1986 04-14
A G E N D A
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING
APRIL 14, 1986
ITEM:
MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING HELD FEBRUARY 10, 1986: (APPROVED)
bIINUTES OF MEETING HELD MARCH 10, 1986: (APPROVED)
1. PUBLIC HEARING: REZONE REQUEST BY D.K.D.G PROPERTIES & VACATION
OF WALKWAY: SETTLERS VILLAGE SUBDIVISION: (ATTORNEY TO PREPARE
FINDINGS)
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING
~J
APRIL 14.1986
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: Glenda Britz, Debra Pence, Glenrose Ewing, Jeanette
Barker, Kelly Roberts, Kevin Keyt, James Michaelson, Rich Allison,
Jay Stark, Alvie Quick, Euayne Quick, Lori Stark, Don Hubble, Wayne
Crookston, Ronda Lowe, Bryan Nye:
The Motion was made by Morrow and seconded by Cole to approve the
minutes of the meeting held February 10, 1986 as written:
Motion Carried: All Yea:
The Motion was made by Alidjani and seconded by Cole to approve the
minutes of the meeting held March 10, 1986 as written:
Motion Carried: All Yea:
Item #1: Public Hearing, Rezone Request & Vacation of Walkway Settlers
Village Subdivision:
Chairman Spencer, this hearing will be conducted under the rules of
City Ordinance #446: I will now open the Public Hearing, is there
someone present to represent this request?
Mr. Don Hubble was representing D.K.D.G. Properties in this request.
Mr. Hubble was sworn by Chairman Spencer.
Hubble, The purpose of this request is to rezone this property from
Commercial to R-15 which would allow muti-family dwellings. We feel
this would make a good buffer between the Commercial property and
the single family dwellings. We have read the recommendations of the
staff and concur with these comments.
Cole, do you know what the reason for the walkway?
Hubble, part of the reason for the easment was an access easment behind
the commercial property and to provide a walkway into the park, however
it also called for a buffer and a fence there which would have had to
have a gate there or cut off that walkway. There were no other questions
of Mr. Hubble.
Jay Stark, 1840 Jericho Road, Mr. Stark was sworn by Chairman Spencer.
Stark, we received a notice of the proposed rezoning request, we did
some checking on what C-G Zoning was and what R-15 Zoning was, talked
to our neighbors and decided we should make up a petition, we circul-
ated this petition thoughout the subdivision and received 63 signat-
ures from the residents of the subdivision, at this time I would like
to present this petition for the record to the Commission.
MERIDIAN PLANNI• & ZONING
APRIL 14,1985
PAGE # 2
This petition is in opposition of the rezone request. (PETITION ON FILE
WITH THESE MINUTESIEXHIBIT "A")
Morrow, for what reason opposed to commercial?
Stark, it seemed to be the general consensus that multi-family dwell-
ings were not preferred over commercial as the commercial was explain-
ed to us.
Morrow, the residents did not concieve that the multi-family would be
a better buffer than the commercial adjacent to them?
Stark, no, everybody seemed to be overwhelming against having multi-
family dwellings put into that area
Johnson, can you be more detailed in why the opposition?
Stark, it is my personal opinion multi-family dwellings up to four
plexes which I understand the R-15 Zoning allows would bring in renters
which is not purchasable property and my understanding this lowers the
property values.
Cole, are the property owners immediately adjacent to this property on
this petition?
Stark, yes, out of the entire neighborhood the people we were able to
contact only two people neglected to sign or chose not to.
Alidjani, how close do you live to this property?
Stark, we are lots # 14, 15 & 16 Block #1:
There were no other questions of Mr. Stark:
Alivie Quick, 1826 Jericho Rd. Mr. Quick was sworn by Chairman Spencer:
Quick, mainly what concerned about is what is going to happen to our
property values if rentals do go into that area and it has been
the opinion of most people that it takes longer to sell property when
adjacent to rental property that is our main concern, we worked hard
for what we have and do not want the property values to drop. I was
told the minute the first foundation goes in our property values
would drop $2000.00
Johnson, who told you that?
