Loading...
1985 08-12• • A G E N D A MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING AUGUST 12, 1985 ITEM: MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING HELD JULY 8, 1985: (APPROVED) 1. PUBLIC HEARING: PRELIMINARY & FINAL PLAT ON MERIDIAN MANOR # 4 & # 5: (APPROVED) 2. PUBLIC HEARING: PRELIMINARY & FINAL PLAT ON THE LAKE AT CHERRY LANE#2 PHASE I: (APPROVED) 3. PUBLIC HEARING: ANNEXATION & ZONING REQUEST & PRELIMINARY PLAT ON LOCUST GROVE MANOR: (ATTORNEY TO PREPARE FINDINGS) 4. FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ON CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR E. FAYE BREWER: (APPROVED) MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 12, 1985 Regular Meeting of the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission called to order by Chairman Bob Spencer at 7:34 p.m.: Members Present: Walt Morrow, Jim Johnson, Tom Cole, Jim Shearer, Mr. Shearer arrived at 7:40 P.M. Others Present: Kent Barney, Kiteht Jacobs, L. Dubois, James Dubois, Cindy Long, Jack O'Donnell, Faye Brewer, Darwin Buchanan, Mary Headrick, John Headrick, James Schaff, Gordon Wood, O.T. Stenberg, Mr. & Mrs. W.C. Milner, Gary Schafer, David Powell, Maxine Monroe, Albert Mould, Moe Alidjani, Gina Moorhead, Sally Abbott, Randy Elliston, Janis Becker, Roger Becker, Leonard Stucker, Mrs. Leonard Stucker, Peggy Wood, David Davenport, Rod Brady, Larry Koch, Wayne Gibbs, Dan Torfin, Wayne Crookston, Gary Smith. The Motion was made by Morrow and seconded by Cole to approve the Minutes of the previous Meeting held July 8, 1985 as written: Motion Carried: All Yea: Item #1: Public Hearing Preliminary & Final Plat Meridian Manor #4 & #5: Chairman Spencer opened the Public Hearing and asked if the representative was present to come forward. Mr. Wayne Gibbs, Engineer with JUB Engineers, Inc was present to represent the developer of Meridian Manor #4 & #5. Gibbs, Meridian Manor #4 & #5 are pretty much in compliance with the Pre- liminary Plat which was approved by the City a few years ago, however that approval has expired and we are submitting these Plats as preliminary & finals. This plat will enable the developer to extend Willowbrook through to Meridian Road. Also on #4 this will enable us to take of NW 8th Street and take of the ditch that is there now. There has been basically two phase which have already been developed. There is a major sewer trunk line already in Willowbrook Drive. I have no other comments unless you have questions. Morrow, you have no problems with any of the comments by the City Engineer, Ada County Highway or Nampa Meridian Irrigation? Gibbs, no we don't, in fact we have addressed the City Engineers comments and returned a revised Plat to him. The final plans for the water & sewer are being drawn and will be submitted to the City Engineer prior to the Council review. Smith, I just received the revised Plat today and have not had a chance to review them, Mr. Gibbs, I need to get my red line back so I can check that against the revised Plat. I had a comment about fence along Five Mile Creek I don't know whether that was appropriate comment or not but I did not see any plans or whether it was going to be on an individual lot basis, but I assume there needs to be some kind of fence along Five Mile Creek. Nampa Meridian made a couple of comments I did MERIDIAN PLAN~G & ZONING • AUGUST 12, 1985 PAGE # 2 not understand, they said the lots were overlapping into Five Mile Creek, I looked at the Preliminary and did not see that. Did you check with them on that Mr. Gibbs. Gibbs, we have to submit an application with them, which will be done in the next week or so, their comments had something to do with the lots going across canal rightway but we have not figured out what that means so we felt we would address that when the application was submitted. Apparently they misread the Plat because obviously we do not have any lots in the rightway, so far as the fencing plan and lighting plan we thought we would submit them with the water & sewer plans. Smith, the setbacks on those culdesac lots on #4, the seventy foot frontage required by Ordinance, did those lots change? Gibbs, we recalculated the Plat to provide for that. Smith, the only other comment I had was on those setbacks along Willowbrook since it is designated as a collector they need to be thirty feet, I suggested that a note be put on the Plat to that effect,, however the note to the effect that the subdivision meets all the requirements, I just did ~o4:wantsomeone to be confused that this was still a twenty foot setback. Gibbs, we actually plan to submit a Variance for the setbacks on Willow- brook we have some problems here with between the canal rightway and we can not do to much with Willowbrook with the sewer trunk line being in there. There were no other questions of Mr. Gibbs at this time. Sally Dubois, 