Loading...
1988 07-12 A G E N D A MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING JULY 12, 1988 ITEM: MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING HELD JUNE 12, 1988: (APPROVED) 1: Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law on proposed Zoning and Development Ordinance Amendments: (APPROVED) 2: Public Hearing: Rezone Request by Bud Gingrich. (APPROVAL RECOMMENDED) • MERIDI. PLANNING & JULY 12, 1988 Regular Meeting of the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Chairman Walt Morrow: Members Present: Moe Alidjani, Jim Johnson, Jim Shearer, Charles Rountree: Others Present: Howard Brown, Al & Patsy Garrett, Dale Ownby, Bud Gingrich, John & Alice Gipe, Debi Cavanaugh, Kay Beumeler, Lloyd Bell, Mr. & Mrs. Lavern Ling, Sharon Olsen, Wayne Crookston The Motion was made by Alidjani and seconded by Rountree to approve the minutes of the previous meeting as written: Motion Carried: All Yea: Item #1: Findings of Fact & Conclusions on proposed Amendments to the zoning & Development Ordinance: Chairman Morrow: Any comments or discussion by the Commission Members? There were none. I have a couple of points I would like to raise concerning the Zoning & Development Ordinance and a couple things that were brought out in the last meeting. One comment was by the Wilsons in terms of the City not being responsive to some of their problems, some of the problems we have in the City, I think it should be noted that item #3 in terms of the covenants and restrictions we are changing now and requiring to be submitted with Conditional Use Permits. This change was a direct result of their experience in their subdivision, they put together a project and brought it before the Planning & Zoning, it was passed by the Planning & Zoning, taken to the City Council, one member of their sub- division checked under the covenants and restrictions and consequently through the uproar of that the project was pulled by the Wilson's. That particular project cost them a lot of money, great emotional expense, because of that experience the City of Meridian and the Planning and Zoning Commission has chosen to require the covenants and restrictions with each application so that it will save anyone else plus the City those kind of expenses. The second point I want to cover is Mr. Honey testified sewer fees and water fees and additional fees were unfair, seems to me that he did not read the proposal acurately, the proposal stated that if any additional fees are required they would be assessed to simplfy that, if there are ten day cares and nine of those have normal us-age, monthly service. charges will cover that usage, if the other one for some reason the usage goes way up then the additional fees come into play that day care or any other business should pay for that additional plant capacity not be subsidized by the other nine day care centers nor by the taxpayer in general so it seem to me that some of his comments and criticisms were well intended but a little misguided. The other item I wish to cover is there was some questions as to whether our fees and our policy in Meridian was fair, our policy in Meridian is that each project ought to pay its own way, not be subsidized by the other taxpayer, it is the policy of this administation and its appointees MERIDIAN P & • JULY 12, 1988 PAGE #2 and past administration and its appointees, in researching that to make sure we are right, the information I have from Nampa is that their Planning & Zoning fees and budgets are approximately $50,000 the fees cover $20,000, the taxpayer subsidize in the City of Nampa approximately $30,000, Caldwell budget is about $1,400.00, their fees cover the $1,400. they have a staff person of approximately $21,800 and the fees do not cover that the taxpayers subsidize that, the City of Boise which everyone was fond of quoting and we had some testimony by a employee of the Planning & Zoning Commission and by the attorney that had worked for the City of Boise~eemed to indicate that the fees over there were relatively inexpensive, in visiting with the City Finance Director of Boise, in 1987 the fees covered approximately 12~ of the costs of the Planning & Zoning Department, the rest was subsidized by the taxpayer, their budget was a little less than $400,000 in 1987 meaning the fees covered $48,000 and the taxpayer picked up the balance, they raised their fees in 1988 to cover 25$ or approximately $100,000 of the $400,000 budget, the bad news for most everybody is that in 1989 the City of Boise is going to increase their fees to cover $260,000 of the $400,000 budget, it is the City of Boise desire that everybody pay their own way, just like we have here in Meridian, currently the Building Department is fully funded, the Fire Inspection Department is going to be fully funded in 1989 by the fees, Public Works is currently fully funded, most licensing functions are fully funded, those that are not currently fully funded including the Day Care will be fully funded within the next two years, the argument presented by some of the testimony in terms of the costs although they are current- ly correct are going to be changed in the very, very near future, so it seem to me, here in Meridian we have had a policy that serves the interest best of the taxpayer in general, I recognize that time to time for special interest groups does seem unfair but our job has been to protect the tax- payer interest overall. Chairman Morrow: Are there any comments from the members? There were none. We now need to approve the Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law. The Motion was made by Johnson and seconded by Shearer to adopt & approve Findings of Fact and Conclusions as prepared by the City Attorney on the amendments to the Zoning & Development Ordinance. Motion Carried: Roll Call Vote: Rountree, Yea: Shearer, Yea: Johnson, Yea: Alidjani, Yea: Morrow, Yea: The Motion was made by Alidjani and seconded by Rountree that the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council that the Planning & Zoning Commission's proposed Amendments to the Zoning Ordinances should be approved and adopted with the correction that the child care center as scheduled in 11-2-409 B Commercial show that such is allowed under a conditional use in Residential Districts as such is already shown correctly in 11-2-409 A Residential. Motion Carried: All Yea: Item #2: Public Hearing: Rezone Request by Bud Gingrich: Chairman Morrow: Is there someone present to represent this request? MERIDIAN P & JULY 12, 1988 PAGE # 3 Dale Ownby, 1195 East Overland, Meridian, Ownby was sworn by City Attorney: Ownby: Mr. Gingrich has made an offer on this property which has been approved by the School District and is asking for an R-15 Zone and at this point and time without a survey it cannot be determined as to how many units can be put on this property. This would have to be done at a later date after the exact number of square feet is determined. For the last several years since the School District purchased this property, this sliver of ground has been nothing but a bunch of weeds, we are asking for the R-15 Zone and I think it would be