Loading...
1988 01-12 A G E N D A MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING JANUARY 12, 1988 ITEM: idINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING HELD NOVEMBER 10,1987: (APPROVED) MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING HELD DECEMBER 8, 1987 (APPROVED) 1: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT BY BRANDON & MERYLN SCHMECKPEPER: 2: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ON CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT BY BRANDON & MERYLN SCI3MECKPEPER: (APPROVED) 3: MARY WALLER, STUBBLEFIELD DEVELOPMENT: DISCUSS POSSIBLE PROJECT: MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING JANUARY 12, 1988 Regular Meeting of the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission called to order by Chairman Walt Morrow at 7:30 p.m.: Members Present: Moe Alidjani, Jim Johnson, Jim Shearer, Charles Roundtree: Others Present: Wayne Crookston, Meryln Schmeckpeper, Brandon Schmeckpeper, Mary Waller: The Motion was made by Alidjani and seconded by Shearer to approve the Minutes of the Meeting held November 10, 1987 as written: Motion Carried: A11 Yea: The Motion was made by Johnson and seconded by Shearer to approve the Minutes of the Meeting held December 8, 1987 as written: Motion Carried: All Yea: Item #1: Public Hearing: Request for Conditional Use Permit by Meryln and Brandon Schmeckpeper: Chairman Morrow: Is there someone present who wishes to advise the Commission about this project? Meryln Schmeckpeper, 157 East Ada, Mr. Schmeckpeper was sworn by the City Attorney: Schmeckpeper: I do not know whether-; any of you are familiar with this property or not but it is a piece of property we own on East Third across the tracks, basiially there is an old dwelling there if you would call it a dwelling, it is more of a shack which we intend to raze and replace with a new duplex. That is basically what we plan on. Chairman Morrow: Any questions, Mr. Alidjani? Alidjani: Have you had a chance to look at the comments of the City Engineer and the one from ACHD? Schmeckpeper: I received these today and have some points that I need to have clarified. I have several problems with the comments of ACHD. Do you want to go over these one by one or what? Alidjani: That would be fine, lets start with the City Engineer: Schmeckpeper: Item #3: the off street parking requirement of two spaces per unit there will be a garage for each unit for a single unit plus room on the driveway for an additional unit. Item #4: What is the additonal cost for a second water meter? I visited with the City Clerk about this today and just need it clarified. City Clerk: The cost for another meter providing it was 5/8 size is MERIDIAN P & Z • JANUARY 12, 19~ PAGE # 2: $90.00 and this meter could be put in the same meter tile, this would require a different meter yoke. Schmeckpeper: Item #5: We are planning on replacing the sidewalk and gravel the roadway area to match what is there this somewhat ties back to some of the ACHD recommendations. On the ACHD items, Item #1 on Specific Site Requirements, they are asking for a 20 ft right-a-way for the alley they presently have a 16 ft right-a-way if we were to give an additional 4 feet of the property this would make the project unfeasible, quite frankly I do not understand this and I guess I would ask what this means. Chairman Morrow: Typically what happens here is the ACRD wants us to make this part of the requirements in the approval of the CUP that the right-a-way be dedicated to the 20 ft width. Quite frankly that is probably going to happen because at a point in time when anyone else develops where there is a need for a twenty foot easement and there is a 16 foot easement it will be made to the twenty foot width. An example would be on a street if someone comes in for a presentation and there is only a 30 ft. roadway and the future plans of that street is to be an eighty foot rightway, we would make sure that as new property's are developed that they dedicate the necessary property to ACHD. NOw a good question here is all four feet to come from his property or part of it from the property adjacent to the alley on the other side. Shearer: If it was worked out would you be willingly to give two feet of the four feet? Schmeckpeper: If I could get a variance on the setback. If we were to give the full four feet it would render the property unusable for what we have planned. Johnson: Is this something new, I do not remember seeing this type of request before. Schmeckpeper: They are asking that the alley be paved and that is out of the question in my opinion, there is no paving in the alley in that part of town. The other item is curb and gutter, as you all know curb and gutter does not exist in that part of town, there is no other curb along that street. As far as drainage goes it will be handled in the normal manner as any other residential building would be. ChairmanMOrrow: I do not think in this case on site drainage is really an issue as what we are dealing with here is a standard requirement which was explained at one of our meetings where there was a great lot of paving, this would be like any single family unit and the drainage would be absorbed on the lot and not drained into the street. Some of the standard requirements by ACHD are not applicable to this type of project. Chairman Morrow: Are there any further questions of the Commission, there were none, I will now open the Public Hearing, is there anyone in the audience who wishes to testify on this request? There was no response, the Public Hearing was closed. Is there any questions or comments from the Commission members? MERIDIAN P & Z • JANUARY 12, 19~ PAGE #3 Alidjani: I do not have any problem with the project if we can do something with the rules and regulations of ACHD, like the paving of the alley there is none in the City. Johnson: The only comment I would have is I think it would be an improvement to the neighborhood. Shearer: According to ACRD request, they are wanting them to pave '~ of the street in