Quick, A man in Nampa I have been talking to. We all feel kind of safe
and comfortable leaving our equipment out when we have to work or run
to the store if we get people in there we do not know at the end of the
subdivision we are going to have to lock everything up. Everybody in
the subdivision knows each other and we all get along fine.
Spencer, I have one thing what is preferrable a rental or a fast food
restaurant?
Quick, well I agree with you there, I do not want to see that go in,
MERIDIAN PLANNI• & ZONING
APRIL 14, 1986
PAGE # 3
but, I don't want to have to lock everything up either, I do not know
how commercial affects property values I have not researched that. Basic-
ally we do not want a bunch of trash there, we have a good looking sub-
division and everybody keeps their places up. This is the way we want
to keep it.
Johnson, when this petition was circulated did you point out to the
signers what could be built there, give them an example of the type
of commercial?
Quick, Yes we did.
Morrow, read off the list of things allowed in a C-G Zone contained in
the Zoning Ordinance 2-409B.
Stark, for the most part these are 8 to 5 type operations.
Morrow, not when it comes to recreational or storage facilities. It is
up to you what the preference is whether it is residential as a buffer
between you and commercial or commercial right next to you, as it is
presently zoned it can be commercial directly adjacent to you with a
landscaped buffer
Stark, that is the way the property was zoned and the residents knew
that when they purchased their property, I am still opposed to the
rezoning of this property to R-15. There were no other questions.
Glenrose Ewing, 983 Tammy, Ms. Ewing was sworn by Spencer.
Ewing, I did not sign the petition so I want to go on record as oppos-
ed to~~this request. I am aware that it could be commercial but I would
rather take that chance than have apartments. I have lived next to
duplexes and rentals and it can be devastating. This is the reason I
am opposing it. I see rentals run down because the renters don't take
an interest in them and the owners don't keep them up.
There was no one else present who wished to tesify, the Public Hearing
was closed by Chairman Spencer.
The Motion was made by Cole and seconded by Shearer to have the Attorney
prepare Findings of Fact and Conclusions on this request.
Motion Carried: All Yea:
Mr. Bryan Nye was present and asked for the Commissions opinion on the
10 acres of property on the NW corner of Pine and Locust Grove for a
4 Star approximately 60 space Mobile Home Park if they were to request
annexation and zoning. It was the consensus of the Commission that they
should contact the residents of the area for their imput on a develop-
ment of this type.
Mr. Rich Allison was present for a point of clarification on the Zoning
Ordinance which speaks to 35 ~ lot coverage as to whether this include
the garage. The Commission advised him a variance would have to be
granted for the additional lot coverage.
MERIDIAN PLANNT• & ZONING
APRIL 14, 1986
PAGE # 4
Being no further business to come before the Commission the Motion
was made by Morrow and seconded by Shearer to adjourn at 8:15 p.m.
Motion Carried: All Yea:
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
ATTEST:
~~
Jack iemarin „-'City Clerk
\ p_c .'~ Mayor & Council
P& Z Commission
Atty, Eng, Police
Fire, Stuart, Ward,
Keibert, Hallett
Valley News, Statesman
ACHD,CDH,ACC,ACZ
NIMD,
Mail (2)
File (2)
. , ~~ ~
The undersigned residents of Settlers Village Subdivision, Ada County, Idaho
would like to staie our opposition to the proposed rezoning of Lots 4,5,0, and
7, clock i, and Lois 4,5,0, and 7, Block 2, Settlers Village subdivision, Ada
County, Idaho From (C-G) General Canmercial to (R-15) Residential and to vacate
/. the pedestrian walkway easement fifteen feet in width along the northerly
boundary of Lot 7, Block 2, Settlers Village Subdivision, Ada County, Idaho.
Name Address,
.~
C1~-C;il/~ ~._. i^ !',aG ~£CKS._ Tr`tr1-` !l~ ~yir~rei_,,-~
6 7 ~ /yLLd /c/$~`i~~.-.!7"d /'Yl"'C TJ~•-~- 1~[sJ~ ~A ~3~_~-
~..
