1987 06-09
A G E N D A
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING
JUNE 9, 1987
ITEM:
MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING HELD MAY 12, 1987: {APPROVED)
1: PUBLIC HEARING: REZONE REQUEST BY BONNIE KELSO: (FINDINGS TO BE PREPARED)
2: PUBLIC HEARING: REZONE REQUEST BY DKi~G PROPERTIES:(FINDINGS TO BE PREPARED)
3: PUBLIC HEARING: ANNEXATION & ZONING REQUEST BY RICHARD AND
TONI ALLISON: (FINDINGS TO BE PREPARED)
4: PUBLIC HEARING: REZONE REQUEST BY BUTTERFIELD, SHEARER, HARTWELL
AND SPENCER: (FINDINGS TO BE PREPARED)
5: REVIEW PROPOSED JASMINE ACRES SUBDIVISION: (COMMISSION HAD NO OBJECTION)
MERIDIAN PLANNING
987
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, Tom Cole:
Others Present: Dennis & Janet Butterfield, Don Hubble, Norm Fuller,
Richard Allison, E. Faye Brewer Buchanan, Kieth Loveless, Don & Nacy
Brigham, Bonnie Kelso, K. D. Hartwell, Alvin &Euayne Quick, Wayne
Crookston, Paul & Shirley McKague
The Motion was made by Alidjani and seconded by Johnson to approve the
minutes of the previous meeting held May 12, 1987 as written:
Motion Carried: All Yea:
Item #1: Public Hearing, Rezone Request by Bonnie Kelso:
Chairman Morrow, is Bonnie Kelso or her representative in the audience
and if so would they come forward: and present your proposal.
Mrs. Bonnie Kelso was present, Mrs.Kelso was sworn by the City Attorney.
Kelso, the property is locatbd at 1403 East First, actually there is
two lots and one is already zoned CC, there is a 33 foot lot on the
North which is already zoned and I am requesting the lot on the South
be zoned CC,my ultimate goal is to establish an antique shop in the
house. We received the comments and we could put the necessary parking
to the north side of the house, currently there is a gravel driveway
on the south side of the house that goes to the back.
Alidjani, did you read the comments from the City Engineer and did you
have any problems with them?
Kelso, I am not sure how the City Ordinance's read on the sign code,
landscaping I have no problem with that, we have thought that maybe
there could be an entrance driveway and an exit driveway in front of
the house, the house is set back quite aways from the street, then
there could be the parking area at the side, I was wondering what kind
of screening would be required, I presume this is from the houses on
either side,
Morrow, typically it is a fence of some sort or hedge or something
of this nature, the concept there is to do away with any noise or
disturbance to a residential area.
Kelso, this would not present any problem on the north but on the
south, the house is almost on the line and she use this to go to
the back of her house, I do not know how she would feel about a six
foot high fence or something of that nature.
Alidjani, normally this is put in for the comfort of the next door
neighbor, if they are happy with you there is no problem.
MERIDIAN P &~
JUNE 9, 1987
PAGE # 2
•
Kelso, then this would only be if the neighbors required that, ok
I have no problem with that. I do not want to put up something
that would affend my neighbors.
Johnson, I have one question, what is the square footage of the
h ousel
Kelso, the house is 24 x 34, it is not a very large house, probably
under 900 square feet. It has a full basement that would not be used
in the business.
Johnson, so you would have to have parking for five, how many places
would you have on the street, how much footage is there along the
street?
Kelso, there is 101 foot frontage along the street, there is lots of
parking in the back, if it is required we can do something different
the lot is 223 feet deep.
Johnson, I like your suggestion about the drive in circle.
Shearer, the only question I have is what is the zoning on the two
side of this property?
City Clerk, on the north it is CC and on the south R-15.
Morrow, being no further questions of the Commission, we will now
open the Public Hearing. Is there anyone in the audience who wishes
to testify in this matter? There was no response, the Public Hearing
was closed.