appropriate for the Planning and Zoning to approve it, as well as the City of Meridian, it would be a good buffer for the residential houses immediately south as well as immediately east, it is directly across the road from the tennis courts, the property adjacent to the north of it is a 4-plex, next to the 4-plex is a single family dwelling and next to that is a duplex and further north is a 5-plex, so in my opinion it does conform to R-15 Zoning. This would be a positive improvement for the City of Meridian. Alidjani: Would I be in conflict of interest if I work as a real estate salesman out of Mr. Ownby's office? City Attorney: Yes, this would be a conflict of interest. Mr. Alidjani was asked to step down until this hearing was over. Johnson: I assume you have seen the recommendations of the City Engineer do you have any problems with any of these recommendations? Ownby: Mr.Gingrich does not: Johnson: How about the comments from Ada County Highway District? Ownby: The verbage on the Ada County Highway District may not completely be accurate, their office for the last ten or twelve years has inadv~r~~ntly written their name in the southerly 30feet of that property, thinxing that they owned it as an extension of Camelia Street and they do not. The School District owns that. The rest of their comments if they apply we have no problems with. Rountree: You indicated you did not know the square footage of the prop- erty can you give us some kind of idea as to what is proposed, concept or what you think you might be able to do with the property. Ownby: There have been three appraisals made over the years and all of them have said there is approximately 24,000 square feet, but without having it surveyed it is only a guess, at the point in time that the number of square feet is determined and based on the existing City Ordinance's we can determine how many units can be built on the property. I would have to assume it would be somewhere between three and six units. Bud Gingrich: 3650 Sugar Creek Drive, Gingrich was sworn by City Attorney: Gingrich: I have looked over the comments and the only thing that ACHD probably will be involved in is the curb cuts and on site drainage. In reference to Mr. Ownby, I would like to go no more than four, depending on what I am purchasing, possiblity four two's and two one's and maybe four one's. MERIDIAN P & • JULY 12, 1988 PAGE #q Chairman Morrow: I will now open the Public Hearing, is there anyone in the audience who wishes to testify on this application? Lloyd Bell, 1324 W. 7th, Bell was sworn by the City Attorney: Bell: What I would like, a couple of my neighbors asked me to find out, what kind of dwellings are we really talking about, it did not specify in the notice just multiple family. City Clerk: They would not be over two story, and most of the things Mr. Gingrich has done are one story units. Gingrich: I would like to have the two bedroom units be single story, I want to make the best use of the ground, maybe a story and a half. If you have seen the 4-plex behind the Hungry Onion the 4-plea will be like that. There will not be anything to exceed a story and one half. Bell: About how many families? Gingrich: If we can get a maximum of eight there will be eight families. probably six. Bell: We wanted to make sure that there was not going to be a flood of people there, we do not want it like we have seen some of these other places. Gingrich: It is not low income housing or subsidized housing. It will be a first class place. Sharon Olsen; 1434 W 8th, Olsen was sworn by the City ATtorney: Olsen: I own the property at 1434 West 8th I would like to see if there was any way we could get the walkway from 7th to 8th street closed this runs along the edge of my property. It was explained that this was a recorded easement on the plat and would require vacation of the easement. Chairman Morrrow: Is there anyone else who wishes to testify, there was no response, the Public Hearing was closed. Commission Members you have preliminary findings on this application, do you want to approve them at this time? The Motion was made by Rountree and seconded by Shearer that the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission hereby adopts and approves the Findings of Fact and Conclusions as prepared by the City Attorney on this application: Motion Carried: Roll Call Vote: Rountree, Yea: Shearer, Yea: Johnson, Yea: Alidjani, Abstained: Morrow, Yea: The Motion was made by Johnson and seconded by Shearer that the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council that they approve the application for rezone of the property tom R-15 as req- uested in the application, upon the condition that all other City Ordin- ances are complied with and the comments and requirements of the City Engineer are met and the requirements of ACHD are met. MERIDIAN P & • JULY 12, 1988 PAGE # 5 Motion Carried: All Yea: Alidjani was not present for vote: Commissioner Alidjani rejoined the Commission: Chairman Morrow: One comment I have prior to adjournment, I think the Day Care issue has been a very difficult issue over the last two or three months I think you have all done an excellent job, the Counselor did a fine job in the preparation of the findings of facts and conclusions of law, Thank all of you. Being no further business to come before the Commission the Motion was made by Rountree and seconded by Shearer to adjourn at 8:00 p.m.: Motion Carried: All Yea: (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) APPROVED: ~~ORROW', CHAI~R~MA~IV~~- ATTEST: City Mayo & Council P & Z Members Atty, Eng, Fire Police, Ward, Stuart Mitich, Gass, Hallett Valley News, Statesman ACHD, NIMD, CDH, ACC Settlers Irrg. File (2) Mail (1) BEFORE THE MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION'S APPLICATION TO AMEND MERIDIAN ZONING ORDINANCE AMBROBE, FITZGERALO d CROOKBTON AttormysaM Counselwa P.O. BOr 127 MxIONn, IOYw B3B1Y TalaP~oM BBBN61 FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS The above entitled application to amend the Meridian Zoning Ordinance having come on for public hearing and the Planning and Zoning Commission having heard any and all testimony, oral and written, that was submitted and having duly considered the evidence, the facts judicially noticed and its own opinions and the matter, the Planning and Zoning Commission makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. That notice of the public hearing on the application was published for two (2) consecutive weeks prior to the said public hearing held June 14, 1988, the first publication of which was fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing; that the matter was duly considered at the June 14, 1988, hearing and was duly considered by the Planning and Zoning Commission; that copies of all notices were available to newspapers, and radio and television stations. 2. That the proposed amendments are as set forth in the Application which is incorporated herein by this reference as if AMBFlOSE, FITZGERALD 6 CROOKSTON AN«~wys riU Counaebn P.O. BOa A2T MMWbn,MYa B9S1Y TslepMn~BBB-IM7 set forth in full hereat. 3. That all testimony at the public hearing pertained to day care facilities and matters associated therewith and did not pertain to the other amendments. 4. That the Meridian Zoning Ordinance does contain a definition of "Convenience Center" but does not contain a definition of "Convenience Store"; that convenience stores are prevalent in the community and generally offer grocery items and gasoline for sale at retail; that a few convenience stores were in operation prior to the adoption of the present zoning ordinance and were legal under the existing ordinances. 4. That the Zoning Ordinance defines "Accessory Use or Structure" but does not contain a procedure or set forth standards for accessory uses or structures; that other cities in Ada County and other parts of the State do contain such procedures and standards; that there are uses and structures that are not presently allowed in some districts as permitted uses but are generally considered to be uses or structure that are conducted and constructed in harmony with a principally permitted use. 5. That it is known that there are businesses being operated from and out of homes where the owner/operator has not obtained the conditional use presently required to so operate; that many of these have operated without adverse impacts on the neighborhood and surrounding areas. AMeROSE, FITZGERAID d CNOOKSTON Altomsys Ano (`.OU11MlOn1 P.O. Boa 627 MMO1N,bNo 87812 Tabpeona 8881181 6. That the current procedures for conditional uses do not require that the application for conditional use be verified nor does it require that the applicant state whether the proposed conditional use would violate any applicable subdivision or deed covenants or restrictions nor do the procedures contain a vehicle for assurance of reliablity of representations made in the application; that the City has experienced conflicts between neighbors in past conditional use applications which arose because subdivision and deed restriction were or would be violated by the proposed use, if allowed; that if the conflict between the proposed use and the covenant were known prior to Application being made, even the Applicant might decide not to pursue the use. 7. That it has been the policy of the City of Meridian that if a change of zone or use requires additional sewer, water or trash use, then additional charges and connection fees would be assessed to the property, if required; that the City, under its water system ordinances, is required to appraise each water user to determine the equivalent connectin rating and assess the charge to be made for that use. Revised and Complied Ordinances of the City of Meridian 5-126. There is a schedule of equivalent connection determinations. 5-131, Table III. There is a Board of Appraisers which establishes the equivalent connection rating for each use and user, 5-129, and thus the number and amount of connection fees that should be paid. That there are similar ~~ s • ordinance provisions for the sewer system. 8, That the State of Idaho has adopted a Basic Day Care License for day care facilities which became effective March 1, 1988; that said law is codified as Title 39, Chapter 11, Idaho Code and its provisions are noted; that said law provides for definitions for three types of day care facilities which are: 1) Family Day Care Home--a home, place or facility providing day care for six or fewer children; 2) Group Day Care Facility--a home, place, or facility providing care for seven to tweleve children; and 3) Day Care Center--a place or facility providing day care for compensation for thirteen or more children; that the City of Boise and the County of Ada likewise have similar definitions and they are noted. 9. That the City of Meridian does not have a licensing ordinance for day care facilities or providers nor definitions for categories of day care facilities. 10. That the Zoning Ordinance does presently have a definition for a Day Care Center; that it is not broken down into categories by the number of children for whom care is provided and could be interpretted to apply to what is commonly referred to as babysitting; that the zoning ordinance does not provide a definition of babysitting. 11. That under the current zoning ordinance private nursery schools which can be considered as similar to day care facilities are required to obtain a conditional use in almost all zones. AMBROBE, FITLGEMLD 6CROOKBTON ANwneya and Counselors P.O. Box /7T MerNllan,ldslq 83812 TNeplwrie 88&ME1 AMBROSE, FITZOERALO d CROOKSTON Atlomaye NE Countslon P.O. Bor ~Y7 MMAIYI, MNo 83M2 Talsp~MS88&IM1 12. That under the existing Zoning Ordinance Day Care Centers are presently allowed ony as conditional uses in the following districts: R-4, R-B, R-15, R-40, and RSC; that under the proposed amendment a Family Child Care Home would be permitted as an accessory use in the R-4, and R-8 and Old Town Districts and as a conditional use in all other zones, except C-G, T-E, I and M; that Group Child Care Homes would be allowed as conditional uses in all districts except C-G, T-E, I and M; and Day Care. Centers would be allowed as conditional uses in the same districts as Group Child Care Homes, plus in the C-G district. 13. That there are a substantial number of day care centers, as presently defined, operating within the City of Meridian that presently have no conditional uses and have not applied for such permits; that all day care facilities presently operating within the City, with the exception of the Friends Academy, are operating in violation of the present Zoning Ordinance. 14. That the changes in the Zoning Ordinance regarding day care centers and facilities and babysitting have basically been encouraged and brought forward at the insistance and request of the day care owners and operators; that as a result of this request the Mayor appointed a committee to look into day care facilities and possibly changes in the Zoning Ordinances; that the committee made recommendations to the City Council and they s • AMBROBE, FIRGEBAlO B CBOOKBTON Altomeys uIG CPVnNI0n1 P.O. BOw 127 Ms1lElsn, IOello B~8a2 Tllapllone BB&1~Bt were referred by the City Council to this Commission to look into and possibly make changes in the Zoning Ordinance; that the portion of the Commission's Application to amend the Zoning Ordinance dealing with day care is a result of that investigation and entire process. 15. That almost all people testifying in support that additional changes should be made to make legal operation of a day care facility easier, testified that the operation of a day care facility was a commercial venture; at least one operator testified that her day care facility was her families sole source of income. 16. That the majority of the objections to the proposed ordinance changes regarding day care facilities centered on the need for child care facilities in homes rather than institutions or centers, the cost of obtaining the conditional use that is presently required for all day care facilities and which would be required for Group Day Care facilities and Day Care Centers, and the possibility of additional sewer, water and trash fees due to their operation. 17. That the testimony from parents of children in day care facilities evidenced a great need for day care facilities. 