Loading...
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