The Motion was made by Cole and seconded by Alidjani to have the
City Attorney prepare Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law on
the Bonnie Kelso rezone request.
Motion Carried: All Yea:
The Motion was made by Shearer and seconded by Cole that the Findings
show a recommendation that the Meridian City Council approve the
rezone request by Bonnie Kelso for the property located at 1403 East
First Street.
Motion Carried: All Yea:
Item #2: Rezone Request by DGDG Properties:
Morrow, is there a representative of DKDG Properties in the audience?
Mr. Don Hubble of Hubble Engineering, Hubble was sworn by the City
Attorney.
Hubble, if you recall this was brought before. the Commission several
months ago to be rezoned R-15 and there was a lot of opposition at
that time and it was the Commission's recommendation that it be denied,
now we are submitting again to go to an R-8 Zoning, single family
dwelling zone and in addition we asked for the vacation of some
MERIDIAN P & • •
JUNE 9, 1987
PAGE # 3
easements, access easements along the rear and the side of the property.
We would like to amend that whole application slightly, one to include
some additional land that got overlooked in the application, these
people own all of lots 3,4 , 5~6, & 7 in Block 2, and we would like to
amend the application to read to rezone the northly portion of Lot 2,
and all of Lots 3, 4 ,5 ,6 ,7 of Block 2 and we would also like to
amend that to not request the vacation of the easement in Block 1, it
is currently used by the local residents and owners do not have any
problems leaving that, we would still like to request vacating the
easement in Block 2.
Morrow, do you have a map of this, so the Commission can follow what
you are requesting? These ones we have are rather small.
Hubble, produced a large drawing for the Commission to view, and ex-
plained to the Commission what they were planning on doing. We want
to vacate the easement upon easement mainly the word access so the
residents will not feel they have access across the back of the lots
this would not vacate the utility easements.
Johnson, what is this along Lot 7, Block 1, on the North side, you
had asked for this but now don't want it vacated?
Hubble, we have been in contact with some of the homeowners adjacent
to this property and they have requested that this easement stay in
place and the owners have no problems with leaving this easement.
Alidjani, why were these access easements there orginally?
Hubble, this is presently zoned Commercial and it was for access to
the back of the lots for commercial use.
Morrow, before we ask any additional questions of Mr. Hubble, the
City Attorney has a point to bring up.
City Attorney, where they are adding additional property to the
application the application will need to be re-noticed, if they are
deleting things from the application there is no problem.
Morrow, what you can do is go ahead with this portion and have another
application for the remaining property or re-notice the whole thing
for a meeting in the future.
Hubble, we do not want to do that, we will proceed with this application.
we will come in on a separate hearing on the balance of the property.
Johnson, can an overlapping easement be vacated?
City Attorney, yes, along as it does not effect any ones rights.
Johnson, Mr. Hubble, did you review this letter from Hosac Engineering?
Hubble, no, we probably received it but it did not get to me.
Johnson, then I guess I will not ask you any questions on it.
Morrow, well you might raise the general point here because I am sure
MERIDIAN P &
JUNE 9, 1987 •
PAGE # 4
it will have some issue on this request.
Johnson, I guess the point I want to raise here is whether we as a
body want to do what is suggested here,I am kind of the opinion that
we don't want to and that is to put these restrictions, conditions
and objection on this that he is suggesting.
Morrow, I don't think in my opinion that we want to address that at all
because he has commercial zoning and he is entitled to any useage under
his commercial zoning, the general point of the letter is that he wants
the City to some sort of guarantee that if this property is changed to
residential that when he develops his property commercially that he is
not going to have a bunch of homeowners in opposition if he puts in,
I think the quote was a Circle K, or some type of convenience'.s~ore.
I think it is up to the developer if this is approved that the potential
purchaser of the lots are made aware that that property is commercial
and it can be used for those uses.