18. That many operators and owners and parents testified that the rights of the neighbors needed to be considered and protected by notice to them of a proposed day care facility in their neighborhood and at least one had no objection to the AMBROSE, FITZGERALD B CROOKSTON Attorneys riO Couneslon P.O. BOr a27 MsIlElen, ItlNo 87612 TslepMne BBNMt ~: present 758 approval requirement for a conditional use application, albeit others objected to the 758 approval requirement. 19. That it is noted that in Meridian the residents in the R-4 zones are usually the owners or purchasers of their homes. 20. That the 758 requirement for conditional uses is a carryover from the Zoning Ordinance adopted in 1955 which required prior approval of 758 of land owners within 300 feet before many uses were permitted which were not in the proper zone; that under the present Zoning Ordinance all conditional use applications, except those in the Old Town District, must obtain approval of 758 of the property owners who own property within 300 feet of the external boundaries of the applicant's land in order to have a conditional use application considered; that all applicants for a conditional use permit pay a minimum application fee of $160.00; they must also pay for the City's engineering costs, legal fees, publication and notice costs associated with the City's processing of the application; that the same is true of rezones and other Zoning Applications. That these fees and costs are the same for any applicant applying for a conditional use permit and an applicant to use his or her home for a day care facility would not be required to pay any more or any less, except that the costs may vary from application to application due to the complexity of the application, differing publication and notice costs, and differing legal and engineering costs. AMBROSE, FITZGERALO d CROOASTON Attw~roysaM CounMbrs r.o. eo: ~n MNltltan, IOYro B3E/2 TNBpllons BB3dM1 21. That much of the testimony submitted opposing the adoption of the proposed amendments pertaining to day care focused on the belief that day care in the operators home was of better quality; that a home day care provides a more loving and secure enviorment and surrounding; that if the costs associated with a conditional use for the legal operation of day care were not drastically reduced, the operators would go out of business; that Meridian residents presently using day are facilities in Meridian would be forced to use facilities in Nampa or Boise. 22. That the City has been requiring that subdivision covenants and restrictions be submitted to the City during the platting process; that almost all residential subdivision covenants contain a restriction against operating or conducting a business or commercial venture from a home or lot within a subdivision; that there are older areas of the City that are residential and do not have such restrictions; that most, if not all, subdivision covenants and restrictions contain an amendment procedure by which any particular restriction could be removed from the entire covenant document or from application to any particular parcel of land. 23. That there was testimony relating to how maximum and minimum numbers of children are determined in applying the various categories of day care facilities; that the testimony reflected that the definition of a Group Day Care Facility, as set forth in 39-1102 (10) and which reads in part as follows: AM BROSE, PITZGERALD d CROOKSTON AtiwnBys AAE Couneabrs P.O. Boz ~Y7 Merblln, WYw 83E12 TslaWwne BBSdMt ~~ "...a home, place, or facility providing care for seven (7) to tweleve (12) children," had been interpreted by other governmental and non-governmental agencies as meaning a facility which could have eighteen or twenty, or more children enrolled just so long as there was not more than 12 children on the premises at any one time. 24. That the testimony reflected that there is an impact on neighbors to a day care facility; that some of these impacts were noise, damage to adjacent property, and traffic; that the commission is cognizent and can take judicial notice that the more children in a day care, the more traffic, noise and impact that day care will have on surrounding properties. 25. That Meridian has historically been an agricultural community relying heavily on irrigation; that there are many canels, ditches and drains that traverse the community and housing subdivisions; that there are other hazardous areas and uses in the City where day care facilities may not be appropriate due to surrounding conditions, environment and other existing uses; that many persons testifying expressed beliefs and opinions that the children in the ay care facilities are the important people to be considered in this process. 26. That the proposed amendments have been proposed by the Commission itself and are not the result of a private party submitting an application for amendment; that the amendments do not pertain to one specific parcel or tract of land. AMBROSE, F1T2GERALD 6 CROOKSTON Attomeye end GOUfIMIOA P.O. Soz ~Y] MarlElen, IGeo 8831Y TeleplaM 3361181 27. That at the public hearing held June 14, 1988, there was a substantial amount of public input, oral and written; that in large part the testimony was in support of the proposed changes regarding day care, as far as those changes went, but very critical that the proposed amendments did not go far enough to make it easier to obtain permission to operate a day care facility and less costly; that there was some testimony that supported the proposed changes as stated. 28. That the Commission has specifically reviewed the process and costs associated with day care operations in Boise and Ada County; the testimony also revealed costs and processes in Nampa and Caldwell, Idaho. 29. That the City of Meridian, in zoning matters such as comprehensive plan amendments, rezones, annexations, conditional uses, or variances, has always processed applications on a basis that the applicant for the proposed change, use, or permit paid the cost associated with the application; the City has no planning and zoning staff; it has no full time legal department and for years did not have a staff engineer; even the building inspector is on a contract as is the electrical inspector. That the City does have costs in processing applications that are paid for by City funds which costs include the zoning administrators time, office help, copying, city council time, and general office overhead. These costs are repaid the City in the form of the fee charged for an application. The other costs of publication, notice, legal, and engineering are passed on to the applicant in the amounts that are incurred. The goal is that each applicant pays his own way and the tax payer is not burdened with subsidizing the applicant. AMBROSE, FITZGERALD 6 CHOORSTON Attomsys ane Counselors P.O. Boz 1Rr MMeIN,WNo 87612 Tslsp6ar8BN181 CONCLUSIONS 1. That the City has authority to amend its Zoning Ordinances pursuant to Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code, specifically Section 67-6511, Idaho Code, and Section 11-2-416 of the Zoning Ordinance. 