIONS 1. That all the procedural requirements of the Local Planning Act and of the Ordinances of the City of Meridian have been met, including the mailing of notice to owners of property within 300 feet of the external boundaries of the Applicant's FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 5 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 use application under Idaho Code, Section 50- 222, Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code, the Meridian City Ordinances, Meridian Comprehensive Plan, as amended, and the record submitted to it and things of which it can take judicial notice. 4. That all notice and hearing requirements set forth in Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code, and the Ordinances of the City of Meridian have been complied with. 5. That the 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 would be contiguous to the present City limits of the City of Meridian if the annexation of Leader/Hicks property is approved and the property would then be contiguous and annexation would not be a shoestring annexation. 7. That the annexation application has been initiated by the Applicant, with the consent of the owner of the property, 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 FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUS?ONS OF LAW Page - 6 upon the annexation of land. 9. That the development of annexed land must meet and comply with the Ordinances of the City of Meridian and the Meridian Comprehensive Plan; that since the property is included in either the NORTH CURVE Neighborhood or the Residential Reserve Area adjacent thereto on the east, the annexation thereof would be in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan but the requested zoning would and the conditional use would not be; that a comprehensive plan change would be necessary to allow the use of the property in a community commercial or general retail and service commercial fashion. 10. That the uses in the building on the property may be allowed to continue under 11-2-406 E. but if they did not continue to meet the requirements of that section or they were discontinued or abandoned after a year those uses could not be re-instituted; that it is also concluded that because the present uses would be "grandfathered" to be lawful non-conforming uses, they could not be transferred or conveyed. 11. It is concluded that property must be zoned when it is annexed; that since the requested zoning would not be in compliance with Meridian Comprehensive Plan, that the application should be denied or tabled until a Comprehensive Plan amendment is pursued by the Applicant which would allow the requested zoning; the amendment would have to approved by the Meridian City Council. 12. That if the property is ultimately annexed all ditches, canals, and waterways would have to be tiled as a condition of FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 7 annexation and if not so tiled the property shall be subject to de- annexation. 13. That if the property is ultimately annexed and zoned the requirements of the irrigation district, Ada County Highway District, and City Engineer would have to be met. 14. If a Comprehensive Plan amendment is pursued and adopted, and with compliance of the conditions contained herein, the annexation and zoning would be in the best interest of the City of Meridian. 15. Therefore, based on the Application, the testimony and evidence, the Meridian Comprehensive Plan, the above Findings of Fact and Conclusions, and the Ordinances of the City of Meridian, it is ultimately concluded that Applicant's property should be either denied or tabled to allow the Applicant to pursue a Comprehensive Plan amendment to allow the desired zoning. 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 COMMISSIONER HEPPER COMMISSIONER ROUNTREE COMMISSIONER SHEARER COMMISSIONER ALIDJANI CHAIRMAN JOHNSON (TIE BREAKER) VOTED VOTED ~- VOTED VOTED VOTED FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 8 .. DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council of the City of Meridian that they deny or table the application until a Comprehensive Plan amendment is approved which would allow the zoning requested by the applicant. MOTION: APPROVED:~~I~~ DISAPPROVED: FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 9 ~ ~~~~a~~ ~~_ ~ ~' >>~~~ .~~ ~:~.~ `~~~~- ~~6~~ ,~~. ~>~ ~~~~~~ • ~~ ~ ~,~ ~ . ~~ ~~~~ L ~ '{f~c~C-rc C ~~ ~ ~~C ~ GfiL~ /? ~ ~ ~ ~ c~ c~~ ~~~ ~~ ~~~ ~ ~. -~~~ , U ~~ . ~~~~3