Loading...
1982 06-14• A G E N D A MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING June 14, 1982 ITEM: Minutes of the previous meeting held May 10, 1982 APPROVED 1. PUBLIC HEARING: Irene Morrison, 1531 Tana Drive APPROVED Conditional Use - Beauty Salon 2. PUBLIC HEARING: Igcust Grove-East Pine Annexation First Church of Christ APPROVED 3. PUBLIC HEARING: Barbara Nesmith - REZONE TO "C" Limited Office 121, 129 and 137 East Pine Street WITHDRAWN 4. QUONCr-FIIITKINS - Input regarding Comprehensive Plan Amendment INPUT .J Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission June 14,1982 Regular Planning and Zoning Meeting called to order by Annette Hinrichs, Chairman at 8:08 P. M. h1embers present: Lee Mitchell; Don Sharp; Bob Spencer Burl Pipkin,& Tom Eddy: Absent Others present: Don Smith; Steve Moore; Bob Hinkle; Betty Bischoff; Paul Quong; Jim Potter; Barbara Nesmith; Kassie Jones; Grant Jones; R.D. Bischoff; Debby Kennedy; Jim Kennedy; James W. Kiser; Bruce P1cDonald; Cathy Hammons; Dave Lewis; Russel Johnson; Coenraad Abas; Ed Bews; Art Davis; Wayne Crookston The Motion was made by Lee Mitchell and seconded by Bob Spencer that the minutes of the previous meeting held May 10, 1982 be approved as written. h1otion Carried: All Yea Agenda 1 PUBLIC HEARING: Irene Morrison, 1531 Tana Drive, Request for Conditional Use Permit, Beauty Salon James Kennedy, 1531 Tana Drive, was present representing the request for Conditional Use Permit fora Beauty Salon by Irene Morrison. His wife has previously run the shop at 1531 Tana Drive for the past 4 1/2 years. Annette Hinrichs: "The Public Hearing is now open for the request of a Conditional Use Permit fora Beauty Salon by Irene Morrison at 1531 Tana Drive." Kennedy: "I have talked to all the neighbors and they are all very much in favor of the continuation of the Beauty Salon." Lee Pitchell: "Is this still a one chair operation?" Kennedy: "Yes." Mitchell: "And thats the way it is still intended to be?" Kennedy: "Right." Mitchell: "Do we have to have the Neighbors sign again?" LaWana Niemann, City Clerk: "They did, Mr. Mitchell, they have signed again." Don Sharp: "Will there be any change in the sign? I noticed that there is a sign up." Kennedy: "The name of the Shop? Possibly. I'm not sure if she wants to change the name or not." Pinrichs: "Our concern is not the name, it's that we don't get a garrish, unattractive sign." Kennedy: "We can convey to her (hlorrison) that if a different sign is up that it must be a like kind." Annette Hinrichs: "Are there any comments or questions from the public on the Conditional Use Permit for a Beauty Salon at 1531 Tana Drive?" There was no response. Hinrichs: "Hearing Closed." The Motion was made by Lee Mitchell and seconded by Don Sharp that the Commission recommend to the City Council approval of a Conditional Use Permit to Irene Morrison, 1531 Tana Drive, P~leridian, Idahq,for a Beauty Salon, one chair operation, all codes to be met, with a like existing sign." Motion Carried: A71 Yea f P+leridian Planning and Zoning Commission 2. Agenda 2 PUBLIC HEARING: Locust Grove-East Pine Annexation Request first Church of Christ 4, 1982 Annette Hinrichs: "The Public Hearing is now open for the request of Annexation locust Grove-East Pine, by the First Church of Christ, to be Zoned "D" Industrial" Don Smith, Chairman of the Board of Elders, First Church of Christ was present representing the request for annexation. Smith: "We are applying for annexation for the advantage of making the property more marketable. We wish to sell the propertyii's been on the market for about a year. That is our sole purpose. We purchased this property in 1977 with the intention of building a Church on that corner.. This was prior to the Comprehensive Planning that came out and said that that property was going to be industrial, a commercial site. We at that time started searching for another property and we found another piece of property out on Cherry Lane West of Linder. Before we have plans to proceed with the Church building out there, and it's all ready to go, as soon as we find a buyer for this piece of property. That is our purpose for annexation into the City, to make the property more marketable, and possibly divide the property into two parcels if a buyer came along and wanted less property." Annette Hinrichs: "Do they (First Church of Christ) have a copy of the comments?" Laldana fJiemann, City Clerk: "Yes." Hinrichs: "I would be concerned that whomeverr bought it (the property) would be aware of all the requirements as far as sewer lines and such things, that they would have to provide all that." Smith: "Yes." Annette Hinrichs: "Are there any comments or questions from the public concerning this request for annexation of Locust Grove-East Pine, to be Zoned "D" Industrial 5.5 acres?" There was no response. Hinrichs: "Hearing Closed." The Motion was made by Don Sharp and seconded by Lee Mit recommend to the City Council approval of the request by for annexation, Locust Grove-East Pine, 5.5 acres, Zoned the requirements as stated, with design review, and also in the Planning & Zonging Commission's opinion that this with the Comprehensive Plan." Potion Carried: All