2. That all notices and hearing requirements set forth in Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code, and the Ordinances of the City of Meridian have been complied with. 3. That the function of adopting, amending, or repealing the text of a zoning or development ordinance is a legislative function in that such does not pertain to any specific parcel or parcels of property.; that the Local Planning Act of 1975 requires findings of fact and conclusions regardless of whether the function is legislative or quasi-judicial. 4. That the Commission may take judicial notice of governmental statutes, ordinances and polices, and of actual conditions existing within the City, County, and State. 5. That the City has authority to establish standards for development pursuant to its own ordinances and pursuant to Section 67-6518, Idaho Code, which allows for standards to be set on public and private development. 6. That the City has authority pursuant to Section 67-6512, Idaho Code, to adopt procedures for processing applications for special or conditional use permits; that section 67-6512, Idaho Code, additionally states as follows: "A special use permit may be granted to an applicant if the proposed use is otherwise prohibited by the terms of the ordinance, but may be allowed with conditions under specific provisions of the ordinance when not in conflict with the an" (Smpnasis aaaeai. That 67-6512, Idaho Code, allows the City to attach conditions to conditional use permits and allows for studies to determine the impact of the conditional use. 7. That 67-6512 requires that adequate notice of conditional use applications be provided. 8. That 67-6519, Idaho Code states as follows: "AS part of ordinances required or authorized under this chapter, a procedure shall be established for processing in a timely manner applications for permits for which a reasonable fee may be charged". That it is concluded that the fees set forth in the proposed amendment and for all conditional uses are reasonable and in the best interest of the City; that all accessory use applicants would be required to incur the same fee and would bear the burden t their application placed on the City; that the same is true the fees and .expenses required of conditional uses. It has AMBR08E, FITZGEMLD dCNOOKBTDN Attomeye An8 CWnselors P.O. Boz t27 MM01en, Wello 83812 TslpMne BB&1M1 and is, the goal of the City that the initial fee is to pay AMBROSE, FOZGERALD 60ROOKSTON Atlomeys en0 Couneelon P.O. BOx /37 MM81sn, WYw 838/3 TNap~one 8881181 for the processing of the application by City administrative personnel, the Zoning Administrator, the Commission and the City Council; that the fees for engineering, legal, publication and notice are fees that the City has no real control over and are assessed as costs to any applicant in the same amount as charged the City. In the above fashion each applicant bears the cost associated with his applicaiton and the general taxpayer does not subsidize the processing of the application. 9. That since convenience stores are already in legal existence, although not specifically defined, under grandfather rights, it is logical to allow additional convenience stores in areas of a similar nature and in areas designated for retail sales; that they should be allowed uses in neighborhood and community commercial districts and as conditional uses in R-40, Limited Office, Regional Shopping Center, General Retail and Service Commercial and Old Town Districts. 10. That some occupations and businesses should be allowed to be conducted in homes and residential districts where the home owner and his family are the sole operators or employees and where the impacts of those occupations and businesses are minimal and are in harmony with the residential environment of the neighborhoods that the procedures and standards proposed will provide a relatively simple application process and reasonable fees and costs to the applicant; that it is necessary to require an accessory use permit to ensure that the use is truly an AMBROSE, FITZGERAlO 1 CROOKSTON Altomeys eM Counasbn v.o. eo. ~~ MsrltlNn, MeM B3MY Talsplwne BlB-IM7 ~. accessory use, will be operated in harmony with the surrounding residential neighborhood, and will not produce adverse impacts which effect the neighborhood; that it is reasonable and in the best interest of the City to allow Family Child Care Homes, and Home Occupations as permissable accessory uses in the R-4 znd R-8 ,zones under the proposed procedure and standards. 11. That it is necessary and important that the information in a conditional use application be as reliable as possible and the more information about the proeprty that is available the better the City can determine whether the conditional use should be allowed; that requiring applicants for conditional uses and accessory uses to supply copies of any applicable subdivision or deed covenants and restrictions will better inform the City; that requiring that the conditional use application be verified will provide more realiability in the information contained in the application; that it is reasonable and in the best interest of the City to require copies of applicable subdivision and deed covenants and restrictions, that the applicant state that his proposed use does not violate those covenants and restrictions, and that the applicant verify that the information in the application is true and correct. 12. That subdivision and deed covenants and restrictions are a most basic form of government by the people; by means of such covenants the people closest to the land and those most effected by uses placed thereon can control those uses; that it AMBROSE, FIRGERALD d CROOKSTON Attomsys rW Couneslon v.o. eo. uT MsNObn, IGNo NNY TelpMne!lBJM1 r~ has been the policy of this Commission to avoid allowing uses that are in conflict with any applicable subdivision or deed covenants or restrictions; that since most, if not all, subdivision covenants and restrictions can be amended if the required majority approve, any particular proposed use could be allowed if that majority so allowed; that by requiring that there be no violation of covenants or restrictions, since such can be amended, leaves the basic control and government of the use of land where it belongs -- in the hands of those closest to the land and the use. 13. That it is reasonable and in the City's best interest to require that an accessory use or a conditional use not be a violation of any applicable subdivision or deed covenants or restrictions; particularly is this so where a conditional use is requested since by its very nature a conditional use is not a 'permissable use under the existing zoning. A majority of adjacent I'land owners should be able to rely on the applicable zoning and covenants and restricitons to protect them from uses they deem adverse and particularly is this true in residential areas. 