Loading...
1985 05-13~* • A G E N D A MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MAY 13,1985 ITEM: MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING HELD APRIL 8, 1985: (APPROVED) MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING HELD APRIL 25, 1985: (APPROVED) 1. REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION & ZONING BY MOE ALIDJANI TABLED AT THE (TABLED APRIL 8, 1985 MEETING: (ADDITIONAL CORRESPONDENCE ATTACHED) UNTIL JUNE 10) 2. PUBLIC HEARING, APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT BY JOHN HAYWARD FOR RV AND USED AUTO LOT: (ATTORNEY TO PREPARE FINDINGS) 3. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS ON AMENDMENTS TO THE ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE. (APPROVED) • i MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MAY 13, 1985 Regular Meeting of the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission called to order by Chairman Bob Spencer at 7:30 p.m.: Members Present: Walt Morrow, Jim Johnson, Jim Shearer, Tom Cole: Members Absent: Moe Alidjani: Others Present: Aline Denardi, Loren Hornbaker, Kim Fabricius, Pat Fabricius, Brenda Fabricius, Opal Farrington, Lila Wilkins, Georgene Davis, Voyle Davis, Kieth Stokes, Elaine Smith, Lawrence Smith, Blanche Wolff, Vera Sinnemaki, George Sinnemaki, Fern McKague, Vera Hornbaker, JoAnne LaCasse, Betty Wolfe, Mary Jensen, Wayne Crookston: The Motion was made by Morrow and seconded by Johnson to approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting held April 8, 1985 as written: Motion Carried: All Yea: The Motion was made by Morrow and seconded by Johnson to approve the minutes of the Special I9eeting held April 25, 1985 as written: Motion Carried: All Yea: Item #1: Request for Annexation & Zoning by Moe Alidjani, tabled at April 8, 1985 Meeting: Chairman Spencer read a letter from Mr. Moe Alidjani which he had received on April 13, 1985 which stated, due to the fact of what I recall from the last meeting, Commissioner's Cole and Morrow asked for more information and data in regards to my request for Zoning the subject property, unfort- unatly I am out of town at this time to collect this information as you requested. Please if you would, put this matter on your Agenda for two weeks from now or at your next regular meeting June 10th, 1985. Chairman Spencer advised the Commission that they had some different options as to what they could do with this request at this time: (1) they could table until a future date; (2) they could hear the testimony and then decide what they wanted to table (3) or have the Public Hearing and continue it for a number of days to accept written testimony: What is the wish of the Commission? It was the consensus of the Commission after discussion that Mr. Alidjani should be present when the testimony was given. The Motion was made by Morrow and seconded by Cole that this matter be tabled until the June 10, 1985 Regular Meeting: Motion Carried: All Yea: Item #2: Public Hearing, Conditional Use Permit for John Hayward for RV & Automobile Sales Lot: MERIDIAN P &Z:• MAY 13, 1985 PAGE # 2: Chairman Spencer advised the audience that this Public Hearing would be conducted under the Rules of Ordinance # 446: Chairman Spencer opened the Public Hearing: Mr. John Hayward, 2192 Meadow, Idaho Fa11s, Idaho was present to represent this request. Mr. Hayward was sworn by Chairman Spencer: Mr. Hayward, I wish to open a Used Rv Lot and Used Automobile lot at 521 South First Street on the property owned by John Dobaron, I would only be using the property located in the front of the building and have an office inside the building. Eventually I hope to only have RV Units at this location. I would be using the equipment that is already there like the sign post, refuse disposal, etc: I do plan some painting and cleanup of the area before opening up. Chairman Spencer, questions of the Commission? Johnson, we have had discussion on the size of the property you were going to use and how it was defined in any kind of lease or legal description. That is a large lot there. Hayward, all I am leasing as you will see on application is about 175 foot frontage along the front of the building, which starts where the driveway comes into the property and runs down to the existing sign or where the pavement stops, all I would be interested in using would be the frontage along the highway that is paved. Johnson, the reason I asked the question is in regards with this 300 Foot notification we have to work with and we wondered if the signatures you have are the only people that would fall within the 300 feet. Mr. Hayward that is correct, I took the measurements from that perimeter. Cole, you do not plan on expanding further than the edge of the pavement. Hayward, no the property further North has been leased and someone is also applying for a Conditional Use Permit for that area. Johnson, is there any plan for any kind of separation between the two parcels? Hayward, not at this point, I actually need to leave him access in there apparently there is another access to his property but I have agreed to leave him access through there from the driveway. Johnson, what is the definition of a Recreational Vehicle ? Hayward, Travel Trailers, Motor Homes, Campers, etc: Johnson, are they going to be new or used? Hayward, used, will have no new franchise at this time. MERIDIAN P & Z, t MAY 13, 1985 PAGE # 3: Cole, your lease would be designated as a certain portion of that property and your Conditional Use Permit would be for that certain portion? Hayward, strictly for that portion. Spencer, how many used cars do you foresee having out there? Hayward, no more than ten initially as I want to mix RV units with it, RV market is kind of seasonable and this is why I want to put in both types of units. Hopefully by next spring my plans are to be strictly RV units only. Chairman Spencer, are there any further questions or any comments or testimony from the audience? There were none. Chairman Spencer closed the Public Hearing. Morrow, it seems to me that the Conditionl Use Permit we recommended approval on prior for the mobile homes and the RV'S would be a very compatible useage, be a good marketing tool, I don't know whether the used cars would be that benefical as I don't think RV's and cars are that compatible unless you are talking pickups and campers. The Motion was made by Morrow and seconded by Shearer to instruct the City Attorney to prepare Findings of Fact and Conclusions on this request for a Conditiona!1 Use Permit. Motion Carried: All Yea: The Motion was made by Morrow and seconded by Shearer that the Findings reflect recommendation of approval by the City Council. Motion Carried: All Yea: Item #3: Findings of Fact and Conclusions on proposed amendments to the Zoning & Development Ordinance. The Motion was made by Morrow and seconded by Johnson that the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission hereby adopts and approves the Findings of Fact and Conclusions as prepared . Motion Carried: Morrow, Yea: Johnson, Yea: Shearer, Yea: Cole, Yea: The Motion was made by Morrow and seconded by Cole that the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council that the Planning & Zoning Commission's proposed Amendments to the Zoning & Development Ordinances should be approved and adopted. 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 7:57 p.m. Motion Carried; All Yea: (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) MERIDIAN PLANN~ & ZONING APRIL 13, 1985 PAGE # 4: ATTEST: ty Maygr` & Council P & Z Commission Stuart, Ward, JUB, Fire, Mitich, Kiebert Police, Valley News Statesman, Hein ATTY., ACHD, ACC, APA, ACZ,CDH NMID • APPROVED: BOB NCER, CHAIRMAN File (3) Mail (2) d T ?// Gam.-YS~-,. Scv+~ w~ ~7 /j 0 I, GLyI~NH,cr 77~ / _ ZCN" QW 4~ ,~a,v._. C~ ~f'y,'~ ., /~~ /Gau- t~ t~-~1• u/e~ • ~~ / l~~ o~ ,jar U e~ ryr-e~~ ~~~- to ~/9~s' l~ ,./ ~ w CI'PY COUNCIL and PLAVNI~Y~ and ?.ONING City of Meridian • Ada County, Idaho • ORDINANCE 446 VERBAL TESTIMONY of SPEAKERS at PUBLIC HEARING SIGN-UP SHELT t,V ~dYCF! 11SSi ~ + _LI. nl li i i „i +L~u i:, .>1:~1! . PRINTED NAME SIGNED NAME RESIDENTIAL ADDRESS +nJr DEN RR~i rl,~.<.,,.~ ~0-1n~..r9' ~;i~-N wcus7GjtuJt TO SPEAK Y / ND n/~ ~ i4rc ~ ) /z3_ ~ ~ ~ ~[ ~~ t Z 1 ++ 44 O $- _ i ) _ ~ GS - ~~yy /C~~ t ~ /l" ~ ~ pp b ~J ~.ZL°~ ,~~ ~~ ~ -- ~?1i~ s~ /j ~o ~07 SAD !/' ~~~'Z°.Lt~~GI/ zc~ e ° ~ ~ ~/ . ~ ~ ~~,~~ ~ ~ ~ v s--- ~l cI v n r • '~ BEFORE THE MERIDIAN PL~~NNIN~ AND ZONING COI'1^1ISSION PLAYINING AND ZONING CO^~L?7ISSION'S APPLICATION TO AMEND MERIDIAN ZONING ORDINr~.NCE AND THE DEVELOPP4ENT O'iDIIdANCE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLLTSIONS The above entitled application to amend the A7eridian Zoning and Development Ordinance havina come on for public hearing and the Plan- ning and Zoning Commission having heard any and all testimony that was submitted and having duly considered the evidence, the facts judicially noticed and its own opinions and the matter, the Planning and Zoning Commission makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. That notice of the public hearing on the application c.•as published for two (2) consecutive weeks prior to the said public hearing scheduled for April 8, 1985, the first publication of which was fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing; that the matter was duly considered at the April 8, 1985, hearing and was duly consider by the Planning and Zoning Commission; that copies of all notices were available to newspapers, and radio and television stations. 2. That the proposed amendments are as set forth in the AMBROSE, ITZGERALD CROOKSTON ttansye anC Counselors O. Bor eD Nn, loeeo Application which is incorporated herein by this reference as if set forth in full hereat. That the application sets forth as the general reasons and purposes for amending the Zoning Ordinance as being to create a specific zoning district for a regional shopping center and remove the capability of building a regional shopping center in the General Retail and Service Commercial District (C-~); PAGE ONE to expand the gross floor space standards in the definitions o£ Neighborhood Convenience Center and Community Shopping Center; to insert a minimum gross floor space in the definition of regional shopping center; to make some specific changes in the zoning maps regarding some specific parcels of .property. 