2213 Kenmere, I am representing a group here that live in the subdivision that is existing in Meridian Manor #3, we are wondering about the house size and we have heard that they want to go to plywood foundations, is there any way we can keep our subdivision up, we would like to stay with the double car garage and cement foundations. We were also wondering what was happening with the canal along NW 8th. Street. Is that to be covered? What we are asking is that they maintain the double car garage. Morrow, they say a 20 x 24 garage which is a double car garage. They speak to 480 square feet which has to be double car garage. The house size will be according to the City Ordinance where the minimum is 1000 square feet. The wood foundations is up to the builders as this is in the UBC Code and in not a Planning & Zoning matter. Mrs. Dubois, there are some wood foundations across N.W.8th and they are already beginning to deteriorate. There was additional discussion among the Members about wood foundations. Gibbs, we plan on covering the canal along NW 8th. Street. Jack O'Donnell, 2214 Kenmere, I agree with Mrs. Dubois, I have a lot invested in my home and I would hate to see what I would call low income housing in that area. MERIDIAN PLAN G & ZONING • AUGUST 12, 19~ PAGE # 3 Morrow, the minimum square footage here is 1000 square feet with two car garage, with only 10 ~ at this square footage and the balance graduated in increment as to how many they can build at each size. This would indicte the minimum somewhere around $55,000 to $60,000 at the current building costs. In terms of wood foundations that is an item that is addressed by the building code and that is strictly up to each individual builder, there is really not anything this body can do about that. Smith, when this came up before our building inspector raised quite a bit of concern over this and it was pointed out by the promoter of wood foundations that these were approved by the UBC. The City of Meridian has adopted the UBC and I don't know whether the Council would look at making an exclusion from the UBC Code. Crookston, there has in the past been exaiusions. Smith, as the lady testified if there is deterioration already it might be in the best interest of the City to look into something like this. Shearer, there should be some provisions in the Code in regard to water table, wood foundations are setup on the basis of drainage and if they are not done properly they will fail. There was more discussion on the problem of wood foundations and the high water table in the area. There was no other testimony, Chairman Spencer closed the Public Hearing. The Motion was made by Morrow and seconded by Cole that the Meridian Plan- ning and Zoning hereby recommends that the Preliminary and Final Plat of Meridian Manor #4 & #5 be approved by the Meridian City Council contingent upon the Council granting the necessary Variances and the City should review its position on wood foundations relative to high water tables and the Building Inspector should make a survey and in fact if there was deterioration there should be some specific provisions made in the Code or delete wood foundations from the Code. Motion Carried: All Yea.: Item #2: Preliminary & Final Plat The Lake at Cherry Lane #2: Chairman Spencer opened the Public Hearing and asked if a representive of The Lake at Cherry Lane was present. Mr. Kieth Jacobs of Loveless Engineering was present to represent this request. Jacobs, what we are asking for tonite, we have had to redesign the pre- liminary plat on this parcel which is North of the existing Cherry Lane Village, we are asking approval for the preliminary plat on the entire parcel with a final plat on a portion, 21 lots. This is primarly because we need access into this area, we only have the Tr_unberry as our access. We are landlocked to this area. We do not control the land to access off Ten Mile or Black Cat. The convenants on this phase are in essence the same as on The Lake at Cherry Lane #1, that is at the end of Sea Island CT. MERIDIAN PLA*,~~,,G & ZONING • AUGUST 12, 19~J PAGE # 4 We are complying with the City of Meridian Ordinance on the size of lots and the size of the particular building to be build on these lots. Morrow, have you complied with the City Engineers requirements and requests? Jacobs, Yes, we have not submitted the water & sewer plans or the plans to the Highway District but we do plan on submitting those and he has worked closely with us on this plat. City Engineer, Gary Smith, have you got anything back from Ben Frank on that access? Barney, not in writing, JUB has the legal description drawn up and it is being sent to Portland for signatures and then conveyed to Ada County. Smith, ~e will need a copy of the deed on that, so we know it has been taken ~ax~-.