1986 05-12
A G E N D A
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING
MAY 12, 1986
ITEM:
MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING HELD APRIL 14, 1986: APPROVED
1. PUBLIC HEARING: ANNEXATION & ZONING REQUEST BY STEVE & GLENN
MICHELS: (ATTORNEY TO PREPARE FINDINGS)
2. FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS ON REZONE REQUEST BY D.K.D.G
PROPERTIES: (APPROVED)
3. PUBLIC HEARING: ANNEXATION & ZONING REQUEST BY P,ONALD VAN AUKER:
(ATTORNEY TO PREPARE FINDINGS)
4. PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST BY CECIL CHERRY
& SONS: (ATTORNEY TO PREPARE FINDINGS)
5. PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST BY LARRY BOWEN:
(ATTORNEY TO PREPARE FINDINGS)
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZO.
MAY 12, 1986
Regular Meeting of the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission called to
order at 7:30 p.m. by Chairman Bob Spencer:
Members Present: Walt Morrow, Moe Alidjani, Jim Johnson, Jim Shearer
Tom Cole:
Others Present: Dennis Kelly, Dan Thomas, Steve Michels, Glenn Michels,
Terry McCarthy, Greg McCarthy, Larry Bowen, Jim Christie, Verl Roberts,
Jackie Davidson, Kim Cherry, Terry Tingy, Dr. Barry Sams, David Fuller,
Betty Britton, W. Britton, Larry Davidson, Albert Chastain, Irene
Chastain, Maria Azevedo, Lori & Jay Stark, Cecial Cherry, Dorothy Roddi,
Bob Wherry, Rod Brady, Wayne Crookston, Ronda Lowe.
The Motion was made by Morrow and seconded by Alidjani to approve the
minutes of the previous meeting held April 14, 1986 as written:
Motion Carried: All Yea:
Chairman Spencer announced that the Public Hearings would be conducted
under the procedures as outlined in City Ordinance #446:
Item #1: Public Hearing: Annexation & Zoning Request by Steve & Glenn
Michels:
Chairman Spencer opened the Public Hearing: Is the a representative
of this request present?
Mr. Steve Michels was present to represent this request: Mr. Michels
was sworn by Chairman Spencer:
Michels, we are requesting annexation to the City of Meridian for the
property on Fairview Ave which is lots #1,#2, & #3 of Doris Subdivision.
We would like this property to be zoned C-G. At the present time we
have no project for this parcel although the question of zoning comes
up with each potential buyer. Presently lots 1 & 2 are zoned commercial
and lot 3 is zoned R-8 under the county zone. The R-8 zoning allow
eight dwelling units per acre, this lot is approximately 1.4 acres.
All the bordering ground on the West side of our property is zoned
Commercial, the property across Fairview is Commercial and the property
to the East back .about half way is Commercial.
Morrow, if this was to be granted are you opposed to close the entrance
into Doris Subdivision so if this was developed there would not be any
traffic on Carol Street in Doris Subdivision?
Michels, I would have no problem with that.
Terry McCarthy, 1385 Carol Street, Mrs. McCarthy was sworn by Spencer.
McCarthy, my property is adjacent to Lot #3 of Mr. Michels property
it is directly to the East of his property, Mrs. McCarthy indicated
her property on the map to the Commission, the covenants of Doris
Subdivision state that homes built in this subdivision will be built
on half acre lots or larger. This being one of the lots in that sub-
division I think he should adhere to those covenants. These covenants
were written in 1959, I think that this should take some precedence.
I_
MERIDIAN P & Z • •
PAGE # 2
MAY 12, 1986
Per the covenants they say that Lots 1 & 2 can be Commercial.It appears
to me that being the size that Lot 3 is it would be more suited and
match the rest of Doris Subdivision if it were made into two or maybe
three residential lots.
Dlorrow, do you have a house on your lot and is there a house on Lot 3?
McCarthy, yes, We do and no there isn't.
Verl Roberts, 11011 Goldenrod, Boise, Mr. Roberts was sworn by Spencer:
Roberts, I am a Real Estate Broker and have worked with the Michels
for some time trying to find a buyer or developer for the property.
As Mr. McCarthy has stated Lot #3 has been a residential lot since 1959
and you would think in that length of time that someone that was wanting
to build a home on it would have. The property is joined on tcvo sides
by commercial now and to find someone to build on it now is going to
be very diff;_~ult. I think that it is time it was developed and put on
the tax roll.
Jackie Davidson, 5817 Eastwood Place, Boise, Davidson was sworn by Spencer.
Davidson, we own Lot 4 which is adjacent to this Lot 3 on the North side,
it seems to me this is a resdentiaJ.neighborhood and taking a chunk out
and zoning it Commercial downgrades the neighborhood. We have an acre
here where we enjoy our livelyhood and everything and to put a commercial
place in our backyard really offends me.
Alidjani, do you acutally live here?
Davidson, we rent it, we do not live there but we own it.
McCarthy, I might add that in the time we have lived there, which is
since 1982, I have never seen a for sale sign on this property, people
would not know it was for sale to build a home on.