3. That the application sets forth as the reasons and purposes for amending the Development Ordinances are to insert a time require ment and written request requirement on applications to extend the time for final plat recOrding;to co-ordinate Pleridian's street light ing requirements with those of the City of Boise; and to ease the subdivision requirements of parcels of ground in existing subdivisio 4. That the amendments have been proposed by the Commission itself. 5. That at the public hearing held April 3, 1935, at 7:30 0' clock p.m, there was no public comment, either oral or written, on the application. 6. That .some of the zoning amendments have been proposed by th Commission in light of the Commission's proposed amendments to the Meridian Comprehensive Plan and are corollary amendments; that the Commission has adopted its proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan; that these findings are, in some part, based upon the assumpti that the City Council would adopt the Commission's amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and therefore some of the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments are used to support some of the zoning ordinance I amendments. AMBROSE, F172G ERALD 7. That the present definitions of Community Shopping Center 6CROOMBTON and Neighborhood Shopping Center do not .overlap as far as square Allornaye anE Counselore P.O. BOx/27 M°^^M",ie'^o PAGE TWO ex~s r.ipnon.eesr~ei ...,y...: r_ae. footage is concerned; that the square footage requirements are no~r~ 100,000--200,000 and 30,000--100,000 respectively; that the proposed amendments change the definitions to 100,000--400,000 and 30,000-- 200,000 respectively; that the Comprehensive Plan Amendments propose by the Commission and already adopted by the Commission, change the square footages and to keep the Plan and the Ordinances uniform, a change in the Zoning Ordinance was necessary. 8. That one of the Commission's proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendments deals with the deletion from the Plan of specific site designations for a regional shopping center; that if this proposed amendment were passed without amendment to the Zoning Ordinance a regional shopping center could be placed on any property which is presently zoned C-G; that there are several properties in the City 'presently zoned C-G which thus could have constructed on them a regional shopping center; that more control over regional shopping center location is necessary in the Zoning Ordinance if the control now contained in the Comprehensive Plan is removed. 9. That the present definition of regional shopping center AMBROSE, FIRGERALO dCROOKSTON Altomsys uW CwnWOn P.O. ~, t2] MMMIUi, IANo x~x T.I.PnoR. eae.uei not contain minimum square footage requirement nor does it contain a minimum size parcel of ground; that the new definition sets a minimum square footage of 750,000 and a 75 acre parcel; that t'ie Comprehensive Plan does not presently contain square footage or pare 1 size requirements and the Commission's proposed Plan amendments did not address those types of requirements. 10. That with the deletion in the Plan of exact locations for regional shopping centers, some means of controlling and setting guidelines for regional shopping centers was necessary; that the PAGE THREE creation of a new zoning district is one means of providing that control and guidance. 11. That the present Zoning Schedule of Use Control, Zoning Schedule of Bulk and Coverage Controls, and the Legend for Zoning Maps do not presently contain designations for a Regional Shopping Center Zone. 12. That the requirement of providing notice of both the Commiss and Council hearings by certified-mail to people living within a 300 foot radius of lane: being considered for a zone change, annexati conditional use permit, or variance, or other zoning relating pro- cedure, is expensive and time consuming: that one certified mailing at the Commission level would put landowners on notice of the pro- ceeding at its initial stages; the proposed amendment allows for notice by oridinary first class mail of the Council hearing and by certified mail at the Commission .level. 13. That the area of .Meridian that is now knocan as "Old Town" AMBROSE, FIRGERALD BCROOKSTON Atlpneya uM Counsebre P.O. BOx 12] MMkll~n, MMo 87614 TNpIp1N 88NM7 had many varied uses throughout the years that when the Zoning Ordinance was passed it attempted to recognize previously existing uses; that there has been some confusion as to when a conditional us is required in "Old Town" and when it is not; the present ordinance can be construed as requiring a conditional use for any development or change of use in Old Town; that it is the intent of the proposed ordinance change to recognize that previously existing uses can be continued without a conditional use permit and ownership changes without such a permit. 1~. That there were several parcels of land in the City that we PAGE FOUR being used for a particular use when the Zoning Ordinance was passed in April of 1984, but were not correctly zoned according to their use; that in order to keep the zoning for the property and the properties uses at the time of adoption in conformance, the zoning changes in the proposed amendment are necessary. 