14. That the above idea of protecting the interests of the immediately effected land owners has been the goal of the City as evidenced by the historical requirement of a 75$ approval of many uses; that the City previously recognized that such a requirement has been, at times, unworkable and not feasible in Old Town where there are so many mixed uses and the area has become more AMBROSE, FIRGERALD a CROOKSTON ADOmsyn rq Couneslps P.O. Box ~3T MMEIln,MMa 83M2 Tslplwne ae&NB1 commercial and industrial; that it is now recognized that it is also unworkable in commercial and industrial zones in that it has been difficult to obtain signature approval of 758 of the adjacent owners since the adjacent owners are no longer home owners in residence, but are absentee owners of the homes or businesses; however, in residential areas, and particularly the R-4 and R-8 zones, the vast majority of adjacent owners are in residence and their approval or disapproval can be obtained. 15. That it is reasonable and in the best interest of the City to delete the 758 approval by land owners within 300 feet of applications for conditional uses. in all districts, except residential districts; that this is reasonable because the owners are probably available and because, like covenants and restrictions protect resident owners from adverse uses, so is the 758 requirement designed to protect residence owners from uses and impacts that are not agreeable to a certain majority of those residents. 16. There was testimony that the 758 requirement was not reasonable and possibly invalid. It is concluded that it is reasonable and legal since it protects residents and residential areas from uses those residents do not desire or want in their neighborhood and which uses are not allowed under the existing zoning. Also, a conditional use by its very nature is in essence an approved "violation" of the zoning ordinance. It is a special breed of zoning vehicle. The Local Land Use Planning Act specifically states in Section 67-6512, Idaho Code, in part as follows: "As part of a zoning ordinance each governing board may provide by ordinance...for the processing of applications for special or conditional use permits. A special use permit may be granted to an applicant if the proposed use is otherwise prohibited by the terms of the ordinance, but may be allowed with conditions under specific provisions of the ordinance..." (Emphasis added) In addition to the language emphasized, the rest of 67-6512, AMBROSE, FI7ZOERALO i CROOKBTON ANOmeTS rq Co~neelps V.O. Boa t1T Ma"olAn, IoYq 87MY TelpAawBBBMBI Idaho Code, goes on to deal specifically with conditions being placed on approval of a conditional use. The entire section recognizes that a conditional use may be conditionally granted. One of the conditions placed on a conditional use in a Meridian residential zone has been, and will be, 758 approval of owners of land within 300 feet of the external boundaries of the proposed land use. There is no "right" to a conditional use permit since such really is a violation of the existing zoning. Idaho Code 67-6512, recognizes that a conditional use may be allowed under conditions and therefore it is reasonable that conditions can be placed either in the procedure for approval or the approval itself. 67-6512, Idaho Code, allows the City to adopt procedures for processing applications for conditional uses and the City has done so and such are reasonable in light of the fact they protect existing lawful uses from what would be an illegal use but for the conditional use process itself. The 758 is further AMBROSE, FITZOERALD 6 CROOKSTON ABOnMyeeM GounsNOn F.o. Bo.ItT Msrldlen, ItlNO B36I2 TelspMns 8BNH1 concluded to be reasonable in that the testimony reflected that the neighbors of proposed day care facilities should have input and one or two proponents of further easing permits for day care supported the 758 requirement. 17. That it is specifically concluded that the City of Meridian needs to change its zoning ordinance as it pertains to babysitting and day care facilities; that such is the reason for the proposed day care amendments which have been proposed by the Commission. 18. That it is specifically noted that in the definition section of the State Basic Day Care Licensing Act, Section 39-1102, Idaho Code, that the definitions for Family Day Care Facility and Group Day Care Facility include "home" as a location where those types of day care are or can be operated; however, the definition of Day Care Center does not include "home" as a location where that type of day care is or can be located. It is concluded that this failure to include "home" as a location for a day care facility providing care for thirteen (13) or more children, when the definitions of the two other types of day cares do contain "home", is indicative of the legislature's intent that day care generally should not be provided in homes when thirteen (13) or more children are provided care; however, it is further concluded that under the City's conditional use procedure it could be determined a certain home and location was suitable for a day care center and thus allowable. AMSROSE, FITZGERALD 6 CPOONSTON Atlomaye uM COYPNIIOft P.O. BOx 127 M~rMNn, IGYW S3S12 TN~pMMSSSAMI 19. That testimony was presented that the definitions in the state law and in Boise City's definitions pertaining to the number of children being cared for are interpretted to mean that the determining factor is the number of children being cared for at any one time, rather than the total number of children being cared for throughout the day, or put in another way, the number of children enrolled. It is concluded that such interpretation is certainly not binding on the City of Meridian and, if in fact that is how the definitions are interpretted, that such interpretation is wrong. The language of the state definitions of Day Care Center, Group Day Care Facility, and Family Day Care Home is clear. As an example the definition of day care center states: "... means a place or facility providing day care for compensation for thirteen (13) or more children". There is absolutely nothing to indicate that there is a certain number of hours a child has to be in attendance to be counted as a child being cared for, or for that matter, a certain number of days. 20. It is therefore concluded that the proposed definitions of day care facility and the three categories thereof are basically in line with the State definitions and are reasonable and in the best interest of the City; that it is further concluded that while the State's definition of day care center may preclude the operation of a center in a home, it is appropriate to allow a center to operate in a home in Meridian if it can obtain the requisite conditional use, which by its very AMBRDSE, FIRGERALD 1 CROOKSTON AROrMys uM Dounwlon P.O. Boa 1tT MNMIUy MYq 88611 ToI~M8~611~/ nature could further limit the number of children being cared for over thirteen. 21. That there is a difference between babysitting and day care in that day care is usually confined to the care of the children of one family in their own home or possibly in the home of the babysitter. It usually does not extend to unrelated children and if it does the number of children watched is not very many and normally not for long hours or on a daily basis. It is concluded that the proposed babysitting definition adresses the diffferences between babysitting and day care and is reasonable and in the best interest of the City. 22. That it is concluded that the operation of a day care facility is a commercial venture and is a business and therefore is governed by ordinances, rules, and policies pertaining to commercial operations; that this is true for zoning purposes and all other city purposes. 