1986 09-08
•
•
A G E N D A
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING
SEPTEMBER 8, 1986
ITEM:
MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING HELD AUGUST 11, 1986: (APPROVED)
1. FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSION ON PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO
THE ZONING & DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE. (APPROVED)
2. VACATION OF PLAT LOT #1, TIMOTHY SUBDIVISION: (APPROVED)
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING SEPTEMBER 8, 1986
Regular Meeting of the Meridian Planning & Zoning called to order by
Acting Chairman Walt Morrow at 7:30 p.m.
Members Present: Jim Johnson, Jim Shearer, Tom Cole:
Members Absent: Bob Spencer, Moe Alidjani:
Others Present: Steve Wherry, Dennis Kelly, Wayne Crookston, Gary Smith,
Ronda Lowe:
The Motion was made by Johnson and seconded by Shearer to approve the
minutes of the previous meeting held August 11, 1986 as written:
Motion Carried: All Yea:
Item #1: Findings of Fact & Conclusions on proposed Amendments. to Zoning
& Development Ordinance:
Chairman Morrow, has the members read the Findings and are there any
comments or questions? There was no response.
The Motion was made by Cole and seconded by Shearer that the Meridian
Planning & Zoning hereby adopts and approves the Findings of Fact and
Conclusions as prepared:
Motion Carried: Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Yea: Cole, Yea: Shearer, Yea:
Morrow, Yea:
The Motion was made by Cole and seconded by Johnson that the Meridian
Planning & Zoning Commission hereby recommends. to the City Council that
the Planning & Zoning Commission's proposed Amendments to the Zoning
and Development Ordinances should be approved and adopted:
Motion Carried: All Yea:
Item #2: Vacation of Plat on Lot 1 Timothy Subdivision:
Chairman Morrow, this section of Timothy Subdivision has been zoned
Industrial as part of the Van Aucker Annexation and they are asking
that the plat of this lot be vacated.
It was explained to the Commission that under the Ordinances the
Commission has to make a recommendation to the City Council to
approve, disapprove or approve with conditions the vacation of a
plat after which time there would be a Public Hearing held before
the Council.
The Motion was made by Shearer and seconded by Johnson that the Meridian
Planning & Zoning Commission hereby recommends. to the City Council that
the Vacation o£ the Plat of Lot 1, Timothy Subdivision be approved:
Motion Carried: All Yea:
MERIDIAN P &
SEPTEMBER 8, ~86
PAGE # 2
The City Attorney and City Engineer were present to ask the Commission
to consider amending the Zoning & Development Ordinance to include a
provision that irrigation ditches either be fenced or tiled in a
subdivision. The pros & cons of this item were discussed and it was
the consensus of the Commission that this item be discussed further
at a future meeting.
Being no other business to come before the Commission the Motion was
made by Shearer and seconded by Johnson to adjourn the Meeting at 7:50 p.m.:
Motion Carried: All Yea:
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
APPROVED:
WALT MORROW, ACTING CHAIRMAN
ATTEST:
1
Ja~l~-Niem~.fin, City Clerk
Mayor & Council
P & Z Members
Atty, Eng, Fire
Police, Ward, Stuart,
Mitich, Hallett
Statesman, Valley News
ACHD, NIMD, ACC
CDH, ACC
File (2)
Mail (1)
~..
BEFORE THE MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
PLANNING AND 20NING COMMISSION'S
PETITION TO AMEND
MERIDIAN ZONING ORDINANCE AND THE DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
The above entitled Petition to amend the Meridian Zoning and
Development Ordinance having come on for public hearing and the
Planning and Zoning Commission having heard any and all testimony
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 scheduled for August 11, 1986, the first
publication of which was fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing;
that the matter was duly considered at the August 11, 1986,
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
Petition which is incorporated herein by this reference as if set
forth in full hereat. That the general reasons and purposes set
AB,BROSE, forth in the Petition for amending the Zoning Ordinance are to
FIRGERALD
B CROOKSTON
Atlomsys ens
DOYnMlorn
P.O. Boa t2]
MMB1Bn, MBM
BBBIII
T~4p~ons BBB M01
II • •
AMSROSE,
FITZGERALD
B CROOKSTON
AHOmays arM
CounNrlon
v.o. eo. rzT
MxMbn, WN1o
lSE/!