front of this property as well as the curbs & gutters, it seems to me if these things are going to be done and they probably should be, that it should be done under a LID for the whole neighbor- hood, not just one patchwork area here and there as somebody builds something. Rountree: I agree with what Shearer has said, I think if these kind of stipulations are put in to effect they need to be done in a planned fashion also looking at improving what is under the ground before they improve above the ground. This would definately be an improve- ment to the neighborhood. The irrigation item as far as drainage go may not be applicable to this project. City Attorney: The only thing, to benefit Schmeckpeper you need to delineate which one of these you are going to require and which ones you are not. Chairman Morrow: I believe the application makes good sense, it is a good so to speak renewal of an existing area and we need more of these kind of things going on, I do have reservations about ACRD and their requirements, it seems to me the major problem here is they have lots of requirements but they do not have a formal plan for this area, it seems to me it is very difficult to piece meal develop, I do not know how you that you improve half of a street and leave a raw edge there and expect to maintain any life out of the half street that has been improved, if you are going to leave that how do you go ahead and force the owner across the street to improve the other part to secure the life of the street. My feeling would be that in terms of a motion that you wish to make delineate line by line item of the ACHD requirements. G7e have preliminary findings on this application, what will need done,we will need a motion for the find- ingsand then in the recommendation to the City Council speak to what the Commission wants as far as ACHD's requirements. The Motion was made by Aldjani that the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission hereby adopts and approves the Findings of Fact and Concl- usions as prepared by the City Attorney on this application: Motion was seconded by Rountree: Motion Carried: Roll Call Vote: Aldjani: Yea: Johnson, Yea: Rountree, Yea: Shearer, Yea: Morrow, Yea: The Motion was made by Johnson and seconded by Shearer that the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council of the City of Meridian that they approve the Conditional Use Permit requested by the Applicants for the property described in the application with the conditions set forth in the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law with the delineation of the require- MERIDIAN P & Z • JANUARY 12, 19~ PAGE # 4 ments (specific) as follows: Item #1: a possible two foot contribution: Item #2: not require the alley being paved: Item #3: Not require curbs & gutters and matching pavement on street, Mr. Schmeckpeper agreed to the four foot sidewalk, that the property be required to meet the water and sewer requirements, the fire and life safety codes and all the City of Meridian Ordinances. Motion Carried: All Yea: Item #2: Mary Waller: Stubblefield Development: First of all I have a problem we were not aware of, we have the wrong zoning, when the subdivision was built on the five lots we had it zoned for four-plexes, when the new Ordinance was passed it was zoned for duplexes. We have been advertising it for sale as four-plex lots. I want to have it changed back. There was discussion on this and it was the concensus of the Commission that this should be changed back to allow the four-plexes. The City Attorney advised that this would probably have to be done at the City's cost. Waller: We are complating the possiblity of a 16 unit apartment in lieu of the four 4-plex units: It was the concensus of the Commission that if this was the case the property would need rezoned or some kind of a permit even though the density was the same. Chairman Morrow: What we will do, the City of Meridian caill research this and if we are in error we will correct it at our expense and from that point on if you wish to construct the 16 unit building then you can go through that rezone or what ever is necessary to allow the unit. City Clerk: I have one item which has come up that Mayor Kingsford has asked for some imput by the Commission, the problem is at several of the 4-plex and apartment units in the City they do not have dumpsters and use trash cans and they are left out .all the time and animals are getting into them. and trash is being scattered and blown around and most of the ones that have dumpsters are not in enclosures The City was interested in your comments about maybe having something in the Ordinances requiring trash enclosures for the trash containers. After discussion both pro & con the Commission felt this if anything should be handled through the sanitation ordinance rather than the Zoning & Development Ordinance. Being no further business to come before the Commission the Motion was made by Johnson and seconded by Rountree to adjourn at 8:30 p.m.: Motion Carried: All Yea: (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE APP OVED: PROCEEDINGS) ~ /,~~~~~~~~._~~ AT ST: __ WALT MORRO , CHAIRMAN J Nieman City C er ~ ~ BEFORE THE MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION BRANDON AND MERLYN SCHMECKPEPER CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 403 1/2 EAST 3RD STREET MERIDIAN, IDAHO PRELIMINARY FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS AMBROSE, F1T2G ERALG B CROO KSTON Attorneys antl Counaelon P.O. Box X21 Merltl lan, Itlefto 838/2 TBIBDNOna BB&pB1 The above entitled matter having come on for public hearing January 12, 1988, at the hour of 7:30 o'clock p.m., the Petitioners appearing in person, the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Meridian having duly considered the evidence and the matter makes the following Preliminary Findings of Fact and Conclusions: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. That a notice of a public hearing on the Conditional Use Permit was published for two (2) consecutive