-of. Smith pointed out on the plat where the piece of property was located that they were discussing. What I am proposing on this turnaround in order to maintain a turnaround that this area become part of the plat. Then it can be replatted as they extend on it is on Mr. Barney's property at this time, however if there was change of ownership than the turnaround is no longer under Mr. Barneys' control. I felt this should be included. There was discussion on this subject between the parties. Jacobs, if we put a note on the plat on the turnaround that should cloud the sale if property was sold. Smith, have you received any comment back from the Highway District yet? Jacobs,Yes, it was sent out today late. Smith, maybe they should go through the process of submitting a easement to the Highway District for that turnaround area., rather than platting it. All the Highway District is asking for is a 37 ft.teMporary turnaround at the end of Lakeview Drive. Crookston, the best way to handle this matter would be to have the County accept an easement for public use and include a note on the plat. If the Ada County Highway accepts the easement for maintenance then they are the ones who are accepting the liability but the title remains to Mr.Barney. Smith, could the note on the plat say that the easement would be vacated at the time of the extension of Lakeview Drive and when the Highway Dist- rict signs the plat they are acknowledging to that effect? Crookston, Yes. Smith, the only other comment I have is that Lot 8, Block 3 seems to be substandard, I can only figure 7850 square feet, the Ordinance requires 8000 square feet. I have some concerns about the access into this subdiv- ision, Turnberry Way being more or less the main access into this area runs into that culdesac and you have to make a sharp left hand turn for access into this subdivision. There is another road proposed to go to the East off of Turnberry we actually have a three way intersection there we have several roads coming in,in a relatively short distance from each other. I don't know whether this would create a problem for sure. MERIDIAN PLAN~G & ZONING • AUGUST 12, 19 PAGE # 5 When I talked to Mr. Loveless about it he had some concerns about the radius on the streets in order to access into there off of Turnberry and it would cause the loss of at least one lot. Obviously Mr. Barney is complementing the existing Golf Course in this subdivision and I realize that is a loss of marketable land. Evidently the Highway District has no concerns over this turn. Did this come up at all Mr. Jacobs? Jacobs, Yes, they prefer moving this to the North where there would be four way intersection. Smith, this would make a better intersection, if you can get down past Barneys property. Cole, what improvements do you plan on the lots that are designated for future expansion of the Golf Course? Jacobs, at this time we would not propose to put in any improvements other than maybe some crossings there to facilitate any irrigation considerations to maintain the Golf Course, leveling those two lots and maintaining the weeds so they are acceptable to the City. We don't see that it would be economically or desireable at this time to place any improvements persay that would be in the Golf Course or blend with the Golf Course, not until we make another phase then we can build that first hole. Mr. Barney will maintain until we get to the point we can build that hole. Smith, I don't know when the plat is filed if the City automatically owns those lots or if they have to be deeded to the City. Crookston, they would need to be deeded to the City. There were no other comments or questions of the Commission. Mr. Larry Koch, 1816 Incline way, I am not only representing myself here, I am representing the Board of Directors of the Cherry Lane Village Home- owners Association. I am here to express some concerns we had in regards to this development, traffic is indeed a problem, if you take a look at Interlachen it not only serves the residents but also serves the people coming into play golf. I have had expressed to me by several of the residents a number of concerns and we are concerned about that traffic flow. There needs to be an exit to Ten Mile or Ustick whichever is more feasable. The other point I wish to bring up is the character of the development in that in effect it becomes part of Cherry Lane Village. Cherry Lane Village was put together with some pretty specific effective covenants, conditions and restrictions. These have grown to mean a lot to those people who live in that development. We are in the process now of working with the developer Ben Fran and going through and checking to see on enforcment of these restrictions. We feel they are obviously capt- alizing on the quality of a neighborhood represented by the entrance, we feel that they should adhere to the convenants of that area. We would ask that they be required to