TN~plan~!l6~NH
allow the R-40, high density residential district in areas other
than Old Town as set forth in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan; to
allow lower density uses in areas which are zoned for higher
density uses; and to clearly indicate that in the R-4, R-8, and
R-15 residential districts that the garage area is not to be
included in determining the maximum lot coverage as set forth in
the Zoning Schedule of Bulk and Coverage controls.
3. That the Petition sets forth as the reasons and
purposes for amending the Development Ordinances are to
co-ordinate the City of Meridian's schedule of highway and street
types with that of the Ada County Highway District.
4. That the amendments have been proposed by the
Commission itself.
5. That at the public hearing held August 11, 1986, at
7:30 o'clock p.m. there was no public comment, either oral or
written, on the application.
6. That there presently exists multi-family residential
developments within the City which probably contain 40 or more
dwelling units to the acre which developments are not in Old
Town; that there are parcels of land outside of Old Town which
are, or may be, suitable for development under the R-40
designation.
7. That there may be land presently zoned medium or high
density residential which could be more feasibly developed at a
lower density; that a change in the zoning ordinance which allows
~..
lower density development on a parcel having a higher density
designation allows more flexibility in the residential zoning
districts.
S. That the current trend in lot sizes is to smaller lots;
that if the 358 maximum lot coverage includes the garage, the
size of house, particularly a single level house, is limited;
that a 358 maximum lot coverage, not including the garage, would
not interfere with aesthic value or lot line set backs.
9. That it is desireable to have the Ada County Highway
District and the City of Meridian road specifications and
designations identical.
CONCLUSIONS
1. That the City has authority to amend its Zoning and
Development Ordinances pursuant to Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho
Code, specifically Section 67-6511, Idaho Code, and Section
11-2-416 of the Zoning Ordinance and Section 11-9-614 of the
Development 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 since the proposed amendments are proposed by the
Commission, the technical requirements for an amendment
application may be waived, and are hereby waived.
4. That the function of adopting, amending, or repealing
AMSROSE,
FITZGER~LD
the text of a zoning Or development ordinance 15 a legislative
ECROOKSTON
~ttarneys nlE
CounNlrn
P.O. ~.l17
MpI01Y1, MYa
89512
TNpta~ro BB&N81
ii • •
AMBROBE,
F1T2GERALD
6 CROOKSTON
AKOmayt MIU
DounMlon
P.O. Box 1Y7
MsWMn, 1EYro
B7M2
T~IpIgM BBBdMt
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.
5. That the Commission may take judicial notice of
governmental statutes, ordinances and policies, and of actual
conditions existing within the City, County, and State.
6. That it is concluded that allowing the R-40 Residential
District to be only located in the Old Town Area as designated in
the Meridian Comprehensive Plan was too restrictive and that
there are, or may be in the future, parcels of land outside of
Old Town which should be developed under the R-40 standards; that
the zoning procedures themselves are sufficient protection for
protecting land which should not be developed under the R-40
standards.
7. That it is desireable that land be capable of actually
being developed at a lower residential density than the zone with
which the land is designated; that such leeway allows for more
beneficial use of land and more efficient governmental controls;
that in densities higher than R-15 or in commercial or industrial
zones there may be more necessity to ensure that the development
of a parcel meet the strict requirements of the zoning it
carries.
8. That it is desireable to exclude the garage from the
lot coverage when determining the maximum lot coverage so that a
.,, .s, v ,.~. .. _..
"~ II • •
larger house may be constructed on a smaller lot; such allows for
a higher tax base.
9. That the proposed amendments are reasonable, desireable
and in the best interest of the City of Meridian.
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 Morrow Voted Yt,~
Commissioner Alidjani Voted
Commissioner Johnson Voted
Commissioner Shearer Voted y 2A
Commissioner Cole Voted `f~,(}_
Chairman Spencer (Tie Breaker) Voted
RECOMMENDATION
AMBROSE,
FIRGERAlO
B CROOKSTON
ARwnry~rW
Coumsbn
P.O. Boz 177
MMEMn, WYq
OMII
T~Mgair MMMt
The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby
recommends to the City Council that the Planning and Zoning
Commission's proposed Amendments to the Zoning and Development
Ordinances should be approved and adopted.
APPROVED~_ DISAPPROVED