Yea shell that the Commission the First Church of Christ, "D" Industrial., subject to advise the City Council that annexation is in compliance Agenda 3 PUBLIC HEARING: Barbara Nesmith - Rezone to "C" Commercial, Limited Office 121, 129 and 137 East Pine Street Annette Hinrichs: "Public Hearing Barbara Nesmith Rezone to "C" Limited Office 121, 129 and 137 East Pine Street is now open." Barbara Nesmith was present representing her request of rezone to "C" Limited Office 121, 129 and 137 East Pine Street. Nesmith: "This property is located in a block that is all commercial except for these three properties. The middle property has been used for about 19 years as a Chiropractor office, the corner house was used as a real estate office for about a year. Right now two of the properties are rented as residences, the middle property is empty. The reason that I am requesting this rezone is so that I can assure a renter that they could go ahead and use it as office space such as an accounting firm, insurance office or something on that order. In order to rent the middle property as a residence it would have to be totally remodeled. It has rear parking. Not to long ago I rented the middle property to a sales firm, not realizing that there would be a parking problem. I did not realize how extensively they had their salesmen come into the office. It did present a problem for the neighbors. When I was made aware of this I evicted these renters." Planning and Zoning Commission 3. June 14, 1982 Agenda 3 Cont'd Public Hearing - Rezone Barbara Nesmith 121, 129 and 137 East Pine . Nesmith: "Since that time that business has divided, and they have asked if they could come back and I have said "No". I would be careful that no business would come in that would take up parking space for the neighbors that live in the vicinity." Don Sharp: "Have you read the comment sheets?" Nesmith: "Yes, but I don't know if I understand them." Hinrichs: "Did you see the requirements for remodeling and for street repair and all the building codes?" Nesmith: "I don't really understand that." Sharp: "Who could or would be in the position to explain all this?" LaWana Niemann, City Clerk: "It's recommendation, it's all recommendations made by Ada County Highway, that they would want all that improved at the time." PJesmith: "If it were to be rezoned?" Hinrichs: "Yes. It looks like that if you want to rezone it would be major remodeling, rebuilding, and you would have to have the buildings inspected, and remodeled to the U'BC Code Requirements, which our Building Inspector could help you with. Ada County Highway District would required that you replace all broken and uneven sections of sidewalk, all broken curb sections, and provide a pedestrian ramp on the South-West corner of the intersection of Second Street and Pine." Nesmith: "Under those circumstances I think that I might as well drop it.(the request)" Hinrichs: "It sounds like a major undertaking." Mitchell: "It would be taxed at a different level too. If you rezone to commercial the tax would probably more than double." Nesmith: "I don't believe it (the request) would be feasible." Hinrichs: "You wish to withdraw your request?" Nesmith: "Yes." LaWana Niemann, City Clerk: "On our records of f~1rs. Nesmith's Conditional Ilse, on 129 E Pine, it was not just a Conditional Use fora Doctor or Lawyer or anything specific, it was granted as a Conditional Use for offices. That is how it is worded I checked back. As that Conditional Use is worded, and granted for a limited office, could she, as long as she kept this limited office, and controled the parking, could she ask fora variance? Could she come in and just speak without having to have a Public Hearing on every request?" Nesmith: "I did have an insurance office was lookiny at it just recently, and I just wander if I have to come in each time for approval. That ties the property up for two months without rent. I do have a Conditional Use for office, and it doesn't designate what type of an office." Don Sharp: "I would suggest that you visit with Wayne Crookston (City Attorney) about that." Hinrichs: "Then we will withdraw the request and you should check with our Attorney on the Conditional Use Permit already granted." Hinrichs: "The Public Hearing is Closed because the request has been withdrawn." Agenda 4 Input regarding Comprehensive Plan Amendment - Quong-Watkins Hinrichs: "We are now going to have a discussion, not an official hearing, I see that our Attorney 6Jayne Crookston is here. Wayne, may I turn it over to you, and would you explain, so that it doesn't have to come through me, and so nothing gets confused, would you explain our problem." Wayne Crookston, City Attorney: "The problem that I foresaw when I started doing my research on this, I started to do the research particularly about the Quong-Watkins Annexation, and then some questions arose to the plan amendments. They really are two distinct ideas. I guess the easiest way to explain why I recommended that they (The City Council) send both items back to you (The Planning & Zoning Commission), is to start with the Plan Admendments and the procedure that it followed in there, which is 6509 (Idaho State Code.)" f4eridian