Marvin Bodine, 917 Camelia, Meridian, Bodine was sworn by Spencer:
Bodine, I feel that the Commercial property would benifit both sides.
It needs to be developed.
Jay Stark, 1840 S. Jericho, Meridian, Stark was sworn by Spencer:
Stark, I have a question, bascially this property is presently zoned
R-8 and they are petitioning to have it zoned Commercial referring to
this lot #3?
Spencer, yes along with annexation to the City.
Spencer, is there anyone else present who wishes to testify on this
request? There was no response. The Public Hearing was closed. Are there
any comments or questions of the Commission?
Morrow, I have a question of the Attorney, it seems there could be a
conflict here based on the testimony between the subdivision covenants
and the current zoning in Ada County and potential of annexing and
MERIDIAN P & Z •
MAY 12, 1986
PAGE # 3
I~
L
zoning into the City of Meridian. Is there a conflict there?
City Attorney, there could be, I have not seen the covenants.
Cole, you saying that lot 1 & 2 is alright but lot 3 is not?
Attorney, the way I understood the testimony is that lot 1 & 2 were
commercial but lot 3 was part of the residential area.
There was discussion on this among the members.
The Motion was made by Morrow and seconded by Johnson to have the
City Attorney prepare Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law on
this request and give an interpertation of how the covenants of
the Doris Subdivision effect, if any on this annexation & zoning
request.
Motion Carried: All Yea:
Item #2: Findings of fact & Conclusion on Rezone Request by D.K.D.G
Properties:
Chairman Spencer, has the Commission read these Findings and are there
any questions? There were none.
The Motion was made by Morrow and seconded by Cole that the Meridian
Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts and approves the Findings
of Fact and Conclusions on this rezone request.
Motion Carried: Morrow, Yea; Alidjani, Yea;, Johnson, Yea; Shearer, Yea;
Cole, Yea:
The Motion was made by Morrow and seconded by Cole that the Meridian
Planning & Zoning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council of
the City of Meridian that they deny the application of D.K.D.G Propert-
ies for rezone of the property in the application and since the rezone
is recommended to be denied, it is likewise recommended that the ease-
ments not be vacated.
Motion Carried: All Yea:
Item #3: Public Hearing: Annexation & Zoning Request by Ronald Van Aucker:
Chairman opened the Public Hearing, is there a representative in the
audience for this request?
Dennis Kelly, 3850 Gemini Circle, Mr. Kelly was sworn by Spencer:
Kelly, I am here representing Mr. Van Aucker on his request for annex-
ation & zoning of approximately 16 acres of property located between
the Interstate and Overland Road bounded on the East by Teare Avenue
and on the West by the Western Equipment property. We are requesting
that the parcel include the Interstate and one-half of Overland Road.
This property has access from Overland Road and also from Teare Avenue.
This property front along the Interstate when the sewer line is expect-
to cross the freeway, if and when it is extended. Are there any questions?
MERIDIAN PLANN~ & ZONING •
MAY 12, 1986
PAGE # 4
There were no questions of Mr. Kelly.
Spencer, is there anyone else present who wishes to testify on this
request? There was no response. The Public Hearing was closed.
The Motion was made by Morrow and seconded by Cole to have the City
Attorney prepare Findings of Fact and Conclusions and that these
Findings show a postive recommendation to the City Council on this
request.
Motion Carried: All Yea:
Item #4: Request for Conditional Use Permit by Cherry & Sons:
Chairman Spencer, is there anyone present representing this request?
Mr. Kim Cherry, 1524 Meridian Street, Mr. Cherry was sworn by Spencer:
Cherry, we own the property between 3rd & 4th Street off of Cherry Lane,
we have a professional office building on this property that was built
in 1979, in that building there are three offices, at one end is Dr.
Tingy and the other is Dr. Brady, the center office space is approx-
imately 1600 square feet and we have had considerable problems keeping
the space rented over the past five years. What we propose at this
hearing is a Conditional Use Permit to allow a public laundromat in
that space. One reason for this is we have concern for the amount of
professional office space that is presently vacant and the amount that
is being constructed. We feel that this would be a good location for
a facility of this type. We dial not have any opposition from the resid-
ents in the area. We realize the tenants on both sides of this are
concerned the effect this will have on their business. Our concern is
that this be a positive venture for them as well as for us. The laund-
romat would be manned during all operating hours, six days a week
Monday through Saturday, hours 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m something in
that order. Basically that is all I have to say is there any questions?
Johnson, is this a list of people within 300 hundred feet?
Cherry, yes this is all the property owners within the 300 foot
requirement of the Conditional Use Permit. I might mention I received
the comment .sheets that were submitted, the requirements by the Ada
County Highway District, one of the things they had mentioned was
to provide curb gutter & paving on West 4th Street, that is not
adjacent to this property, I talked to Jon Thompson and there is
a misunderstanding there, he thought that the property on the corner
was going to be developed.,as far as that requirement we would request
that this be waived.
Spencer, at this time I will enter into the record two letters, one
from Terrell Tingy and the other from Rodney Brady both in opposition
to this request.