Cole, is the access along Lot 7 Block 2 being used for access to the
park now?
Hubble, not to my knowledge, it is not graveled or improved at all.
Morrow, I have a question here, maybe someone can answer it, why is
ACRD requiring that driveways be located five feet from the property
line?This is the first time I have seen this on their requirements.
No one had a.answer for this.
Morrow, if there are no other questions of the Commission, we 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. Are there any more questions of the Commission?
Johnson, I want to know where we stand, are we going to make a
recommendation on part of the application?
Morrow, we are going to consider the application as submitted with
the deletion of the vacation of the easement along the north side
of Lot 7 Block 1.
The Motion was made by Johnson and seconded by Shearer to have the
City Attorney prepare Findings of Fact and Conclusions on the application
for a rezone by DKGD Properties:
Motion Carried: All Yea:
The Motion was made by Johnson and seconded by Shearer that the
Findings show a recommendation that the City Council approve the rezone
of the property requested in the application by DKDG Properties along
with the vacation of the easements as amended.
Motion Carried: All Yea:
Item #3: Annexation & Zoning Request by Richard & Toni Allison:
MERIDIAN P & •
JUNE 9, 1987.
PAGE # '5
•
Chairman Morrow, is there someone in the audience to present this request?
Mr. Richard Allison was present, Mr. Allison was sworn by the City
Attorney.
Allison, I would first of all aquaint the Commission with the parcel
we are asking for Annexation & Zoning Allison pointed out the
parcel on the map. Allison advised the Commission what the current
zoning was in the area. I am requesting a LO Zone on approximately
110 feet of the front of the property due to the fact that it is a
transitional zone which would be placed between the Industrial Zoned
property across Pine Street and the residential property which under
the Ordinance states it is an appropriate zone for that purpose. The
balance of the property I am requesting a R-8 Zone which would be
used for the development of duplex apartments,approxxr~iately eight per
acre on the remaining 3.6 acres. I have submitted a plat map to give
you a general idea of the number of lots to be created and a general
layout of the Lots. I have not decided at this time whether I would
do it in that configuration or to leave the balance of the R-8 property
in a single lot and develop as a PUD. Insofar as the specific comments
from ACHD, Pine Street is to be a collector street some time in the
future and will require a 60 ft easement, they are asking for additonal
right way and other items and I have no problems with those, I have had
some discussion with Jon Thompson of ACHD to try and find the proper
elevation to curb, gutter and sidewalk, I believe we could get close
enough at this time that it would not present a problem although at
some later date it may be necessary to tear it out and redo it due to
the fact that at some later date it may be changed.
Morrow, what you are telling us is that ACHD does not have a schedule
for that street nor have they done any work to tell what the grade and
elevations are?
Allison, they have designated Pine Street as a collector street, they
have no on sight elevation, engineering or other to designate where the
specific elevations should fall. It would probably be in my best interest
to go ahead and curb, gutter and sidewalk along Pine Street even though
there will be a cost between 5 & 7 thousand dollars mainly because it
would enhance the project.
Morrow, how do you feel about making the payment twice though?
Allison, there is two different criteria to look at, I don't like the
idea of paying it twice, if in fact the Planning & Zoning Commission
themselves would agree, I would prefer to wait, if I did prefer to
wait I would have to do something to enhance the street anyway because
if it is a PUD and we are doing what is referred to as medium quality
or maybe above medium quality units we are going to have an
appropriate entrance. It would be my plan to immediately behind the
LO Zone to burm and landscape at an approximate level of six feet to
meet the requirements with regards to privacy and prevent any noise
from Pine Street. I do not like the idea of spending for the curbs
gutters & sidewalks maybe twice but if for the good of the area thats
fine, it seem inappropriate to do it for the area and there is no
curb, gutter or sidewalk for considerable distance in either direction.
It would depend on how the Commission feels as the necessity to do that.
MERIDIAN P & •
JUNE 9, 1987
PAGE # 6
•
Insofar as the comments from the other agencies and staff I have no
problems with them.
Morrow: Are there any questions of Mr. Allison?
Johnson: Do you know where that subsurface drain is located on the
property that NMID commented about?
Allison: Yes, it is located approximately in the middle of the property
I visited with the property owner directly to the east of my property
and he advised that where it enters my property it is about thirteen
feet deep and exits the property at about eight feet. This drain was
put in to drain basements of the homes in the area. Based on preliminary
findings the water and sewer lines to service this development would
not interfere with this drain as they do not have to be at that depth.
It will need to be identified so no building would be built over this
drain.
Morrow; If there are no other questions of the Commission, I will now
open the Public Hearing, is there anyone in the audience who wishes to
testify or comment on this application?
Paul McKague, 933 East Pine, Mr. McKague was sworn by the City Attorney.
McKague: I would like to know how many apartments would be on property?
Morrow: the way it is designed at this time there is a potential of
twelve duplex units plus the two office buildings on the front lots.
McKague: on this map which we received what is the circle'fo~?
Morrow: that is the area within three hundred feet of Mr. Allison which
he is required to notify of this hearing .under the Ordinances of the
City. Is there anyone else who wishes to testify? There was no response,
the Public Hearing was closed. Are there any other questions of the
Commission?
Shearer: when we consider this I think we need to further address the
ACHD comments on sidewalks, curbs and gutters.
Cole: One comment about the ACxD curbs, gutters & sidewalk out in the
area, I would think although there is a chance that it maybe wasted,
that it might have to be all ripped out down the road when the whole
road would be improved, that area out I think that there is a good
chance it could be designed correctly to start with and be built and
whatever was there, it would be close enough so at the time the
balance was constructed they could match to it and it would not create
any problems. Some area I think there could be real problems but out
in that area I do not think it would be a problem.
The Motion was made by Shearer and
the City Attorney prepare Findings
request by Richard & Toni Allison
property in the application.
seconded by Alidjani to have
of Fact and Conclusions on the
for Annexation and Zoning for the
Motion Carried: All Yea:
MERIDIAN P & . •
JUNE 9, 1987
PAGE # 7
The Motion was made by Cole and seconded by Alidjani that the Findings
show a recommendation that the Meridian City Council approve the
request for Annexation & Zoning by Richard & Toni Allison for the
property as shown in the application.
Motion Carried: All Yea:
Item #4: Public Hearing: Rezone Request by Butterfield, Hartwell,
Spencer & Shearer:
Chairman Morrow: We would ask Mr. Shearer to abstain from any voting or
question on this request. Mr. Shearer advised he would abstain. Is
there one of the applicant present and would you come forward?
Mr. Dennis Butterfield, 2833 Autumn Way: Mr. Butterfield was sworn by
the City Attorney.
Butterfield: There are four properties here, myself and my eighbors
are requesting the zoning change from R-15 to CG Commercialand as far
as the neighbors are concerned they are doing it in anticipation of
the future, I am planning on a place for my business on my parcel,
Meridian Plumbing. I am not planning on much change at the present time,
I want to build a building on the rear of the proerty to house my
trucks and equipment and at a later date make the home into our office.
I have no need for any parking at this time as there will be no customers
there, it will be just for my own use.
Morrow: what we are concerned with here, Mr. Butterfield, I think is
not what each of you is going to do individually but the rezoning as
a whole and then each of the properties will be limited by the
Ordinances as far as what the parcels are being used for.
Butterfield: I did have some questions on some of these comments,
ACHD is asking that the curb be replaced along here, the curb is
perectly good, at the new Meridian Building just the next lot to our
request did not replace the curb when they built that building.
I do not believe the drainage request is needed at this time. The
requirement on the driveway being five foot from the property line
I do not understand and is unuseable to me, the driveways at the
present time are right on the property lines.