Planning and Zoning Commission 4. June 14, 1982 Agenda 4 Cont'd Input regarding Comprehensive Plan Amendment - Quong-6•Jatkins. . ~~ Wayne Crookston, City Attorney, Cont d: First of all, I would say that under the Admendment procedure that you have in your comprehensive plan you followed, the problem is that the Comprehensive Plan Amendnlant procedure does not, in my thinking, take into consideration everything that is required under 6509, as far as procedure is concerned." Mr. Crookston passed out a copy of 6509 (Idaho State Code) to the members of the Commission. Crookston: "If you will read 6509 it relates to the adoption, admendment, and repeal of the Comprehensive Plan. It requires one public hearing after at least 15 days prior notice of the hearing, and it says basically, the second to the last sentence in the first paragraph, "Following the commission hearing, if the commission makes a material change in the plan, further notice and hearing shall be provided before the commission forwards the plan with its recommendation to the governing board." The key words in that sentence are "Following the first commission hearing, if the commission makes a material change in the plan", it doesn't say a material change in the admendment, it doesn't say a material change in the proposal, it says "the plan". Going on, the same idea is followed for the City Council. In sub-paragraph B, you will find the sentence approximately six sentences down, again starts "Following the hearing of the governing board," speaking of the City Council, "if the governing board makes a material change in the plan, further notice and hearing shall be provided before the governing board adopts the plan." So, the question came up in my mind as to whether or not that the changes that you have made are material changes. It should be pointed out that the decision as to whether or not they are material is that particular body before which the change is pending. I think that it is your decision whether or not you made a material change at your level, and it is the City Council's decision if a material change has been made at their level. The changes that you have made in the plan, basically you have made some changes to relate to I-84, and you made some changes to reflect the changes in the Library name, and some minor changes like that. You also have deleted from the Urban Service Planning Area a portion that had been designated as Southgate, and you also extended the Urban Service Planning Area to the East from Eagle Road to half way to Cloverdale. So the question on the changes that you have made, .whether or not any of those changes are material changes. So I recommended to the City Council, because that was not addressed, that it come back to you on the planning to decided whether or not those are material changes. So that's why I recommended that the Plan come back to the Planning & Zoning, the Plan Admendments come back for further consideration to decide whether or not you had made material changes. If you do decide that you have made material changes, then you are required to have an additional hearing. 4Jhere you're at now is that you have to decide whether or not those changes that you have made are material, if they are not then you can send it back to the City Council, but if they are, you have to hold another hearing, after the hearing make your recommendations, and then send it back to City Council." Lee Mitchell: "We trade the same amount of City blocks, would that be considered a material change or not a material change? In your opinion. If we have ten blocks we want to cut off here and add over here, is that a material change?" Crookston: "Material change is certainly a phrase that is subject to semantic argument, but I believe first of all whether or not you have a material change is to your discression. But I think that in light of some other language, in the Local Planning Act .which specifically relates to changing a bounddary in a zoning district requires additional notice over and above just the publications. So I think that boundary changes, I think that there is a good argument that a boundary change is material. Lee, to answer your question, if you take ten blocks let's say off the North, and move-it to the South, or just shift, I think that you have to look at what is going on in the ten blocks on the North, that may be a material change in its self, or it may not be. Then you have to look to the part to the South. But just transfering, I don't think that that takes it out being material. Both the deletion of the ten blocks on the North may be material, and adding the South may not be, or vice-versa. It depends on what you are doing in the area, and what is going to be allowed there." Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission 5. June 14, 1982 Agenda 4 Cont'd Input regarding Comprehensive Plan Amendment - Quong-Watkins . Lee Mitchell: "But on the boundary, there is no question there?" Crookston: "I think there is always question. But I think that boundary changes are significant." Bob Spencer: "Wayne, in your opinion what does the wording "further notice of hearing" mean? Does that mean one hearing or as many hearings as its takes for us to decide ...." Crookston: "I think that at a minimum the language "further notice of hearing" requires at least one hearing with the prior notice the same as is sugested in the first part of that paragraph, (6509). I think that you have to follow the same guidelines that are outlined in that. Every time the Local Planning Act refers to a notice and hearing, they do not specify in that section. In 6511 it says "that you may reject the ordinance amendement under the notice and hearing procedures provided in section 67-6509." In special use permits and conditions which is secion 6512 it says that "As part of a zoning ordinance each governing board may provided by ordinance adopted, amended, or repealed in accordance with the notice and hearing procedures provided under section 67-6509." In section 6513, Subdivision ordinances adopted pursuant to procedures in 67-6509. The entire Local Planning Act refers back to this section. If it's a material change, you may have to have two hearings." Mitchell: "Annexations that are 10 feet out of the Comprehensive Plan, would be the same thing then? It would be a material change to the plan." Crookston: "It might not be a material change, that's the grey area." Hinrichs: "That's the crux. If you look at our old policy diagram, Upland goes beyond our borders, but Quong-Watkins doesn't go out that far. Most of Quong- Watkins is in. Upland takes a half mile out." Hinrichs: (Addressing Mr. Quong) "11ow much land do you have East of Eagle?" Quong: "It goes over about 2,000 feet." Mitchell: "That's about 3/4 of a mile." Hinrichs: "So that's about the same as Upland. So that part of it would be out of the policy diagram, but the Southern part of the annexation would be in." Hinrichs: (Addressing Crookston) "What was published was notice of the hearing that is was amendment to the Comprehensive Plan and that the specifics were available at City. Hall." Crookston: "I think that any time you put the specifics are mailable at City Hall that takes care of that." Mitchell: "Is there any thing else we have missed then, besides the material cYiange in the boundary?" Crookston: "Not that I am aware of, Lee. I think that the position that you are in now, is that you have had the first meeting that is required. My basic idea is that you go back to where you left off, if we would have followed the procedure that I am recommending initially." Crookston: "The second idea is the Quong-Watkins annexation itself. The reason that I recommended that it be sent back to Planning and Zoning, and the hearing be cancelled, is outlined in 6525 (Idaho Code). "Prior to annexation of an unincorporated area, a city council shall request and receive a recommendation from the planning and zoning commission, or the planning commission and the zoning commission, on the proposed plan and zoning ordinance changes for the unincorporated area. Each commission and the city council shall follow the notice and hearing procedures provided in section 67-6509, Idaho Code. Concurrently or immediately following the adoption of an ordinance of annexation, the City council shall amend the plan and zoning ordinance." The reason that I feel that I recommend to the Council, and the reason that I feel that they went along with my recommendation, was that in your recommendation on the Quong-Watkins Annexation, there was no mention of any changes in the Comprehensive Plan, as a result of Quong-Watkins Annexation. I think that there has to be some mention made. So then the question becomes, what plan are you operating under? Are you operating under the original plan, or are you operating under the plan as you had amended it prior to the recommendation on the Quong-Watkins Annexation. You have to, in your recommendations, include some reference to changes in the Plan. To me that reference can be that "We recommend annexation for parcel A. Because of parcel A's annexation, we are recommending the following changes in the Comprehensive Plan conditions 1,2,3,4,5 „ and the following changes in the Zoning . June 14, 1982 da 4 Cont'd Input regarding Comprehensive Plan Amendment - Quong-Watkins . Crookston Cont'd: "... Ordinance with conditions 1,2,3,4,5:' Or you have no changes in the Comprehensive Plan and you have changes in the Zoning Ordinance, or vice-versa. Or, you have no changes in either one, and you say "We recommend annexation of Parcel A, there are no recommended changes in the Zoning Ordinance and there are no recommended changes in the Comprehensive Plan." But you have to make some recommendation as to those plans." LaWana Niemann, City Clerk: "Can you make the motion to recommend those changes to the City Council at the same time as the hearing? The Public Hearing. Or does it have to be done at the regular Planning and Zoning meeting? Do they have to have a study period after the hearing?" Crookston: "Not necessarily, its in their discression whether they have a study period or not." Don Sharp: "So if we have one more hearing on both the Comprehensive Plan Admendment and on Quong-Watkins we are in compliance with the Idaho Code." Crookston: "You do not necessarily have to have an additional hearing on Quong-Watkins Crookston: "At