Terry Tingy, 303 west Cherry Lane, Mr. Tingy was sworn by Spencer:
Tingy, I have my Orthodonist Office in this building, I purchased
MERIDIAN P & Z • .
MAY 12, 1986
PAGE # 5.
the practice from Dr. Packard in 1982 who had been in this building
since it was built. I finished the original term of the lease which
was six years, during that time we paid for leasehold improvements
which approached $20,000.00. I would like to go on record as opposing
a laundromat immediately adjacent to my office on the grounds that it
is contrary to my views on how I want to appear or project my image
to the community. A professional office which delivers health care
seeks a place of business where traffic is more subdued and calmer
than commercial environments and where people have the feeling of
privacy to receive the treatment I provide. I object to the late
hours and the accompanying noise when it comes to a laundromat and
feel it would be unfair if I was forced to endure such an encroach-
ment upon my professional privacy and if that were so it would be
very costly for me to move and relocate my practice.
Alidjani, what are your hours?
Tingey,8;00 a.m, to 5:00 p.m. basically.
Cole, while you have been there has the whole building complex been
full at one time?
Tingey there three units, the middle unit has been virtually vacant
most of the time.
Cole, when there was something in all three offices was the parking
adequate?
Tingey,Yes, it has been.
Alidjani, then the middle building is where the laundromat is going
to go?
Tingey, that is my understanding.
Dr. Barry Sams, 403 Cherry Lane, Dr. Sams was sworn by Spencer.
Sams, Mr. Cherry came to me a couple of weeks ago and informed me of
his plan to put a laundromat in his building, this happened approx-
imately four years ago also and I was very concerned at that time
because that is where I wanted to establish my practice at 403 Cherry
Lane and I was concerned as to what it might do to property values
and the late hours and the same concerns that Dr. Tingey has already
expressed.2 entered a objection at that time and then it did not go
any further. Mr. Cherry came to me again this year and I did sign
that as far as I was concerned it was ok and it was my understanding
that both Dr. Tingey and Dr. Brady were satisfied. Since that time
I have been thinking about a great deal and have put myself in their
place and I know that I would feel the very same way that they do, I
would also want to relocate, again patients are very sensitive about
where they are coming to for a service and about the hours and the
people around there. Mr. Cherry has tried to give as much as a
guarantee as would. be humanly possible to establish the type of
criteria we would want in terms of hours but there is no guarantee
there is no guarantee of the place being kept up or of the place be-
ing sold, so there are no guarantees as far as I am concerned, as
MERIDIAN P & Z • •
MAY 12, 1986
PAGE # 6
much as he would like to give me those guarantees. I would like it
to show on the records that I am also opposed to having a laundromat
there.
Spencer is there anyone else present who wishes to testify? There
was no response, The Public Hearing was closed.Any questions of the
Commission?
Morrow, Mr. Cherry what did you want to say?
Cherry, first of all I hope I did not represent to Dr. Sams that we
had the support of Dr. Tingey and Dr. Brady. One of the things that
prompted us to go ahead with this was that Dr. Tingey was unwilling
to renew a six year lease.The concern was as to what the property
was going to do or how it was going to develop. We have tried at times
to market the property, in fact we even approached both Dr. Tingey and
Dr. Brady. We are concerned about the property being on a break-even
basis. I understand the concerns they have as professional people.
Alidjani, did you at any time when you were leasing the property to
them either verbally or in writing promise them what could or could
not go into the middle section?
Cherry, no, other then the zoning that was orginally requested.
Morrow, there appears to be extra land here, is this building the
first phase of a professional comples?
Cherry, we had six building approved to go in there.
Morrow, one of the comments of the Police Chief was that they were
concerned about pedestrian traffic in a full four lane street, the
pedestrian coming back and forth across that to the laundromat from
the Mobile Home Park, have you figured this impact?
Cherry, I guess the thing I would say is that you do not see a lot of
people packing all that laundry, you see them putting it in the car
and driving to the laundromat. I don't feel there would be any more
foot traffic than there is now.
Spencer, have you read the City Engineers comments?
Cherry, yes, I have and I have talked to the Engineer about those.
The Motion was made by Alidjani and seconded by Cole to have the
City Attorney prepare Findings of Fact and Conclusions on this
request:
Motion Carried: Morrow; Nay: Alidjani, Yea: Johnson, Nay: Shearer;
Yea: Cole; Yea:
Item #5: Public Hearing: Conditional Use Permit for Larry Bowen:
Chairman Spencer, is there anyone present to represent this request?
Larry Bowen, 205 W. 5th, Emmett, Mr. Bowen was sworn by Spencer:
MERIDIAN P & ~ •
MAY 12, 198b
PAGE # 7
Bowen, I presently have a studio in Emmett and have been there for
about 10 years and I am trying to relocate and open up a studio here
in Meridian where I will reside. It will be a home and a photography
studio along with the one I have in Emmett. It will just be for the
creating of the pictures, there will not be a processing lab, it will
be just for the purpose of the photographs in and around the building,
it is a historical building which really helps my business, the type
I want. the clientele and the images I create, therefore as far as
maintaining and preserving this home it is to my benefit to do so.