. /^ L~ +~
~~~-~G ~ ~
e
\,•, G
^N • •
The undersigned residents of Settlers Village Subdivision, Ada County, Idaho
would like to state our opposition to the proposed rezoning of Lots 4,5,0, and
7, tslock 1, and Locs 4,5,0, anu 7, Block 2, Settlers Village subdivision, Ada
County, Idaho From (C-G) General Comriercial to (R-15) Residential and to vacate
the pedestrian wal'rway easement fifteen feet in width along the northerly
boundary of Lot 7, Block 2, Settlers Village Subdivision, Ada County, Idaho.
_ L `a
~~~ d ~ ~ `~
Namo Address
BEFORE THE MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
D.K.D.G. PROPERTIES
Request For Rezone And Vacation Of Easements
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
The above entitled matter having come on for public hearing
April 14, 1986, at the hour of 7:30 o'clock p.m., the petitioners
appearing by and through Don Hubble and the Planning and Zoning
Commission of the City of Meridian having duly considered the
evidence in the matters, makes the following findings of facts
and conclusions:
FINDINGS OF FACT
AMBROBE,
FITLOERALO
I CROOKBTON
AIIOrMy~ Yld
COOIINIO!/
P.O. BMt IT7
MMCWI, klMlo
8JN4
J~p11oN BB6aMf
1. That the property is located within the City of
Meridian and is described as Lots 4,5,6, & 7, Blk 1, and Lots
4,5,6 & 7, Blk 2, Settlers Village Subdivision, Meridian, Ada
County, Idaho.
2. That the property is located in the North Curve
Neighborhood as designated on the Policy Diagram on page 7 of the
Meridian Comprehensive Plan.
3. That the property is presently zoned General Retail and
Service Commercial (C-G) and is undeveloped; that the property to
the north is zoned Residential R-8, but has been developed as
R-4, Residential; that the property to the South is zoned General
Retail and Service Commercial (C-G); the property to the west is
r
not in the City, the property to the east, Doris Subdivision is
not in the City and is zoned R-8 but is developed as R-4 or less.
4. That the Applicant's proposal is to change the zones
from C-G to R-15 so the lots could have 4-plexes constructed
thereon; the Applicant will not be the builder or owner of the
4-plexes but intends to sell the lots.
5. The property is divided by Jericho Street which is
designated as a collector street in the Comprehensive Plan at
page 32A; part of the property is near a small park which is
located in the residentially developed portion of Settler Village
Subdivision.
6. The requested R-15 zone is described in the Zoning
Ordinance as follows:
(R-15) Medium High Density Residential District: The
purpose of the (R-15) District is to permit the
establishment of medium-high density single-family attached
and multi-family dwellings at a density not exceeding
fifteen (15) dwelling units per acre. All such districts
must have direct access to a transportation arterial or
collector, abut or have direct access to a park or open
space corridor, and be connected to the Municipal Water and
Sewer Systems of the City of Meridian. The predominant
housing types in this district will be patio homes, zero lot
line single-family dwellings, townhouses, apartment
buildings and condominiums.
AMBROBE,
PITZOERALD
6 CROOKB70N
AIIOIMy~ NO
CounNlon
P.O. Box{T7
MxWIN, IONIO
E7MZ
T~Npan~ El6/M1
7. The Comprehensive Plan contains Housing Policies on
pages 26 and 27; the pertinent housing policies to this
Application are stated as follows:
1. The City of Meridian intends to provide for a
wide diversity of housing types (single-family,
mobile homes and multi-family arrangements) and
choices between ownership and rental dwelling units
for all income groups in a variety of locations suit-
able for residential development.
2. Every effort shall be made by the City of
Meridian to encourage commercial and industrial growth
and development which furthers employment and economic
self-sufficiency and reduces Meridian's present
reliance on Boise's Metropolitan economic and
employment center.
3. An open housing market for all persons, regardless
of race, sex, age, religion or ethnic background, shall
be encouraged.