incorporate chapter and verse the covenants and including minimum square footage on houses. We are in favor of the development with certain provisions, one the traffio, two adhere to CC& R's. There were no questions of the Commission of this witness. MERIDIAN PLA~G & ZONING • AUGUST 12, 195 PAGE # 6 Rod Brady, 469 SW 7th, I am in the process of building a new home on the lot at 3840 Sea Island Court and I am quite concerned about the fairway on the first hole, my concern is that we are going to get people coming straight across here and we will be in the line of the golf balls in my back yard. There was discussion on this subject by members of the Commission, the City Engineer and Mr. Brady. Dave Davenport, 2145 Woodmont, as a resident of the Cherry Lane Subdivis- ion I am extremely concerned about the traffic flow that will be incurred from this development and feel that there must be another access either on Ten Mile or on Ustick into the subdivision. In addition to that the access for fire equipment is extreme concern in that area as they would have to come all the. way through the subdivision to reach the back corner. I would like to also see that the convenants of the new subdivision match that of the current Cherry Lane development. Moe Alidjani, 2023 Turnberry DBA Sanitary Service, my question is in serving that area, I am not familiar with that turnaround. It was explained that the turnaround would be a regular culdesac until such time as street was extended. John Elliott, 3940 Sugar Creek Drive, I think that something should be done with the trucks that are going to be coming in during construction. I think this is another important reason to have another access. There was no other testimony, Chairman Spencer closed the Public Hearing. Morrow, it seem to me that there may be to many ifs here and would person- ally be in favor of tableing to try to resolve some of the issues that have been brought up here tonite, in terms of the culdesac and turnaround, I think the discussion by the Public in terms of compatible covenants is a valid point. The other .potential problem is ownership of the access, I would like to see that resolved also. These are the reservationsI have. Spencer, if it is tabled it should be to next regular meeting, we could make a recommendation that included having these problems resolved. There was discussion b~ the Commission. The Motion was made by Morrow and seconded by Johnson that the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends approval of the Prelimary and Final Plat of The Lake at Cherry Lane #2 with the stipulation that the Council grants the necessary Variances and subject to the City Council approving the covenants and restrictions making sure they are compatible with the existing subdivision, that the ownership for access be taken care of and that the culdesac turnaround be handled in a manner that is acceptable to the City Engineer, that all other recommendations by City Engineer be complied with as well as other recommendation made. Motion Carried: Morrow, Yea; Johnson, Yea: Shearer, Yea: Cole, Nay: MERIDIAN PLAN~G & ZONING • AUGUST 12, 19 PAGE # 7 ITEM # 3: Annexation & Zoning w/ Preliminary Plat, Locust Grove Manor: Chairman Spencer opened the Public Hearing. Is there someone present representing Locust Grove Manor? Mr. David Powell, Engineer from Hosac Engineering was present to repres- ent this request. Mr. Powell was sworn by Chairman Spencer. Powell, I am representing Chester & Lorraine Hosac, they are requesting annexation & zoning and also asking approval of Preliminary Plat at this time. Locust Grove Manor is proposed as a Senior Duplex Development including 34 units. We are asking for R-8 Zoning which would allow these duplexes. This development is approximately ; mile North of Fairview Ave on Locust Grove Road. The property at this time is contigous with the City Limits to the West, approximately 190 feet. With the development we are planning to extend City Water & Sewer from what is now Meridian Place Subdivision, extending it down Chateau , then South on Locust Grove and into the property. The sewer is a 8 in.main and the water a ten in. line. We are planning on extending the lines to our South Boundry. As far as comments by the various .entities involved we have had problems in responding to those comments, we need to know your decision as to whether or not to accept this development, upon your decision we are going to make all the necessary changes to meet the conditions set forth. There was one question brought by Ada County Highway District and that is Dixie Lane, our proposal at this time is dedicate from our property 25 feet for a future fifty foot rightway. Ada County Highway does not feel that Dixie Lane will ever be a major collector even though it is on a quarter section line.They did not approve this development due to