weeks prior to the said public hearing scheduled for January 12, 1988, the first publication of which was Fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing; that the matter was duly considered at the January 12, 1988 hearing; that the public will be given full opportunity to express comments and submit evidence; and that copies of all notices were made available to newspaper, radio and television stations; 2. That this property is located within the City of r~ Meridian and is owned by Applicants, and is described in the application which description is incorporated herein; 3. That the property is zoned OLD TOWN (OT) District, which requires a conditional use permit for the construction of a duplex which is the use the application requests; 4. That the OLD TOWN (OT) District is described in the Zoning Ordinance, 11-2-408 B. 10 as follows: (O-T) OLD TOWN DISTRICT: The purpose of the (O-T) District is to accommodate and encourage further expansion of the historical core of the community; to delineate a centralized activity center and to encourage its renewal, revitalization and growth as the public, quasi-public, cultural, financial and recreational center of the City. A variety of these uses integrated with general business, medium-high to high density residential, and other related uses is encouraged in an effort to provide the appropriate mix of activities necessary to establish a truly urban City center. The district shall be served by the Municipal Water and Sewer systems of the City of Meridian. Development in this district must give attention to the handling of high volumes of traffic, adequate parking, and pedestrian movement, and to provide strip commercial development, and must be approved as a conditional use, unless otherwise permitted. 5. That the duplex use proposed by Applicants is an allowed conditional use in the OLD TOWN (OT) District; 6. That the property to the west is developed residentially; the property to the east is used residentially; the property to the south is used residentially; the property to the north is used residentially; 7. That proper notice has been given as required by law AMBROSE, FITZGERALD B CROOKSTON Attorneys end Counselors P.O. Box 12T Merl8len, ItleKo &1812 TelepNOne 888~s181 and all procedures before the Planning and Zoning Commission have been given and followed. 9. That the Applicant has met the procedural requirements for a conditonal use in OLD TOWN. CONCLUSIONS AMBROSE, FITZG ERgLD B CROOKSTON Fitorneys end Counaelora P.D. Boa t]] MerlGlan, IEa~o 838x2 TeleP~ons 888-IMl 1. That all the procedural requirements of the Local Planning Act and of the Ordinances of the City of Meridian have been met; 2. That the City of Meridian has authority to grant conditional uses pursuant to 67-6512, Idaho Code, and, pursuant to 11-2-418 of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian, Zdaho; 3. That the City of Meridian has authority to place i conditions on a conditional use permit and the use of the property pursuant to 67-6512, Idaho Code, and pursuant to 11-2-418(D) of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian, Idaho; 4. That 11-2-418(C) of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian sets forth the standards under which the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council shall review applications for Conditional Use Permits; that upon a review of those requirements and a review of the facts presented and the conditions of the area, the Planning and Zoning Commission preliminarily concludes as follows: a. The use, would in fact, constitute a conditional use and a conditional use permit would be required by AMBROSE, FITZG ERALD E CROOKSTON Attorneys end DOUn9610ra P.O. Box ~2] MerlUlen, IEaNo Bte~2 Telapttone BB&~~E1 ordinance. b. The use would be harmonious with and in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan but the Zoning Ordinance requires a conditional use permit to allow the use. c. The use apparently would be designed and constructed, to be harmonious in appearance with the intended character of the general vicinity. d. That the use would not be hazardous nor should it be disturbing to existing or future neighboring uses. e. The property has sewer and water service available. f. The use would not create excessive additional requirements at public cost for public facilities and services and the use would not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. g. The use would not involve a use, activity, process, material, equipment or conditions of operation that would be detrimental to person, property or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic or noise. h. It appears there will be sufficient parking for the property and the proposed use. i. The development and uses will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural or scenic feature of major importance. 5. That since these findings and conclusions are i i preliminary, if there is public comment objecting to the use, these findings and conclusions may be amended. ; i APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS I I The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts and approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions. j ROLL CALL: I Commissioner Alidjani Voted_~_ Commissioner Johnson Voted t'} I Commissioner Roundtree Voted I Commissioner Shearer Voted ~~~ Chairman Morrow (Tie Breaker) Voted j DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council of the City of Meridian that they approve the Conditional Use Permit requested by the Applicants j for the property described in the application with the conditions set forth in the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and that i the property be required to meet the water and sewer requirement, the fire and life safety codes, and all Meridian City Ordinances. An+eaosE, MOTION: (SEE MINUTES FOR A"dENDMENT & CIzANGES TO MOTION) i FITZG ERALD S CROORGTDN '~. Attomeya and cou nsemm APPROVED : ~ DI SAP PROVED P.O. Bov l2] MerlElan, ICefto ~ &'1842 j Telaplrona BBB~N8/ j