Morrow: I have never in my experience ran across this, it seems to
me it is a fairly new concept and we are going to have to have some
clarification as to the reasoning behind it.
Butterfield: As far as the City Engineer comment on parking spaces,
I am unaware what the Ordinance requires, and also as far as the
screening I am not aware of that, I guess that will have to be
taken up at another time.
Morrow: All that will come with applications for building permits,
and at that time the number of parking spaces and the drainage will
depend upon the size of the building, as well as screening and those
kinds of things. What will happen here is in fact if you are rezoned
then you will become subject to these rules based on the type of
building or development you do.
MERIDIAN P & •
JUNE 9, 1987
PAGE # 8
I~
L
Morrow: Is there another property owner present who wishes to be
heard?
K.D. Hartwell: Mr. Hartwell was sworn by the City Attorney.
Hartwell: There are a few things here that I want to make sure that
I am clear on, mainly ACHD comments on replacing curbs, gutters and
sidewalks, at who's expense is this?
Morrow: Those things when they are done and are required are generally
at the expense of the property owner. I believe that it is the opinion
of the Commission here that a large portion of those requirements are
not going to be enforced, if the property were to actually be developed
into commercial use then they would probably be required. I am of the
opinion that the requirements would be at such time as the property
was sold or developed into a commercial useage they might need to be
taken into consideration, such as the new office building on the north
of your parcel.
Morrow: If there are no questions of Mr. Hartwell, I will now open
the Public Hearing, is there anyone in the audience who wishes to
offer testimony on this application?
E. Faye Brewer Buchanan, Mrs. Buchanan was sworn by the City Attorney.
Buchanan: I have some questions, I do not know what CC Zoning involved,
I know that this happened in Twin Falls there was a block of houses
that were designated as homes that were to be used, like we developed
a Funeral Home, or Lee Sells home that kind of use and they gave it
a blanket rezone and the first beautiful home that went was for
McDOnalds and I have a real problem with that, I know it is a en-
furtherment but what I would like to see is a property owner on that
street keeping that as a home type business, I have a problem with
these homes being taken out and more Meridian Office Buildings being
built.
Chairman Morrow read from the Zoning & Development some of the uses
that would be allowed in a CC Zone and what would need a Conditional
Use Permit.
Buchanan: If you give it a blanket zoning, if something is allowed
in that zone you do not have to look at it one by one.
Morrow: That is true, it would be just the Conditional Use Permit
items. These would require having a Public Hearing.
Johnson: That is the general purpose of zoning to allow a blanket
approval without having to address each individual occupancy.
Buchanan: Well when you granted my Limited Office Zone, that is what
you wanted to do was to keep that, you as a group, to look at each
useage individually as things came up, but if you do this you do
not have to do that. As far as off-street parking,is that a require-
ment?
Morrow: the same requirements that applied to you, applys to them
when the property is developed into commercial.
MERIDIAN P & •
JUNE 9, 1987
PAGE # 9
•
Buchanan: I would like to voice my objection to the property being
zoned blanket Commercial because I would like to have you look at
each property individually and keep the home type business in the
area.
James Shearer: Mr. Shearer was sworn by the City Attorney.
Shearer: The reason for rezone on some of these properties is that
some of the residents are in the future looking at selling their prop-
erty and the value of the property is greater as commercial than
residential, some of the residents plan on using their proeprty for
commercial use, this would also make it contg_ous through out the
street, not having a residential property and then a commercial.
There is commercial property in all directions except to the East
and to keep that contigious we all got together to do this rezone.
There will be two residential properties left on that side of the
street if this rezone is approved, It is no ones anticipation at this
time to tear down what is there, they anticipate using what there,
however we do not want to be restricted from selling it to someone
to do something different.
Janet Butterfield, Mrs. Butterfield was sworn by the City Attorney.