23. That at the hearing the possibility that a day care facility could be required to pay additional connection charges for sewer and water was of great concern; that the City ordinances already require such additional charges if the new use mandates such; that it is concluded that such charges are reasonable and in the best interest of the City. However, it is further concluded that it would be unlikely that the operation of a day care facility in a home would create such additional sewer or water use or demand on the systems to cause an additional AMBROSE, FITZGERALD B CROOKSTON Attorneys sM Counsslon P.O. Boz X27 wnal.n, a.no tperx rsl.Pran.eesuet connection charge to be required. If it did, however, it is concluded those charges should be made pursuant to not only the zoning ordinance, but also to existing sewer and water ordinances. 24. That it is concluded due to the increased impact on residential areas due to the increase number of children in a day care facility, that it is reasonable and in the best interest of the City and all of its residents that Family Child Care Homes should be allowed in the R-4 and R-8 residential districts as permitted accessory uses under the procedures and standards proposed; that the care of five or fewer children in one home, even though conducted as a business, should not adversely impact the adjacent properties and is not unlike having a family with five children next door, except for possible increased traffic. 25. That it is likewise concluded, due to even more increased impact on residential areas due to having more than five (5) chilaren in a day care facility, that it is reasonable and in the best interests of the City and all residents, that day care facilities providing care for more than five (5) children be required to obtain conditional use permits if they desire to operate in the R-4 and R-8 residential districts; that the care of 6-12 children or more than 13 creates much greater adverse impacts on surrounding residences. The requirement of a conditional use is also consistent with requiring a nursery school to have a conditional use permit in these zones. AMBROSE, FITZGERALD B CROOKSTON Attorneys enC Counesbrs P.O. BOa 117 MerIOMn, Nlelq Telspliorie BBBI~li 26. That as noted in the testimony and as always acknowledged by the Commission and the City, the care and well-being of the children of the City is of greatest importance; that it is therefore concluded that it is in the best interest of the children, the parents, all residents and the City that the location of any day care facility should be supervised through some type of permit process, accessory or conditional use? to try and ensure that no day care facility is located in or near any hazardous or dangerous location; that it is concluded that the proposed ordinance amendments are aimed at this goal and should be able to achieve it. 27. It is further concluded that the amendments as they pertain to day care have raised much emotion; that much of the public testimony and comment in the news media has been directed to the quality of care provided by day cares that are located in homes and has criticized the City as not being mindful of the needs of children and working parents; much of the public testimony was directed to quality of day are and that is not an issue or question before the City; quality is not a zoning issue but an issue for each parent. Certainly there are quality in-home day cares and quality institutional day cares. 28. The committee, this Commission and the City Council are interested in the well-being of the children and the parents and of all the residents of the City. The day care licensing and the problem of not being able to obtain a license due to a lack of AMBRDSE, FIRGERALD 6 CROOKSTON Attomlys enp Counasbrs P.O. BOa /27 tAMWIN, MY10 8JN2 TaNp/gna BBNMi proper zoning were problems not brought about by the City or its officials. 29. There was only one day care facility properly allowed to transact business at their location when this issue came to the City, and that was the Friends Academy. What the Committee, the Commission, and the City Council have done is try to deal with a problem they did not create in a fashion that is as fair and equitable as possible to all children, parents, businesses and residents of the City. It is concluded that the proposed amendments as they pertain to day care do treat all interests as fair and equitably as possible and are in the best interests of the City and all of its residents including parents, children and neighbors. 30. It is specifically concluded that all the proposed amendments are in the best interest of the City and all its residents. 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 Rountree Commissioner Shearer Commissioner Johnson Voted ~~/,~- voted `~F"'/,? Voted ) ~~/~ • • Commissioner Alidjani Voted (s ,~ -% Chairman Morrow (Tie Breaker) Voted /~ RECOMMENDATION The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council that the Planning and Zoning Commission's proposed Amendments to the Zoning Ordinances should be approved and adopted with the correction that the child care center as scheduled in 11-2-409 B Commercial show that such is allowed under a conditional use in Residential Districts as such is already shown correctly in 11-2-409 A Residential. APPROVED L,~~ - DISAPPROVED AMBROSE, FIRGERA~D B CROONBTON AtlmNyt anU Counzslon P.O. eoz 14~ MNWI~n, N1Mw 87612 7sNp~one BBN161 BEFORE THE MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION LEON GINGRICH REQUEST FOR REZONE 1300 BLOCK ON NW 8TH STREET MERIDIAN, IDAHO PRELIMINARY FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS AMBROBE, FIRGERALO 6 CROOKSTON Allomeye en0 Counasbre P.O. BOx 121 MsrlElen, IEello 89612 Telaplwns 8%1M1 The above entitled matter having come on for public hearing on July 12, 1988, at the hour of 7:30 o'clock p.m., the Petitioner appearing in person, the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Meridian having duly considered the evidence and the matter makes the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. That the property is located within the City of Meridian and is described in the application and which description is incorporated herein as if set forth in full and which property is in the 1300 and 1400 Block of West 8th Street, Meridian, Ada County, Idaho. 2. That the property is located in the Warrior Neighborhood as designated on the Policy Diagram on page 7 of the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. 3. That the property is presently zoned R-4 Residential but is a vacant lot; that the property surrounding the subject property is similarly zoned and developed except for the Meridian Middle School which is across 8th Street from the property; there is intermittent development of apartment complexes along the east side of W. 8th Street. 