Alidjani, what type of clientele do you :have and how many?
Bowen, I work on a appointment basis, it is a small
the only photographer and it is usually at the least
and it is one at a time so there would probably be
and one client leaving. There probably would never
cars at one time, one coming ,one leaving and maybe
to request prices or etc.
operation as I am
half hour sessions
one client coming
~e more than three
someone showing up
Johnson, had some questions on the signatures, which were explained to
him: Did you you get any opposition from the owners when you took the
petition around?
Bowen, no, other than the ones who refuse to sign. petitions, everybody
was real favorable.I reviewed the comments and I assumed that you were
thinking I was going to do processing as far as the additional sewer
and water charges are concerned.
It was explained to Mr. Bowen that this would have to be paid as it
is part of the Conditional Use Permit when a business is conducted out
of a home.
Spencer, what are your plans for parking?
Bowen, you can park two cars easily in front of the house and then
there is a long driveway. There was more discussion on the parking
and also the additional hookup assessments.
Johnson, have you address anything about signage?
Bowen, just that you have a sign code and I have read that, probably
be a wooden carved signs .
Chairman Spencer, I need to enter into the record a letter received
from Art & Florence Hall who are in opposition to the request.
Jay Johnson, 2910 Sheffield, Boise, Mr. Johnson was sworn by Spencer:
Johnson, I support this request, it is a new business coming into
Meridian, I have property that is basically behind his and I have
made it available for parking which he may use.
Spencer, is there anyone else present who wishes to testify on this
request? There was no response. The Public Hearing was closed.
Are there any comments or questions of the Commission? There were
none.
MERIDIAN P & ~ •
MAY 12, 1986
PAGE # 8
The Motion was made by Morrow and seconded by :Shearer to have the
City Attorney prepare Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
on this request and that the Findings reflect a favorable recom-
mendation to the Meridian City Council.
Motion Carried: All Yea:
Being no further business to come before the Commission the Motion
was made by Cole and seconded by Morrow to adjourn at 8:35 p.m.:
Motion Carried: All Yea:
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)APPROVED:
BOB S ER, CHAIRMAN
ATTEST:
Jack INiemann
pc:
ty Clerk
Mayor ,~' Council
P & Commission
Atty, Eng, Police, Mitich
Fire, Ward, Stuart,Keibert
Valley News, Statesman
Hallett, ACRD, NIMD,
CDH, ACC, ACZ,
Mail (6)
File (6)
BEFORE THE MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
VAN AUCKER ANNEXATION AND ZONING
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
AMBROBE,
FITZGERALO
B CROOKSTON
Attornaya enE
Counselors
R.o. Boz azT
Merl0lan, IGSIto
BJBS2
TaleO~one BBBdM1
The above entitled annexation and zoning application having
come on for consideration on May 12, 1986, at approximately 7:30
o'clock p.m, on said date, at the Meridian City Hall, 728
Meridian Street, Meridian, Idaho, and the Commission having heard
and taken oral and written testimony and the applicant appearing
and having duly considered the matter, the Planning and Zoning
Commission makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. That notice of the public hearing on the annexation and
zoning use was published for two (2) consecutive weeks prior to
the said public hearing scheduled for May 12, 1986, the first
publication of which was 15 days prior to said hearing; that the
matter was duly considered at the May 12, 1986 hearing; that
copies of all notices were made available to newspaper, radio and
television stations.
2. That the Planning and Zoning Commission (P & Z Comm.)
received no oral or written testimony, other than the Applicant's
and some written comments were submitted.
AM BROBE,
FITZGERALD
iCROOKSTON
Atlomeys anE
Counaelon
P.O. Box OTy
MariOlan, IOeho
83b12
TeIBphOM BB&N81
3. That the property included in the Application for
Annexation and Zoning is described in the application, and by
this reference is incorporated herein; that the property abutts
Overland Road on the North, I-84 on the South; Teare Avenue on
the East and the Terteling Trust #7 Annexation on the West and
consists of approximately sixteen (16) acres of land.
4. That the property is adjacent and abutting to the
present City limits.
5. That the petitioner is Ronald W. Van Rucker and the
owners are Dorothy E. Rodda, Bruce and Judy Wixson, and Lorraine
J. Smith.
6. That the property included in the annexation and zoning
application is within the Area of Impact of the City of Meridian.
7. That the entire parcel of ground is included within the
Meridian Urban Service Planning Area as the Urban Service
Planning Area is defined in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan.
8. That the Application for annexation requests that the
parcel be annexed and zoned "I-L" Light Industrial; that the
present use of the property is agricultural and is presently
zoned by the County as AP-2 and a portion is zoned R-1; that the
Terteling Trust Annexation property adjacent to this present
property is zoned Light Industrial; that 11-2-408 B. 11 of the
Meridian Zoning Ordinance requires that land in this zone be in
such proximity to insure connection to City water and sewer.