the fact that we are proposing to have a public right-a-way on what is now a private lane all the way down to Fairview Ave. We were not able to meet with Highway Dist- ict prior to this meeting to discuss options. We do not see any problems with any of their other comments. We also received several comments from the City Engineer and we have ~~t this time not had a chance to make a written comment or changes to the Preliminary Plat, we fully intend to do this as soon as possible. There was discussion on this application. Smith, there is some problems that they need to put some tempory turnarounds on some of these street~,Locust Grove Road is designated for a minor arterial that is .the reason for the extra rightway. Smith pointed out on the map where the property was located. There was no other testimony on this application, Chairman Spencer closed the Public Hearing. The Motion was made by Johnson and seconded by Shearer to instruct the City Attorney to prepare Findings of Fact and Conclusions on this applic- ation. Motion Carried; All Yea: Chairman Spencer, does the Commission wish to make a recommendation to the Council? It was the consensus of the Commission to wait until the Findings were completed. MERIDIAN PLAN~G & ZONING COMMISSION • AUGUST 12, 19 PAGE # 8 Item # 4: Findings of Fact and Conclusions on Conditional Use Permit for E. Faye Brewer: Chairman Spencer, is there any discussion by the Commission? Johnson, on page #6 E house is already on City Water & Sewer and on page #7 C what does this .mean. It was explained to Johnson this was a standard procedure required by the City. Johnson, on Page #8 13 it states that Applicant shallbe required to make annual report to the City and mail copies to the property owners within 300 feet. I believe the stipulation of mailing the copies should be struck. The Motion was made by Johnson and seconded by Morrow to delete the words on page #8 13 mail copies thereof to the property owners within 300 feet. Motion Carried: Morrow, Yea; Johnson, Yea: Shearer, Yea: Cole, Abstain: The Motion was made by Johnson and seconded by Shearer that the Leridian Planning & Zoning Commission, by and through i.i;ts designated Hearing Officer, hereby adopts and approves these Findings of Fact & Conclusions. Motion Carried: Morrow, Yea: Johnson, Yea: Shearer, Yea; Cole, Abstain: The Motion was made by Johnson and seconded by Shearer that the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission, by and through its designated Hearing Officer hereby recommends to the City Council that Applicnat's request for a Conditional Use Permit be considered after due consideration by the City Council of any request submitted by the Applicant for zoning amendment or variance. Commission makes no recommendation on the variance, but if such is granted the Commission recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit subject to the conditions as stated in the Findings of Fact and Conclusions. Motion Carried: Morrow, Yea; Johnson, Yea; Shearer, Yea; Cole, Abstain: Chairman Spencer advised the Commission there would possibly be a request for special meeting to consider the regional shopping mall. Being no further business to come before the Commission the Motion was made by Cole and seconded by Shearer to adjourn at 9:00 p.m. Motion Carried: All Yea: (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) APPROV .~ BOB S R, CHAIRMAN Y :~ i BEFORE THE MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION E. FAYE BREWER CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1303 East First Street MERIDIAN, IDAHO FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS The above entitled matter having come on for public hearing July 8, 1985, at approximately 7:30 o'clock p.m., the Petitioner appearing in person, and the appointed Hearing Officer for 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 a notice of public hearing on the Conditional Use Permit was published for two (2) consecutive weeks prior to said public hearings, the first publication occurring on June 19, 1985 and the second on June 25, 1985; that the matter was duly considered at the July 8, 1985 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 Idaho First National Bank, as Trustee for Ruby Wolfe; that the Applicant has been authorized to FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS - 1 act on behalf of the owner; that the property is described as Parcel No. 0320 of Blocks 2 and 3, F.A. Nourses 3rd Addition, City of Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, and is known as 1303 East First Street, Meridian, Idaho; 3. The property is located within a R-15 zoning classification; 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 two individuals appeared at the hearing objecting or questioning the use of the property as a funeral services center; that the Applicant appeared at the