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WITHDRAWN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