10. Local residents and organized community groups
should be encouraged to participate in neighborhood and
community planning in order to give direction to
environmental, housing, transportation, recreation,
open space, park and other public facility needs.
12. Land development regulations should be revised to
encourage the infilling of existing vacant parcels
within the city limits.
13. Infilling of random vacant lots in substantially
developed, single-family areas should be encouraged at
densities similar to surrounding development. Increased
densities on random vacant lots should be considered
if:
a. The cost of such a parcel of land precludes
development at surrounding densities; or
b. Development of uses other than single-family
structures are compatible with surrounding
development.
AMBROBE,
F1T20ERAL0
6 CROOKBTON
MbrMy~NE
COYII/N01~
P.O. loaf /R7
MMOIPn, N4ila
l3M4
T~NPNOn~!lNM7
19. High density development, where possible, should
be located near open space corridors to other permanent
major open space and park facilities and near major
access thoroughfares.
20. Density transfers should be encouraged in exchange
for school sites, open space dedications, or for access
easements to linear open space corridors, which contain
bicycle and pedestrian pathway systems.
8. Since the property is already zoned C-G the Commercial
policies of the Comprehensive Plan must be reviewed; those
policies from page 15 & 16 pertinent to this application are as
follows:
1. The City of Meridian shall make every effort to
create a positive atmosphere which encourages
industrial and commercial enterprises to locate in
Meridian.
2. Zt is the policy of the City of Meridian to set
aside areas where commercial and industrial
interest and activities are to dominate.
5. Stripping of industrial and commercial uses are
not in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan.
(See glossary for definition and comments regard-
ing strip industrial and commercial uses.)
6. It is the policy of the City of Meridian to
support shopping facilities which are effectively
integrated into existing residential areas, and
plan for new shopping centers as growth and
development warrant.
8. The City of Meridian intends to establish
Commercial Development Design Guides which:
a. Provide for the grouping of commercial
buildings on a single parcel of land in
such a manner as to create a harmonious,
efficient and convenient retail shopping
environment;
AMBROBE,
FITZOERALO
i CROOWTON
AttpMy~rM
CounMrlon
P.O. Bm 171
MMOW,Wtla
BElU
TAIpIw~wBBMM1
b. Assure safety and convenience of traffic
movement both within the Activity Center
and in relation to adjacent access
thoroughfares;
c. Foster compatible land use and design with-
in the development and with contiguous
developments; and
d. Encourage innovations in building design and
land development techniques, so that the
growing demands of the community are met,
while at the same time providing for the most
beneficial use of such lands.
10. New commercial developments should consolidate
access points (curb cuts), on-site parking and
internal vehicle circulation, and where possible,
existing commercial development should be
encouraged to consolidate.
9. That additionally the following notations from the
Comprehensive Plan should be noted:
1. Encourage the overall balance of public and
private proposals regarding residential
development and include a variety of densities,
housing types and housing opportunities for all
segments of the planning area population.
2. It is the policy of the City of Meridian to
encourage the overall residential density of
approximately 3.5 dwelling units per acre within
the Urban Service Planning Area.
10. That many of the residents of Settlers Village
AMBROSE,
F172GERALD
80ROOKSTON
Altorosyn YH1
Counseloro
P.O. Box ~2I
MMOI~n, IGYw
67M2
Talsp\gns BBMM7
Subdivision signed a petition objecting to the Application; that
the bases of their objections were that when they purchased their
lots and homes the subject property was zoned C-G; that they did
not want 4-plex apartments next to them; that they felt a
commercial use would be more in harmony with their uses than
would be 4-plexes; that they objected to the 4-plexes not being
owner-occupied and thus felt the care of the property might not
be as good; they indicated they would rather have more commercial
uses as a buffer between them and the present commercial use
adjacent to Fairview Avenue.
11. That the proper notice has been given as required by
law and all procedures before the Planning and Zoning Commission
have been given and followed.
12. That the proposed rezone area is now a vacant lot and
has never had any use located upon it.
