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