Butterfield: I just want to say that I do not believe very many people
would want to purchase that property for residential purposes.
Nancy Brigham: Mrs. Brigham was sworn by the City Attorney.
Brigham: I just want to say, I would like to see it go one by one,
our property backed up to East First Street, I would hate to see it
given a blanket zoning although I feel they should be allowed to
have it commercial but it should be on an individual basis.
Morrow: Is there anyone else in the audience who wishes to testify,
if not I will close the Public Hearing. Are there any questions or
comments from the Commission? There were none.
The Motion was made by Johnson and seconded by Allidjani to have the
City Attorney prepare Findings of Fact and Conclusions on the
application for rezone by Hartwell, Butterfield, Spencer & Shearer
for the property described in the application.
Motion Carried: All Yea: Shearer Abstaining:
The Motion was made by Johnson and seconded by Alidjani that the
Findings show a recommendation that the Meridian City Council approve
request for a rezone by Hartwell, Butterfield, Spencer & Shearer for
the property described in the application and that the ACHD recomm-
endations be imposed as deemed appropriate.
Motion Carried: Johnson, Yea: Alidjani, Yea: Morrow, Yea: Cole Nay:
Shearer, Abstaining:
Item #5: Review proposed Jasime Subdivision:
Mr. Keith Loveless from Loveless Engineering was present to obtain
MERIDIAN P & • •
JUNE 9, 1987
PAGE # 10
the Planning & Zonings review of the proposed Jasime Acres Subdivision
for the purpose of having a letter from the Commission that they have
no objection to this project. Part of the property involved in this
proposal lies within the Meridian Impact Area. This letter is needed
to submit with their application to Ada County.
Loveless reviewed the project with the Planning & Zoning Commission and
the Commission forsaw no problem with the concept of this project.
The Motion was made by Shearer and seconded by Alidjani to have the
Zoning Adminstrator draft a letter to the parties involved advising
that the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission have no objections
to the Jasmine Acres Subdivision or the concept plan as it was sub-
mitted.
Motion Carried: All Yea:
Being no further business to come before the Commission the Motion was
made by Cole and seconded by Alidjani to adjourn at 9:03 p.m.:
Motion Carried: All Yea:
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
APPROVED:
V~ALT MOR O CHAIRMAN
ATTEST:
Clerk
Mayor '& Council
P& Z Commission
Atty, Eng, Fire
Police, Ward, Stuart
Mitich, Hallett,
Valley News, Statesman
ACC, ACZ,NIMD,ACHD
Settlers Irrigation
MAIL (5)
FILE (5)
lT: .Z C-7 T.. ... ... ,N..
~]tY t._ McYI... DTI
Ar,a C'Oti RtY~ I^.3hU
ORLINANCE 466
VERBAL TESTIMONY of SPEAKERS at PUBLIC HEARING
SING-UP SHEET
PRINTED NAME SIGNED NAME RESIDENTIAL ADDRESS TO SPEAK
YES NO
r
~ennJ~~~a~-~
~~
?el
n ~ ~
-~`
~
I x833
~ .
I~~u~,,,, l,~
~ = ~~~
;
-_-
C /~ L_.-f. i ~/~{' 4!c ~~I[[
X~~}e~~i.~Ld ~
~ ,~ /~ /~
c - .. __
..~C U _~~_-_._ _ ~ ~" Lb ~_K C~ /CD ~~'~`^-~~~tl-9~
-
G,.._~_,~~_2 a c3-833 _{~um~. ~'---
~- __ ~_ a~
~ ~
s<
' _~
7
-
J----
~
-- --__ _
__ --- --
__ I
~
i
_
---- -- - --
- --- ---
----
---- -- - ~
-- ---
-----~ I
i --
j_ --
i
I
_ _-- - ---- i
-r- -
~ - -
j
__
--- ---
~
- ~ 1
i ~
I
-}- __ _ -
-
-_ _ I
a
'I I