Loading...
1985 12-09j • • • A G E N D A MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING DECEMBER 9, 1985 ITEM: MINUTES OF PRRVIOUS MEETING HELD NOVEMBER 19,1985: (APPROVED) 1. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSION ON E. FAME BREWER APPLICATION FOR REZONE. (AMENDED & APPROVED) 2. DISCUSSION ON AMENDMENTS TO ZONING & DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE. MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION DECEMBER Meeting called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Chairman Bob Spencer: Members Present: Walt Morrow, Moe Alidjani, Jime Shearer, Tom Cole: Members Absent: Jim Johnson: Others Present: Faye Brewer, Darwin Buchanan, Gary Schaffer, Wayne Crookston: The Motion was made by Morrow and seconded by Cole to approve the minutes of the previous meeting held November 19, 1985 as written: Motion Carried: A11 Yea: Item #1: Findings of Fact and Conclusions on E. Faye Brewc-r request for rezone: Chairman Spencer relinquished the Chairmanship of the meeting to Walt Morrow for this item due to possible conflict of interest. Acting Chairman Morrow, has the Commission read the Findings and are there any comments or questions? Cole, on page 2-#5 it mentions a proposed Mountain States Tumor Institute Office, I thought this was already in place. It was explained that they had not as yet opened when Public Hearing was held. Cole, on page 2-#6, it states the area to be rezoned is now a vacant single family residential home, I understood that Faye was living in this home and it was not vacant. Morrow that is true. The Motion was made by Cole and seconded by Alidjani that the word vacant be struck from #6 page 2 of the Findings of .Fact. Motion Carried: All Yea: Cole, on page 4, paragraph d, I have a question on what the definition of adjacent is? The houses on both sides of this are residential curr- ently, don't you have to skip down somerhouse on both side to have some- thing different than residential? This also sound like just because one area is zoned a certain way the property next to it should be zoned the same way. I do not agree with any of this statement I believe the whole paragraph should be struck. There was discussion on this item. The Motion was made by Cole and seconded by Alidjani that paragraph (d) on page 4 of the Findings be struck in its entirety: Motion Carried: All Yea: Cole, on page 4 paragraph (e), what do they mean by this? MERIDIAN P & Z • • • • DECEMBER 9, 1985 PAGE # 2: Shearer, my understanding is that it will be kept so property would blend with the other residential property in this area. The exterior would not be changed from the home atmosphere look. Cole, what stops someone from going in there after it is rezoned and removing the building and building something else? There was discussion on this. Morrow, nothing could be done on this with the exception it would have to be Office as we are rezoning Limited Office, at the present time someone could go in and remove home and build multi-family as this is zoned R-15: Shearer, what this is saying is when occupancy is complete it will look very much as it does now. Alidjani, it is my understanding that architecurally it will remain the same and still retain the residential appearance and blend with the surrounding property. Cole, ok, on page #5 paragraph (d-5), City Engineer suggested right turn only onto East First Street, are we going to require that or only leave it as a suggestion. I believe we should require a right turn only or strike out completely. The motion was made by Cole that the word suggest be struck from this paragraph. Motion died for lack of second. The Commision had discussion on this. Alidjani asked the question how this could be enforced. There would have to be a sign installed by ACHD in order for the City Police to enforce. Shearer I think this is a good suggestion but feel it should not be mandatory to enforce on this property when other properties along this street would not be required to conform to this. I think this should be left in as a suggestion and let the owner use their own judgement whether it is a good idea. Cole, to put suggestions in the Findings it really isn't telling them anything, they should either say this be done or it should be left out entirely. Morrow, apparently this is the first time this has been brought up and the other industries do not have right or left hand turn only, I guess the question here is do we want to start doing this, obviously we cannot do anything about what has al- ready been done or with the residential. Cole I still think it should be struck completely. Alidjani, I do not think we should single out one indi~~idua]„ if we are going to do this it should be for everyone out there. TherC was more discussion whether to leave in Findings or strike out. The Motion was made by Cole and seconded by Alidjani #(5) paragraph (d) of the Findings of Fact and Conclusions be deleted: Motion Carried: All Yea: Cole, I have one other comment, on page #4 paragraph (k) I do not argee with this. Shearer, on page #4 paragraph (c) there is typing error also on page #5 paragraph (b) word should be approve not improve. MERIDIAN P & Z• • • • DECEMBER 9, 1985 PAGE # 3 Morrow, any further comments of the Commission? There was no further comment Morrow, I have a comment on page #2, Item #7, how does the Commission feel about making this be a u-shaped driveway? Shearer, I don't feel we should enforce this without having it drawn out on paper, I don't think there is enough space on the North side of house for a driveway. There was discussion among the Commission members on this. It was pointed out that the planned entrance and exit was along the North side of the home. Cole was of the opinion that just to make this function properly, they would discover that the u-shaped driveway was needed. Morrow it seems to be the problem we are trying to resolve here is to keep people from backing out onto East First Street. The u-shaped drive would solve this problem. This was the way the orginal proposal was submitted. More discussion followed, Mrs. Brewer was brought into this discussion and advised the Commission that the main entrance would be on the North side of the home even if the Commission required a u-shaped driveway, she would make a breeze way through the present garage if u-shaped drive was required. Morrow, we have the option of leaving this as is or mandating that a u-shaped driveway be required in her plans. There was more discussion among the members. Morrow do we go back to the orginal application and require the u-shaped driveway or leave this as is which leaves it open to any type of driveway, also this driveway would not be wide enough for cars to enter and exit at same time. Shearer, with the length and width of the driveway on the North, I think the necessity is to have the u-shaped driveway required to eliminate problems with cars trying to get in and out the same driveway. The Motion was made by Morrow and seconded by Cole that paragraph #7 page #2 of the Findings of Fact and Conclusions be amended to reflect that a u-shaped driveway be required. Motion Carried: All Yea: The Motion was made by Alidjani and seconded by Shearer that the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts and approves the Findings of Fact and Conclusions as amended on the E. Faye Brewer application for a rezone. Motion Carried: Roll Call Vote: Alidjani, Yea: Shearer, Yea: Cole, Nay: Morrow, Yea: Johnson, Absent: The Motion was made by Shearer and seconded by Alidjani that the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council of the City of Meridian that they approve the Application of E. Faye Brewer for rezone of the property described in the Application, under the condition MERIDIAN P &Z • • • • DECEMBER 9, 1985 PAGE # 4: the development of the property conform to the requirements as stated in the Findings of Fact and Conclusions and that the construction and development proceed and that all requirements of the Ordinances of the City of Meridian must be met and complied with. Motion Carried: Alidjani, Yea: Shearer, Yea: Morrow, Yea: Cole, Nay: Morrow returned the Chairmanship to Spencer. Item #2: Discussion on Amendments to Zoning Ordinance: Chairman Spencer, the Commission has received the two items the City Engineer has submitted for consideration, one has to do with Lot Line Adjustment and the other is concerning Zero Lot Lines. There was discussion on these two items and it was the consensus of the Commission to pass these on to the City Attorney for clarification and have included with other items for the Zoning & Development Ordinance Amendments. Chairman Spencer, another item that needs consideration is the Ordinance only speaks to six foot fence, I think some provision should be made to pertain to fences in Industrial and Commercial Zones. There was discussion on this item and it was the .decision of the Commission that the present Ordinance did not address anything but fences in residential zones so the six foot fence did not have any effect in Industrial & Commercial Zone. It might be well and good to have something in the Ordinances to address this. Chairman Spencer, the other item that needs consideration. is the application of Conditional Use Permits, where they should be used and when. __There was c,'.iscussion on this .item and it was decision of the Commission that this item should receive some more imput and that the Commission probably should have a workshop with the Council before any amendments to this item were proposed. The Motion was made by Morrow and seconded by Cole to instruct the City Attorney to define the two items submitted by City Engineer, the fence suggestion and the Conditional ..Use Permit as to the Ordinances, each item to be separate for consideration . Morrow, I think we should consider all of these items but should get add- itional imput on the Conditional Use Permit. The other items are more or less house cleaning items and we need to design something separately on each item that can be forwarded on to the Council. Motion Carried; All Yea: Being no further business to .come before the Commission, the Motion was made by Cole and seconded by Shearer to adjourn at 8:45 p.m.: Motion Carried: All Yea: (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) EST: Ja k Nienan , City Clerk ( ee back for distribution) AP P RO~~i/ BOB CER, CHAIRMAN c • • BEFORE THE MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION E. FAYE BREWER REQUEST FOR REZONE 1303 East First Street Meridian, Idaho FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS The above entitled matter having come on for public hearing November 19, 1985, at approximately 7:30 o'clock p.m., the Petitioner appearing in person, and the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Meridian having duly considered the evidence in this matter, makes the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. That the property is located within the City of Meridian and is generally described as 1303 East First Street and a more particular description is included in the Application, which description is hereby included Herein oy this reference as if set forth in full; 2. That the property is located in a residential area and is presently zoned Residential and that the Petitioner desires to place a nonresidential operation upon said property and that is the reason for the request for rezone; 3. That the Applicant's proposed use of the property is to convert an existing residential structure to a funeral services home; FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS - 1 4. That proper notice has been given as required by law and all procedures before the Planning and Zoning Commission have been given and followed; 5. That various commercial or nonresidential uses exist within the immediate neighborhood of the proposed rezone, including but not limited to the following: two insurance offices, one as an office only, and one as a residence and office building; an art supply dealer and seller; a dog grooming busi- ness; a vacant gift shop; a chiropractic office; a ceramic supply dealer; an air conditioning and heating dealer and repair shop; two churches; the Meridian Intermediate School; a proposed Idountain States Tumor Institute Office; two shopping centers with numerous commercial uses; and the Old Towne business district. 6. That the proposed rezone area is now a vacant single family residential home and lot; 7. That the Applicant proposes to have access for customers onto East First Street with plans for a driveway to the back of the existing residence for off street parking and ade- quate room for fire, safety, and delivery equipment; 8. That the proposed use of the property and purpose of the rezone is for commercial activity. The owner of the property will be required to pay commercial rates for water, sewer and trash, and to pay for the requisite number of hookups required by the Applicant's proposed use; FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS - 2 9. That the Applicant filed with the city Clerk a Fetition indicating that more than 750 of the owners of property within :i00 feet of the land proposed to be rezoned, have no objection to the rezone or the use of the property for profes- sional offices; 10. That all notices were mailed to all appropriate parties; il. That no one appeared at the public hearing on November 19, 1985, at i:30 o'clock p.m., objecting to the pro- posed 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 authori- ty to place conditions upon the zoning amendments; 3. That 11-2-416(x) 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 requirements and a review of the facts presented and the conditions of the area, the Planning and Zoning Commis- sion specifically concludes as follows: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS - 3 (a) The new zoning will 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; Ic) The area included in the zoning amendment is intended to be to be developed in the fashion that would be allowed under the new zoning of Limited Office (LO); (d) There has been a change in the area or adjacent areas which dictates that the area should be rezoned in that the adjacent areas have been developed in a fashion similar to the proposed rezone area; (e) That the Applicant represented that the proposed construction and use of the property would be designed, con- structed, and operated and maintained in harmony with the exist- ing and intended character of the surrounding property; (f) The proposed use will not be hazardous or disturb- ing to existing or future neighborhood uses; (g) The area will be adequately served by public facilities and services as those are already available and in place adjacent to the property; (h) The proposed use would not create excessive addi- tional requirements of public costs for public facilities and services and would not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community; (i) The proposed use will not involve any detrimental activity to any person's property or the general welfare; (j) The proposed use will not cause a significant increase in vehicular traffic and should not interfere with surrounding traffic patterns; (k) That this rezone will not result in the destruc- tion, loss or damage of any natural or scenic feature of major importance; (1) The proposed zoning amendment is in the best interest of the City of Meridian. 4. The following comments were submitted at the public hearing by the following public agencies: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS - 4 this time. (a) Ada County Highway District: no requirements. (b) Central District Health Department: can improve with central sewer and water. (c) Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District: surface drainage must be retained on site, irrigation on West property line must be protected and maintained. (d) Gary Smith, City Engineer: (1) Applicant needs to provide off street parking in accordance with Ordinance Section 2-414-D6. Number of spaces = 1 space for every 3 seats and 1 space for each funeral vehicle kept on the premises; (2) Applicant shall provide landscaping and screening conforming to Ordinance Section 2-414-D2 a, b, c; (3) Water: a)Install a cross-connection device on water line device to be approved in accordance with Ordinance; b)furnish plumbing plan to assess for connection fee requirement; (4) Sewer: Furnish plumbing plan to asses for connec- tion fee requirement; (5) Traffic: suggest "right turn only" onto East First Street when exiting the property; and (6) Sign: Any sign installed shall meet the requirements of the "Uniform Sign Code" as specified in City Ordinance Section 2-415. (e) Earl Ward, Sewer Superintendent: No comments at 5. That the use of the property and the construction and development of the property must conform to the Ordinances 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 ~~ Commissioner Alidjani ~~ [ Voted r Commissioner Shearer Voted ~;_ Commissioner Cole Voted o~ Commissioner Johnson Votedi FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS - 5 ...' 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 Application of E. Faye Brewer for rezone of the property described in the Application, under the condition the development of the property conform to the requirements listed above and that the construction and development proceed and that all requirements of the Ordinances of the City of Meridian must be met and complied with. MOTION: .i APPROVED: e~ N~~9 DISAPPROVED: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS - 6 .~- 2-l. ' ~ JA~t. = ~v~ozed •rtw,tsioa ~o ~iew`~,.-q A~^d P ^ ~v~.t.v..n,v,.~~, ~p'/ ... ~an.lf-ti,,,~ '.~,4~ ~tw.... Q,a~t,~t,,,,Q,,,~i. ~•~ G•~~ ~t~t .f1~S3G~ ~Jatsi.. _~vrrred.+~we..~~~ +a ~!/an,..aw,+a~ ,jn rt~_~~ubd , +MOV~c.~.-- :2-~D5 ~ -Z ~ 32 ~. ~ : ~. ~`~' - _ ~- , l }Lor L ~~ ~ ~9dJ usr~~ ~~ i. The rt~y approve the relocation of original lot lines as ~~~~ shown on a recorded plat. Provided, however, that the following standards are met: pl~~~~ a. A relocation of the original lot lines does not reduce the building site below the minimum dimensional standards prescribed by this e~ie, or any covenant pertaining to said plat. ovd~,.a.«.¢. b. The relocation of any lot lines does not change the original number of tots in any block, as shown on the recorded plat. c. The relocation of original lot lines does not change or move any streets, easements, or publicly dedicated areas in any manner. ~,,~,~ ob Sw+~,cy PLC e,-~ d. The applicant has prepared a~p3tE. showing the relocated lot lines which shall have received the approval of they Engineer. c~, - e. That prior to being submitted to the $ea+~d for approval, the applicant will have obtained parcel numbers from the County Assessor. 2. he a e f an ~pplic~~on shall be the date that the ~~r of awes s a have received payment of the required fee and all of the information in the manner as required pursuant to this code The date for any required public hearing shall be fixed by the within a reasonable time thereafter, and in no case later than sixty (60) days after the receipt of the application in its due form. Hearing and notice procedures, if notice is required, shall be governed Dy I.C. §y 67-6501, et seq., as it shall be amended from time to time, and by such rules and procedures as the Bead may adopt pursuant to this Chapter and this Title. r'~'~'- • z ~ ~-~ . ~~.~ . cw+! ,o.~.z~ _ Y:o~s. kn'(.Z... ,dal o t'.ezCC 3D - r y _ dui ~~~_' _- _ _ __- - . _. __.. _ __ _ _MA_ _~ ~-. v. _. ___.. _ .__. _ ,.,, ~. u ~~a L.OI' ll~1E X~l~b/SIG: LOT-r:' __ ~ ~/ _ `' /A~°D SEFQ~ cKS : ~~ . htt Cost ,Shat! a ~.ro -lob- h.it ~ 6e a!!o wrrf a~~df'a~ccret fa a ~rn~-fy /l:ae h•+~r~clc is hat j~ ~~ o{' ffic P~C4~w~/ L Ll~~G[¢lOK . ~tly Ont ~~r0-!o/-/mot fI~!I tI{tC1'l0/" S/LL~G yQ1'17 ~Ger lOT {ytC~u fj(, ~el"llril~Ccr /.? {~,~ IQ-$ ~,e. I! ~ yn~nimc~rn, db'~~ncc 0~ ~ /~/0~ ~u.f sh~.c~ l~~e t~a,~fa~a4 - ~. ETe{we.Gw hau.Lc~~ngse. mr ~bO~rk{zu.C ,~jtu,Ld~ir~c,s orn s2`o4l~af[ ~I ~OfS. jj EA~EmEnrs ~ per~oefc~~.C six lG1 ~'of widt bval!- i1'tam~'u-r~wrc¢, ~dvavytGto~t eostrrre+~et`' shat/ !u p!-DU~d ¢d Osa ~~G /,cf QdJa.ee~.~- Z`o ~k¢ zero-lof-/~n¢ ~orope.-fy lei wlticek ~'haU. I~ b~ kk~t cCe~xr off' Sf'vuctwue, wig ~'h,e Greu~,hov~ ~. ~„icrttQ.~ ~'~~, Iratts~. a-rd stabs at lD~acle . ~ao,C ov~Granys acct bt/~w graoL~ IBrr,,.~da74ei2 ~tlofwr9s ~'Yiz~ ~Cnt-h~-~ ~ ~w~clrrt !~ 2~ a~i ~l~,Q. , 6 u f aka.Gl Lic ~-o cLe~u ~ ~ ~ af' tvatr huvr 0~ ~dwa ~ dcv..GGr,;.~ pC4eGd ak ~.c lofCcue. ~. 1~:~~k4 ~D t~ 2.c~,~nu~,;i~ ah.ca . ea.a.•-c-n.cwt sG~xu hr ~ t~oa.H. ~ ~-~- -/'-~-~ d~o~e«.t ~~p~ Qind svicorpar~X2~f ~cZo euck dce~. f~a.,~rs~erri~+y' ~ ~~ ~o >~ pnJarr~. +~~~yl u.__ ~ sM, m .~~ v r _ , y 'n ~ M:: ~' `.''~'.':`';e~:~tq'~c/:7k+apt~4rry.p, .rw.` '•y;.