hearing, testifying in favor of the Application; and that no further individuals testified for or against the Application; 6. That the property is presently vacant, but has been used in the past exclusively for residential purposes; 7. That various city officials and public agencies have commented as follows with respect to this Application: the City Engineer has stated various requirements for parking, water and sewer service, traffic and signage; Earl ward has commented that commercial sewage rates would apply and additional hookup fees would be required; Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District has commented that surface drainage runoff must be retained on site and that the irrigation ditch along the West property line must be protected and maintained; the Chief of Police was requested FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS - 2 that adequate off-street parking be provided and that ingress and egress for the property be in compliance with Idaho State Trans- portation Department Regulations; the Central District Health Department has commented that the facility must meet with all Health Department criteria for embalming purposes and the facili- ty can be approved for central water and center sewer; 8. 'That the requested funeral services center is located within a medium-high density residential district (R-15) and is not allowed within said district under a Conditional Use Permit. Although the proposed use is not specifically identified under Section 2-409 of the Zoning and Development Ordinance of the City of Meridian, it would appear to most closely approximate a mortuary land use, which is only permitted in limited office and other nonresidential zones. Various commercial Conditional Use Permits are allowed in the R-15 zone, however, the Appli- cant's request is not within the designated commercial uses that would be allowed under a Conditional Use Permit. CONCLUSIONS 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 75% of the owners of the property within 300 feet of the external boundaries of the Applicant's property; FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS - 3 2. That the City of Meridian has the authority to review Conditional Use Permit Applications pursuant to Section 67-6512, Idaho Code, and, pursuant to Section 2-418 of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Meridian Idaho; 3. That pursuant to Section 2-418 C (1) of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Meridian, a proposed use must in fact constitute a conditional use as determined by City policy; 4. Section 2-407 D (1) of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Meridian, provides that: "When a use is not specifically listed as a permitted use, such use shall be hereby expressly prohibited unless by application and authorization (as provided for under Conditional use) it is determined that said use is similar to and compatible with listed permitted uses. Such uses may then be permitted as Conditional Uses." It is concluded that the proposed use in this matter is not similar to and compatible with other listed permitted uses in the R-15 zone. 5. It is therefore concluded that the proposed use is not permitted as a Conditional Use Permit within the R-15 zone under Section 2-409 of the Zoning ordinance of the City of Meridian, and accordingly, does not meet the requirements of Section 2-418 C (1) of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Meridian. 6. That to allow a funeral services center in the R-15 zone, the Applicant would have to request a text amendment to the FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS - 4 zoning ordinance or be granted a variance to the zoning ordinance by the City Council. 7. That without a variance request the Planning and Zoning Commission would have no alternative but to deny the Applicant's requested Conditional Use Permit; however, based upon the assumption that the Applicant will apply for a variance or amendment, the Commission shall proceed to consider the merits of the Conditional Use Permit Application. S. The individuals testifying in opposition to the Application, Max Yerrington and Norma Thompson, have legitimate concerns with respect to the granting of a Conditional Use Permit and the traffic generated by the proposed use. The vast majority of adjacent property owners, exceeding 75°s of those entitled to notice, have consented that the Conditional Use Permit be grant- ed. 9. That the City of Meridian has authority to place conditions on a Conditional Use Permit and the use of the proper- ty pursuant to Section 67-6512, Idaho Code, and, pursuant to 2-418 D of the Zonina Ordinance of the City of Meridian. 10. That 2-418 of the Zoning Ordinance 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 require- ments and a review of the facts presented and the conditions of the area, and assuming all the conditions above would be met by FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS - 5 the Applicant, the Planning and Zoning Commission specifically concludes as follows: a. The use, upon the granting of a variance or text amendment, constitutes a conditional use and a conditional use permit is required by ordinance. b. The use will be harmonious with and in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordi- nance with a variance. 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 for residential use. d. That the use will not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or future neighboring uses. e. The property should be connected to sewer and water lines 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 use will not involve uses, activities, pro- cesses, 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. The 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 meet the off-street parking requirements. i. The development and uses will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural or scenic feature of major importance. 11. That the following conditions of approval must be met by the Applicant: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS - 6 a. The parking requirements of Section 2-414 of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Meridian must be complied with as to parking layout and size, landscap- ing and screening and number of spaces; b. That the Applicant pay a commercial sewer rate and additional hookup fees for commercial use and the Applicant furnish a plumbing plan for calculation of the connection fee requirement; c. That the Applicant install a cross connection control devise on the waterline, furnish a plumbing plan for calculation of the water assessment connection fee and install a separate meter for sprinklers; d. That the Applicant install a right turn only sign onto East First Avenue for all vehicles exiting the property; e. That any signage installed upon the property shall meet the requirements of the Uniform Sign Code as specified in the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Meridian, Section 2-415; f. That surface drainage runoff must be retained on site and that the Applicant must protect and maintain the irrigation ditch along the West property line; g. That ingress and egress from the property be in compliance with the Idaho State Department of Trans- portation regulations; FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS - 7 h. That the proposed facility must meet all Central Health Department criteria for embalming and other uses. 12. That the permit once granted shall personal to the Applicant and shall not be transferable to other individuals or property; 13. That the City has authority to restrict the time limit of conditional use; that this conditional use, if ultimate- ly granted by the City Council shall be reviewed annually and the Applicant shall be required to make an annual report to the City and mail copies thereof to the property owners within 300 feet; that, if the City determines the Applicant is not meeting the conditions contained herein, then such shall be a basis for terminating the Applicant's Conditional Use Permit; that prior to terminating the Applicant's Conditional Use Permit, the Applicant shall be afforded a hearing and notice of the hearing which notice shall set forth the reasons for proposing to terminate the Conditional Use Permit. APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission, by and through its designated Hearing Officer, hereby adopts and ap- proves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS - 8 ROLL CALL Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Chairman Spe Morrow Alidjani Johnson Shearer Cole acer (Tie Breaker) Voted ~Yos Voted Voted ~r.s Voted .s Voted ~ r " Voted DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission, by and through its designated Hearing Officer, hereby recommends to the City Council that Applicant's request for Conditional Use Permit be considered after due consideration by the City Council of any request submitted by the Applicant for zoning amendment or variance. Commission makes no recommendation on the variance, but if such is granted the Commission recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit subject to the conditions as stated in these Findings of Fact and Conclusions. MOTION: APPROVED _~ DISAPPROVED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS - 9 CITY COUNCIL and PLANNING and 7,ONING City of Meridian • Ada County, Idaho • ORDINANCE 446 VERBAL TESTI}90NY of SPEAKERS at PUBLIC HEARING SIGN-UP SHEET ::'l:~2Y0iNti !1'J3T ~L,: I .itiifa' 1' '~'i~~ ~I~: PO fil'Hr~: PRINTED NAME SIGNID NAME RESIDENTIAL ADDRESS TO SPEAK YES ND i ,~£,c~ f ~~ -~ ~_ .<~ ,~ ~ ti , ~ 3 ~>. N' ~~ ~~ ~ X330 ~ L~- O ~ N c~ ~ //~ ~'CC- /LIC~c.C~' ti„ ~ i / .[_ ~ C~2C_. ~