13. That no one appeared at the public hearing other than
the Applicant supporting the proposed rezone.
CONCLUSIONS
1. The City of Meridian has the authority to grant zoning
amendments and rezones pursuant to Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho
Code, and pursuant to 11-2-416 of the Revised and Compiled
Ordinances of the City of Meridian.
2. That upon rezone, the City of Meridian has authority to
place conditions upon the zoning amendment.
3. That 11-2-416(K) 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 zoning amendments; that upon a review of those
AMBROSE,
FITZGERAID
B CROOKBTON
Attomaya an0
CounMlon
P.O. Boy 127
MerlEl~n, IUANo
B3M2
TslaplaM BBB1M1
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 new zoning would be harmonious with and in
accordance with the Comprehensive Plan and no
Comprehensive Plan Amendment is required.
(b) The area was not previously scheduled for a
rezone.
(c) The area included in the zoning amendment is
intended to be developed in the fashion that
would be allowed under the new zoning of R-15.
(d) There has been no change in the area which
dictates that the area should possibly be rezoned.
(e) The Applicant represented that the area would be
designed and constructed to be harmonious with the
surrounding area and would be a good buffer
between the commercial area and the residential;
the Applicant did not submit drawings or specific
proposals for development or construction; the
residents testifying felt the 4-plexes would not
be in harmony with their residentail uses. It must
be concluded that the proposed 4-plexes would not
be harmonious and appropriate in appearance with
the existing character of the general vicinity.
(f) The proposed use would not be hazardous but the
residents testified it would be disturbing to
existing or future neighborhood uses.
(g) The area would be adequately served by public
facilities and services as those are already
available and in place adjacent to the property.
AMSROSE,
FITZG ERALD
6 CROOKSTON
Attorneys MM
Counselors
P.O. Boz s2i
MarltlNn, ItleRo
BSM2
TslaplioM BB6eM1
(h) The proposed
additional r
facilities
detrimental
community.
(i) The proposed
activity to
welfare.
use would not create
aquirements of public
and services and
to the economic
use will not involve
any person's proper
excessive
costs for public
would not be
welfare of the
any detrimental
ty or the general
(j) It is not known whether the proposed use would not
cause a significant increase in vehicular traffic
and should not interfere with surrounding traffic
patterns.
(k) That this rezone would not result in the
destruction, loss or damage of any natural or
scenic feature of major importance.
(1) The proposed zoning amendment is not in the best
interest of the City of Meridian in that the use
of the lots as residential would tend to increase
the likelihood of strip commercial along Fairview
Avenue; grouping of commercial uses is desired
which the rezone would not encourage; and there
was significant input against the rezone.
4. With regard to finding 7 (13) the Petitioner sumbitted
no evidence that the cost of the land precluded development under
the present zoning. Additionally the evidence produced by the
residents indicated they believed commercial uses would be just
as compatible, or more so, with their R-4 uses than would R-15
development. Certainly commercial development of the parcel in
question would be compatiable with the existing commercial use
fronting Fairview Avenue.
APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts
AMBROSE,
FIT2GERAlO
d CROOKSTON
Atlomeye ~n0
Counwlon
P.O. Boz /RT
MMUMn, IOM1o
83UR
TaIpMro886~M1
and approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions.
ROLL CALL
Commissioner Morrow Voted„S
Commissioner Alidjani Voted y„~
..
Commissioner Shearer Voted`,
Commissioner Cole Voted XQ.J _
Commissioner Johnson Voted_~°-F"
Chairman Spencer (Tie Breaker>VOted
DECISIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby
recommends to the City Council of the City of Meridian that they
deny the application of D.K.D.G. Properties for rezone of the
property in the application and since the rezone is recommended
to be denied, it is likewise recommended that the easements not
be vacated.
APPROVED: V,n~ DISAPPROVED:
AMSROSE,
FITZG ERALO
6 CROOKSTON
Allomeye vlE
Counselors
P.O. Bo><IR7
MerM W, IOY1o
8JM7
TeMplion~BB&~MI