4. That the Applicant's proposals is to change the zone from R-4 to R-15 so that multi-family dwellings can be located thereon. 5. That the property is an irregular shaped parcel of ground that is somewhat triangular. 6. The requested R-15 zone is described in the Zoning Ordinance as follows: (R-15) MEDIUM HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT: The purpose of the (R-15) District is to permit the establishment of medium-high density single-family attached and multi-family dwellings at a density not exceeding fifteen (15) dwelling units per acre. All such districts must have direct access to a transportation arterial or collector, abut or have direct access to a park or open space corridor, and be con- nected to the Municipal Water and Sewer systems of the City of Meridian. The predominant housing types in this district will be patio homes, zero lot line single-family dwellings, townhouses, apartment buildings and condominiums. 7. The Comprehensive Plan contains Housing Policies on AMBROSE, FIRGERALD BCROOKSTON Attomsys en0 CoVnMlps P.D. Bov X27 M.nmen, land eaerz TsNpOOns SBB~Ie1 pages 26 and 27; the pertinent policies to this Application are stated as follows: 1. The City of Meridian intends to provide for a wide diversity of housing types (single-family, mobile homes and multi-family arrangements) and choices be- tween ownership and rental dwelling units for all income groups in a variety of locations suitable for residential development. 4. The development of housing for all income groups close to employment and shopping centers should be encouraged. 9. The efficient use of land for public facilities, transportation systems, utilities, and the economic arrangement of buildings should be promoted. 12. Land development regulations should be revised to encourage the infilling of existing vacant parcels within the city limits. 13. Infilling of random vacant lots in substantially developed, single-family areas should be encouraged at densities similar to surrounding development. In- creased densities on random vacant lots should be considered if: a. The cost of such a parcel of land precludes development at surrounding densities; or b. Development of uses other than single-family structures are compatible with surrounding development. 15. Owners of remnant residential parcels or partially developed residential parcels should be encouraged to consolidate these properties where possible to prevent the proliferation of small parcels of vacant land within the city limits. AMBROSE, FITZGERALD 6 CROOKSTON Attorneys Mtl Counaebrs P.O. Boz 171 Mar10N1n, IOSIq 83617 TsNplwne BB&M6l 19. High density development, where possible, should be located near open space corridors or other permanent major open space and park facilities and near major access thoroughfares. r AMBROSE, F1T2GEMLD 6CROOKSTON Atlorneys antl Gounzelws P.O. eoz 1E7 MMOISn,10Yq B3E/2 Tslegions BBS~M81 8. The property has sewer and water available. 9. That the City Engineer submitted comments which are incorporated herein as if set forth in full and such are reasonable requirements and are included in the Ordinance. 10. That the Nampa and Meridian Irrigation District had comments but no objection to the Application. 11. That the Ada County Highway District submitted requirements. 12. That the 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. The City of Meridian has the authority to grant Zoning amendments and rezones pursuant to Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code, and pursuant to 11-2-416 of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian. 2. That upon rezone, the City of Meridian has authority to place conditions upon the zoning amendment. 3. That 11-2-416(x) 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 zoning amendments; 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 specifically concludes as follows: ta) The new zoning would be harmonious with and in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan and no Comprehensive Plan Amendment is required. (b) The area was not previously scheduled for a rezone but such rezone is compatible with other uses in the area. (c) The area included in the zoning amendment is intended to be developed in the future in the fashion that would be allowed under the new zoning of R-15. (d) There has been no change in the area which tends to dictate that the area may lend itself to be rezoned. (e) The Applicant made representations in the application that the area would be designed and constructed to be harmonious with the surrounding area of apartment complexes. (f) The proposed use was mentioned of multi-family dwellings and therefore the uses would not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or future neighborhood uses. (g) The area would be adequately served by public facilities and services as those are already available. (h) The possible proposed uses would likely not create excessive additional requirements at public cost for public facilities and services and would not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. (i) The proposed use will not involve any detrimental activity to any person's property or the general welfare. AMBROSE, FITZGERALD 6CROOKSTON AttomeYa uW Counwkrte P.O. eoz X27 MxWNn, IOMIo &TMY TNNllluu BBMM1 (j) Development should not cause a significant increase in vehicular traffic and should not interfere with surrounding traffic patterns. (k) That this rezone would not result in the destruction, loss or damage of any natural or ~' scenic feature of major importance. (1) The proposed zoning amendment is in the best interest of the City of Meridian. 13. That the requirements and comments of the City Engineer are reasonable and should be a condition of the rezone and met by the Applicant. 14. That the requirements of the Ada County Highway District are reasonable and shall be required upon actual development. 15. That the requirements of the Nampa and Meridian Irrigation District are reasonable and shall be required on actual developement. 16. That the Applicant shall be required to meet all of the Ordinances of the City. APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts and approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions. ROLL CALL: Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Chairman. Mor Rountree Voted l/Pf~- Shearer Voted ~. Johnson Voted f Alidjani Voted ~Il~ row (Tie Breaker) Voted.~c~ - DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION AMSROSE, FITZGERALD dCNOOKSTON AttorneyssM COUrIMbrt P.O. Soa I1T Mer101en,IW11o S3SS2 TelapMna BBSN61 The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council of the City of Meridian that they i • AMBROSE, FIRGERALD B CROOKSTON Attorneys rq CounMlpe P.O. BO~t2T Merl01en, 10Ya S361I TalePlgne BBB~M81 approve the application for rezone of the property to R-15 as requested in the application, upon the condition that all other City Ordinances are complied with and the comments and requirements of the City Engineer are met and the requirements of Ada County Highway District are met. MOTION: APPROVED: /F' DISAPPROVED: