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: