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;.