9. That the land in this annexation is contained in the
AMBROSE,
fITZGERALD
BCROOKSTON
Allorneys en0
Couneslon
P.O. Box 12]
MerlElen, IANo
83!14
TaNpNOne 886 M81
Mixed Use Area East of the Kuna/Meridian Road and between I-84
and Overland Road, as designated in the Meridian Comprehensive
Plan as amended February 19, 1985.
10. That the proposed use of the property would be to
develope the property for light, clean industrial businesses.
11. That the Applicant did not state he had immediate plans
for development of the parcel.
12. That if the land were annexed at this time the City
would be obligated to provide, at a minimum, police and fire
protection services.
13. That at the present time there is no available means of
connecting the property to City water or sewer; that a portion of
the property is presently included in 1986 Idaho Community
Development Block Grant proposal which has been submitted to the
State of Idaho; that if the Grant is approved it is possible the
land could achieve a near access point to the City sewer, and
water may have to be developed on sight.
14. That the City has in the recent past conditionally
annexed and zoned property conditioned upon final platting and
commencement of construction of sewer and water and other
reasonable conditions.
CONCLUSIONS
1. That the City has authority to annex land pursuant to
50-222, Idaho Code; that excerise of the City's annexation
AMSROSE,
FIT20 ERALD
d CROOKSTON
Attorneys end
DOUnNIOfe
P.O. Soz X11
MerlElen,l0elw
BSMY
TsNPAOM BlB~M1
authority is a Legislative function.
2. That the Planning and Zoning Commission has judged this
annexation and zoning application by the guidelines, standards,
criteria, and policies contained in Section 50-222, Title 67,
Chapter 65, Idaho Code, the Meridian City Ordinances, Meridian
Comprehensive Plan as amended February 19, 1985, and the record
submitted to it and things of which it can take judicial notice.
3. That all notice and hearing requirements set forth in
Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code, and the Ordinances, of the City
of Meridian have been complied with.
4. That the Commission may take judicial notice of
government ordinances, and policies, and of actual conditions
existing within the City and State.
5. That the land within the proposed annexation is
contiguous to the present City limits of the City of Meridian,
and the annexation would not be a shoestring annexation.
6. That the annexation application has been initiated by
the Petitioner and the owners, and the annexation is not upon the
initiations of the City of Meridian and therefore the five (5)
acres limitation does not apply.
7. That no objections to the annexation and zoning were
made at the public hearings.
8. That since the annexation and zoning of land is a
legislative function the City has authority to place conditions
upon the annexation of land.
AMBFOBE,
FIT70EPALD
B CPOOKBTON
Allom•y1ntl
Counwlorl
P.O. BOw 177
M•ntll•n, bNo
!7117
rN•Plwn•8661181
9. That the development of annexed land must meet and
comply with the Ordinances of the City of Meridian and in
particular Section 11-9-616 which pertains to development time
schedules and requirements; that the applicant should be required
to connect to Meridian water and sewer lines and extend such to
the development at its own cost; that the property will be
subject to Site Planning Review.
10. That it is concluded that the annexation would be in
the best interests of the City of Meridian if the land was going
to be immediately developed.
11. Therefore, based on the Application, the testimony and
evidence, these Findings and Conclusions, and the Ordinances of
the City of Meridian, it is ultimately recommended that
Applicant's property should be conditionally annexed and zoned,
"I-L", Light Industrial which conditions should be explored at
the City Council level; that such annexation would be orderly
development and reasonable.
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 Cole Voted yos
Commissioner Shearer Voted ~/~u
Commissioner Johnson Voted ~[i.t
Commissioner Alidjani
Commissioner Morrow
Chairman Spencer (Tie Breaker)
Voted
Voted ~1
Voted
RECOMMENDATION
AMBROSE,
FITZG ERAID
B CROOKSTON
Attorneys end
Counaelore
P.O. Box 1Y7
Marlolsn, IEe11o
87M2
Telepllona BBSd161
It is hereby recommended to the City Council that this
r
Petition~nnexation and Zoning should be approved conditionally
which conditions should be investigated and discussed by the City
Council.
MOTION:
APPROVED:_~,
DISAPPROVED:
BEFORE THE MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
CECIL CHERRY
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
303 W. CHERRY LANE
MERIDIAN, IDAHO
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
AMeROSE,
FITZG ERALO
B CROOKSTON
Attorneys end
Couneeloro
P.O. Box ~8T
Merl Olen, ICe~o
83812
TslePltone 88MM7
The above entitled matter having come on for public hearing
May 12, 1986, 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 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 May 12, -1986, the first
publication of which was fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing;
that the matter was duly considered at the May 12, 1986- hearing; -
that the public was 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
:~
Meridian and is owned by the applicant, Cecil Cherry, and is
described in the application which description is incorporated
herein the property is known as 303 W. Cherry Lane;
3. That the property is located in "L-O" Limited Office
district, which requires a conditional
operation of a laundromat which is the
requests; that the Applicant indicated his
"manned" laundromat which person would do
and would also be an attendant to keep the
orderly.
use permit for the
use the application
proposal is to have a
ether peoples' laundry
business clean and
4. That the "L-0", Limited Office district is described
in the Zoning Ordinance, 11-2-408 B. 5 as follows:
(L-O) Limited Office District: The purpose of the (L-0)
District is to permit the establishment of groupings of
professional, research, executive, administrative,
accounting, clerical, stenographic, public service and
similar uses. Research uses shall not involve heavy testing
operations of any kind or product manufacturing of such a
nature to create noise, vibration or emissions of a nature
offensive to the overall purpose of this district. The L-O
District is designed to act as a buffer between other more
intense non-residential uses and high density residential
uses, and is thus a transitional use. Connection to the
Municipal Water and Sewer System of the City of Meridian is
a requirement in this district.
5. That a self-service laundromat is an allowed
AMBROBE,
FITZOERALD
B CROOKBTON
conditional use in the limited office district; that commercial
laundries are not either a principal permitted use or an allowed
conditional use in the limited office district.
6. That the building within which the laundromat would be
AttomquulE
DounMIW~
P.O. Boy ~'l7
MMEIm, WYa
CJMII
T11p1aMBBNMt
AMBROBE,
FITZOERALO
acROOKeroN
Auomq. YIE
COYIINIOIt
P.O. lot 1]7
MM04n, WNo
aasu
TNpIaM NHN7
situated has an orthodontist office and a dentist office on
either side of where the laundromat would be located.
7. That the property to the west is a chiropractors
office and single-family dwellings; the property to the east is a
church; the property to the south is vacant land which is owned
by the Applicant and was initially proposed to be developed as
office space; the properties to the north across Cherry Lane are
mobile home courts.
8. That a proper notice has been given as required by law
and all procedures before the Planning and Zoning Commission have
been given and followed;
9. That several people appeared at the hearing objecting
to the use of the property as a laundromat; one was the
chiropractor, who owns adjacent property and two others were
tenants in the subject building, both whom felt the use would be
incompatible with their uses;
10. That the property is presently used for office
purposes; one tenant being an orthodontist and the other tenant
being a dentist;
11. That the Chief of Police submitted written comment
which indicated a possible pedestrian traffic and safety problem
with residents of the mobile homes on Cherry Lane crossing Cherry
Lane without the benefit of a control light.
CONCLUSIONS
1. That all the procedural requirements of the Local
AMBROBE,
FIT20ERALD
6 CRDONBTDN
AnomByBBne
CounNlon
P.O. Boy X77
MMe1Bn, IOYa
BJMII
Planning Act and of the Ordinances of the City of Meridian have
been met including the mailing of notice to owners of property
within 300 feet of the external boundaries of the applicant's
property and having obtained the consent of 75~ of the owners of
property within 300 feet of the external boundaries of the
applicant's property;
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, Idaho;
3. That the City of Meridian has authority to place
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 specifically concludes as follows:
a. The use, would in fact, constitute a conditional use
and a conditional use permit would be required by
ordinance.
AMBROBE,
FITZOERALD
acROOICBTOw
Allom~y~ anE
CounNbn
v.o.eoRl~7
M«arn,arw
exu
TNplio~w BBaNat
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 such being
designated as limited office but the operation and
and maintenance of a laundromat adjacent to dental
offices could be inharmonious and incompatible.
d. That the use would not be hazardous but could be
disturbing to existing or future neighboring uses
such as the existing orthodontic, dental, and
chiropratic uses.
e. The property is already connected to sewer and
water line.
f. The use would not create excessive additional
requirements at public cost for public facilities and
services and no conclusion is made whether the use
would be detrimental to the economic welfare of the
community.
g• The use could, and likely would, 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. The parking for the property and the proposed use
apparently would be adequate.
i. The development a nd uses will not result in the
destruction, loss or damage of a natural or scenic
feature of major importance.
5. The possible, and desired, ped estrian traffic from the
mobile home park, without a crosswalk control signal, is not
desireable.
6. The fact that the use could be defined as a commercial
laundry, which is not a principal permitted use or an allowed
conditional use weighs against the application.
AMBROSE,
FIRGERALD
B CROOKSTON
Attomeya entl
Counaelon
P.O. Box ax]
Me~ltllen,ItlaNo
838aR
TelepNOne 8884181
APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
AMBROSE,
FITZG ERALD
6 CROOKSTON
Attomeye and
Counseloro
P.O. Box e27
MeriElAn, IENo
83M2
TelapPOne BlBJMi
The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts
and approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions.