a regular meeting, that's correct." Niemann: "At the time that they announce the make this statement though, wouldn't it have to be announced at a Public Hearing." Crookston: "No. You have had your Public Hearing." Hinrichs: "Then we could restate the motion for Quong-Watkins tonight?" Crookston: "That's correct." Hinrichs: "And then we could have our second hearing .. ." Crookston: "On the Plan." Spencer: "And then we are done." Crookston: "I think that's what you could do. But I think that basically, until you have had the second Plan hearing, as far as Planning and Zoning is concerned, you have not legally adopted, before your body, the changes in the amendment. So if you have not legally adopted, before your body, then you have to deal with the 1978 Plan, the original plan. So a recommendation on annexation has to be made in light of the 1978 plan. That is, you would have to say: "We recommend annexation, we recommend the following changes in the Comprehensive Plan." Hinrichs: "If we make a motion tonight and go on the old comprehensive plan, then is that going to force us to hold some more hearings; extra hearings?" Crookston: "It could be argued that the changes that you have recommended in the 1978 plan are material, and then you would have to go back to your double hearing situation. I think that the best way. to proceed is to proceed with your planned amendments and you make your recommendation based on your adoption of those plan amendments, your recommendation on the annexation, and to be even further safer you could say that "if you do not adopt our amendments these are the changes that you should make in the 1978 plan that arise as a result of the Quong-Watkins Annexation." I would recommend that you do that,. You don't know that the City Council is going to adopt the plan amendments." Sharp: "If we make another recommendation, do we have to publish that, do we have to rehear or reconsider the Quong-Watkins Annexation?" Crookston: "You could, but I don't think it's necessary. You have had your Public Hearing on Quong-Watkins." Crookston. Yes. IJiemann: "Where and how do we state thatQuong-Watkins complies with our Comprehensive Plan?" Annexation. It all depends on how you operate." LaWana Niemann, City Clerk: "Wouldn't we need to hold that hearing to make sure that the motion to annex and zone Quong-Watkins Annexation, and state in that motion to recommend to annex this, that there is no material change ." Crookston: "You do not have to make that decision at a hearing." Mitchell: "That could be done at a regular meeting?" ~~ Meridian Planning and Zonin Commission 7. June 14, 1982 Agenda 4 Cont'd Input regarding Comprehensive Plan Amendment - Quong-Watkins ~ . Crookston: "You could have another Public Meeting on Quong-Watkins if you wanted to. There is nothing to prohibit it." Sharp: "My concern is that I don't want us to leave any more gaps." Niemann: "What is the next step? Say that the Planning and Zoning recommend the amendment changes to be accepted by the Council .... Hinrichs: "And we have to put in all the requirements such as it does not material)y change if they accept our amendments." Niemann: "Does the Council have to have a hearing on the Comprehensive Plan Amendments, do they have to have two hearings, before they can hear the Annexation request of Quong-Watkins, or can they handle it the same way they did Upland Industries?" Crookston: "They do not have to have the two hearings prior to the annexation." Niemann: "So it would be at Mr. Quong's request to when he wanted his hearing before the Council then?" Crookston: "In that regard I would say that if they decide that they are material changes, then I would recommend that they would have one hearing for the plan changes, then they have a duo hearing on the plan changes and the Quong-blatkins Annexation, final hearing on both." Hinrichs: "We will have a hearing on the first of July on the changed proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. We will have a regular meeting on July 12 at which time we will restate our Quong-Watkins Motion." Hinrichs: "Any further questions from anyone?" There were none. Crookston: "You will need to decide if the changes that you have made in the Comprehensive Plan are material, thereby necessitating a second hearing. That they are material or that they are not material." The Motion was made by Bob Spencer that the proposed changes to the Comprehensive Plan are material enough to warrant another Public Hearing to be held July 1st. The Motion died for lack of a second. The Motion was made by Don Sharp and seconded by Lee Mitchell that the Commission hold another Public Hearing on July 1st, to consider changes to the Comprehensive Plan, in order to cover all bases and avoid any controversary as to whether the changes are material or are not material. Sharp: (To Crookston) "Are you sure that all code requirements are covered?" Crookston: "That's correct." Motion Carried: A71 yea Being there no other business to come before the Commission: The Motion was made by Lee Mitchell and seconded by Bob Spencer to adjourn at 9:15 P. M. Motion Carried: All Yea ATTEST: ~' ~ r Annette Hinrichs, Chairman LaWana L. Niemann, City Clerk