ROLL CALL:
Commissioner Morrow Voted
Commissioner Alidjani Voted
Commissioner Johnson Voted
Commissioner Shearer Voted~_
Commissioner Cole Voted.~~(_
Chairman Spen cer (Tie Breaker) Voted
DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION
The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby
recommends to the City Council of the City of Meridian that they
deny the Conditional Use Permit requested by the Applicant for
the property described in the application,
MOTION:
APPROVED:
DISAPPROVED: e-
r
•
BEFORE THE MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
LARRY M. BOWEN
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
49 EAST STATE AVENUE
MERIDIAN, IDAHO
AMBROBE,
FITZOERALD
B CROONBTON
ALLOrny~ And
Cqun~110n
P.O. Box 177
MNldnn, IdNo
0.7M7
Twplwrn BBBdMt
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
The above entitled matter having come on for public hearing
May 12, 1986, 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 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 May 12, 1986, the first
publication of which was fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing;
that the matter was duly considered at the May 12, 1986 hearing;
that the public was 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
AMBROBE,
FITZDERALD
6 CROOKBTON
Atnrnq, Antl
Counwlon
P,O. Bo%/Z7
MMtlMn, IoNo
B3M7
TsIeplloN 8l6iM1
Meridian and is owned by Bernhardine Hosely, and is described as
Lots 20 and 21, Block 1, Nourse's Second Subdivision, Ada County,
Idaho; and is known as 49 East State Avenue;
3. That the property is located in Old Town, which
requires a conditional use permit for the operation of a
photography studio which is the use the application requests;
4. That a proper notice has been given as required by law
and all approvals and procedures before the Planning and Zoning
Commission have been given and followed;
5. That no persons appeared at the hearing objecting to
the use of the property as a photography studio, a letter in
opposition was received from Art and Florence Hall;
6. That the property is presently used soley for
residential purposes;
7. That at the public hearing there was public comment in
addition to the applicants', which supported the Application;
8. That the Applicant's use as a photography shop is
classified as a professional office which is a permitted
conditional use in Old Town;
9. That the Applicant represented there would be no photo
processing on the premises; that there would not be more than two
to three customer cars parked in or around the premises;
10. That the Applicant met the requirements that 758 of
the owner's of property within 300 feet of the property approve
of the conditional use.
CONCLUSIONS
AMBROBE.
FITZOEPALD
6 CROONBTON
•uom.y..ne
CounNlax
P.O. Box ~II7
MMAIM, IOMo
~II
TNpNOM BBB~MB7
1. That all the procedural requirements of the Local
Planning Act and of the Ordinances of the City of Meridian have
been met including the mailing of notice to owners of property
within 300 feet of the external boundaries of the applicant's
property and having obtained the consent of 758 of the owners of
property within 300 feet of the external boundaries of the
applicant's property;
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, Idaho;
3. That the City of Meridian has authority to place
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 specifically concludes as follows:
a. The uses, in fact, constitute a conditional use and a
AMBROBE,
FIT2OERALD
6 CROONBTON
Allom~y, ~nC
Coonulon
P.O. BO.1R1
MMAI~n, IONo
!JB{2
TsI~pIWM!lMM1
conditional use permit is required by ordinance.
b. The uses will be harmonious with and in accordance
with the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance.
c. The use will be designed, constructed, operated, and
maintained to be harmonious in appearance with the
intended character of the general vicinity such being
designated Old Town which contains a mixture of uses.
d. That the uses will not be hazardous or disturbing to
existing or future neighboring uses.
e. The property if not already connected to sewer and
water line must be so connected and those services
should be able to be provided adequately.
f. The use will not create excessive additional
requirements at public cost for public facilities and
services and will not be detrimental to the economic
welfare of the community.
g. The uses will not involve uses, activities, processes,
materials, equipment and conditions of operation that
will be detrimental to any person, property or the
general welfare by reason of excessive production of
traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors.
h. That applicant shall be required to have parking for
the property which shall be so designed as not to
create an interference with traffic and parking on
surrounding public streets and which parking meets
the City Ordinances.
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 the Applicant shall be required to pay
appropriate rates for sewer, water, and trash and shall be
required to pay for any and all connection fees for water and
sewer necessitated by his uses. That the Applicant must meet the
parking requirements and the sign code ordinance;
6. That the permit once granted shall be personal to the
Applicants and shall not be transferrable to other individuals or
property.
gMSROSE,
FITZG ERALD
B CROOKSTON
Attorneys sort
Counlwlore
P.O. Boz K87
Merltllen, M88o
83812
TelepNOns 8861M1
APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
AMSROSE,
FITZGERALD
B CROOKSTON
Allomays ano
Counssloro
P.O. Boz 027
Man01An, IBNo
83612
T~IpIgM BBB~Mt
The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts
and approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions.
ROLL CALL:
Commissioner Morrow Voted
Commissioner Alidjani Voted
Commissioner Johnson Voted
Commissioner Shearer Voted~~
Commissioner Cole Voted y,,,,,
Chairman Spencer (Tie Breaker) Voted
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 Applicant for
the property described in the application under the conditions
stated herein.
MOTION:
APPROVED
DISAPPROVED
C~
RODNEY D. BRADY, D.D.S.
313 WEST CHERRY LANE
MERIDIAN, IDAHO 93642
TELEPHONE (209) 999-7669
May 12, 1986
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
728 No. Meridian
Meridian, Idaho 83642
Dear Sirs:
i
I presently lease office space at 313 W. Cherry Lane in a pro-
fessional office building, owned by Cecil Cherry and Sons. To
this point in time, the Cherry's have been good landlords and
the building has served well for my purposes, that being a
dental practice. I believe the building enhances the surround-
ing community and fits well into the present zoning of light
office, which I believe is correct for this area.
I am presently opposed to the proposal to change the zoning of
the building or area to commercial or anything other than what
it is at this time. I do not believe commercial zoning would
be in the best interests of the neighborhood,or surrounding
professional businesses and churches.
Sincerely,
~~~~
RODNF,Y D. BRADY D.D.S.
RDB/mr
~.
~.
e4.~
~~>~-~' , ,ozE,F4
~°~ ~~~
~\
~ C
C;'
(~
1 ~ ?_ ti \
tit
1
L :/`n
TERRELL F. TINGEY, D.D.S., M.S.D.
2020 N. Cole Road 303 W. Cherry Lane
Boise, Idaho 637D4 Meridian, Idaho 83642
[2081 375-0831 C2O81 888-51 48
May 8,1986
Meridian City
Planning & Zoning
728 Meridian Ave.
Meridian, Idaho 83642
Dear Commissioners:
T wish to--sxpress my objection to the intended use
of part of Cherry Plaza Professional Park for a
laundromat.
My orthodontic practice was located at 303 W.
Cherry Lane in 1980, because the parcel in
question was zoned for professional use, and the
Cherry's represented themselves as a Professional
Park.
Traditionally commercial and professional zones
have been separated because professional busi-
nesses tend to seek calmer, quieter, locations
where they have less traffic than commercial
establishments. Sharing a building with a
commercial business such as a laundromat is
contrary to the image I wish to have in the
community. The operating noise and increased
traffic would detract from the environment of
privacy that should prevail in the delivery of
health care.
If I were forced to relocate to escape such an
intrusion on my professional business, it would be
both inconvenient and costly. I believe allowing
the laundromat at 309 W. Cherry Lane would be
clearly unfair to the professionals in that r
building.
Thank you for .considering my request to deny the /
provisional use permit in this case.
Sincerely yours, ~~
~~~~ ~ ~ C
Terrell F. Ting D.D.S.,M.S.D. ~ `U< /
._ ... _ ~ fL +..":N1 .::u v _
City of Meridian
• Ada County, Idaho •
ORDINANCE 466
VERBAL TESTIMONY of SPEAKERS at PUBLIC HEARING
SING-UP SHEET
~.,.
T~.2. ~ ".. -~ ., ~ s ~ , . r.
PRINTED NAME
SIGNED NAME
RESIDENTIAL ADDRESS
TO SPEAK
YES NO
~ , ~- I z ~
~ I
-- .r9/L- i ~ O
-_--- .-
~_'_'
`'
i 1
~r~
~ ,_~ __ r ~ ~ - ~ ---- - - - ---
__
__ - 4
-- -
~
i -- - -
-__ -
-
- -- ---- ---- --- - ------- I -
i --
_ __ I
-
_,
~-
fi~ f
' ~
C l.'i4 COUNCIL ar: r9 ,.A; i ;"» a :_ .'O[ai NG
City of Meridian
• Ada County, Idaho •
ORDINANCE 466
VERBAL TESTIMONY of SPEAKERS at PUBLIC HEARING
SING-UP SHEET
..... , . .. r-... ._.. .. _ ...
PRINTED NAME SIGNED NAME RESIDENTIAL ADDRESS TO SPEAK
YES NO
A
~~_L' ~S~+C'~ i)~~ ~..~.'~~7~a.~ _~~~ i vJ-~C~fil~t.1;1c2,~h--
J ~ ..i
i --
~
-- ~
--
'
~
----
--- - - -- -
~ --T --------
~
- ~ --
------- I
1
---
- _ ---- __
_ - _- - - -- - -- -
---
--
--
T-- -
M
-- 1
~~
I ~
I
' - --_
__-
_ _ - i
i
i
i
I
I
--.. i i -r
I i
1 1
•
~~ ~~~~~
n~.Q y
a rvu-
~~- z
/~19~b
~~~~~ ~~~
c i1~'t~-/1n
~`~~
~~~
~~~~
~~ ~ ~
~~
~~~ ~~~~
~ ~f
> //>
Y " V V
~~~ ~~ ~-
1~.,Y~,~ ~~ e
~y
bir.. Jack PIi_emann, City C].erk
7?8 Meridian Street
Meridian, Idaho 83642
Apri]. 30, 1986
Dear htr. Niemann,
We received a letter notifying us of a Planning
and Zoning Commission hearing to be held on May 12,
1986, for which we Thank you eiery much. Due to previous
comm_ttments we will be out of town at that time so we
are sending this letter.
Concerning the application of Larry M. Bowen for a
conditional use permit at 49 E. State Avenue for a Photo-
graphy Studio. We are certainly not in favor of a com-
mercial business going in on our street and just two
doors from us even thou Mr. Bowen tells us there would
never be more than two cars there at a time. This is
pretty hard to believe. We have had enough problems with
parking in front of our place with it residential.
We do have a nice residential. street and do hope
to keep it this way.
'Phank//ing you, C~ / _ n
Art & F'lorance Hall
39 'Last State Ave.
Meridian, Idaho 83642
L
~~(~~~~