15. That prior to the enactment of the Zoning Ordinance in April of 1984, the Commission and the Council, when considering development and zoning proposals, retained the right to make a des review or site review; that neither the present Zoning or Developme Ordinances contains a provision alloiring such review; that in order to retain that site review it is necessary to have an ordinance authorizing such. 16. That the present Development Ordinances requires that a final plat be recorded within one year of approval and allows for an extension of one year; that some owners of land finally platted have not applied for an extension until after the first one year period has expired. 17. That the City of Boise recently enacted changes to their lighting ordinance; that unifromity of lighting requirements is beneficial to developers and to Idaho Power Company. 18. That the present Development Ordinances indicates that AMBROSE, FITZG ERALD~ B CROOKSTON Atlomays Md CounNbn P.O. Box ~YT MMOIAn, ICNo BJM2 TNptans BBB~M81 any parcel of property is divided into two or more parcels a plat must be filed and the subdivision requirement met; that where a pare of land is contained within an existing subdivision and it is propos to be re-divided, the present ordinance could probably require unnee PAGE FIVE duplication of subdivision requirements. CONCLUSIONS 1. That the City has authority to amend its Zoning and Development Ordinances pursuant to Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code, specifically Section 67-6511, Idaho Code, and Section 11-2-416 of the Zoning Ordinance and Section 11-9-614 of the Development Ordinance. 2. That all notices and hearing requirements set forth in Titl 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code and the Ordinances of the City of Mer have been complied with. 3. That since the proposed amendments are proposed by the Commission, the technical requirements for an amendment application may be waived, and are hereby waived; hoF,rever, the application itsel is concluded to meet the application requirements of the Ordinances' Amendment procedures for both the Zoning Ordinance and the Developme Ordinance. 4. That the function of adopting, amending, or repealing the AMBROSE, FITZG ERALD BCROOKSTON At1olMys YM Counwbre P.O. BOx /Z] MNIONn, WYIo TWPNOn~BBMMI text of a zoning or development ordinance is a legislative Function in that suci7 does not pertain to any specific parcel or parcels of property; that the function of placing a particular parcel of property in a specific zone is a quasi-judicial function; that the present application pertains to both text amendments and to specific parcels of property; that the Local Planning Act of 1975 requires findings of fact and conclusions regardless of whether the function is legislative or quasi-judicial. 5. That the Commission may take judicial notice of governmenta PAGE SIX: statutes, ordinances and policies, and of actual conditions existing within the City, County, and State, 6. That the Commission may consider proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan which it has adopted to base amendments to the Zoning Ordinance. 7. That it is desireable to Ixave the square footage requiremen of the community and neighborhood shopping centers overlap as it co u7 be possible to start a development as a neighborhood shopping center and due to subsequent development and expansion it could become a community shopping center; that likewise, it is possible that a neighborhood shopping, so designated b,~ its location, might want to be larger than the previous definition allowed; 8. That since one of the Commission's proposed Comprehensive AM BROSE, FITZGERALD 6 CROOKSTON Attorneys ano Counsebn R.o. eo. ay MMklri. lUNo uea Tslpnon~8BNM1 ~. ._.... Plan amendments proposes to delete all regional shopping and com- munity shopping center sites from the Plan and control those by means of zoning only, the present controls regarding those shopping centers in the Zoning Ordinance-need to be revieGOed and made more adequate; also, if the ability to place a regional shopping center or C-G property is left unchanged, assuming the Plan amendment were pas: there would be too many parcels in the City capable of being developf as a regional shopping center; thus it is concluded that there is a definite need for a regional shopping center zone and with the adoption of that zone there is a need to change most of the schedule: contained in the Zoning Ordinance. 9, That it is concluded that there should be a guideline for, PAGE SEVEN or definition, of what a regional shopping center is; that from all applications presented to the City in the past and at present it is concluded that a regional shopping center, to be classed as such, sizould contain a minimum of 750,000 square feet and should only be located on a parcel having a size of at least 75 acres; that it is concluded that smaller minimums would remove such a center from the "regional" classification. 10. That is concluded that if the Commission's Plan amendment to remove shopping center locations from the Plan is adopted, the Zoning Ordinance amendments will control those locations and are in the best interest of the City. 11. That it is concluded that the Zoning Ordinance amendment changing the mailing of notice requirements will provide adequate notice to land owners and will be less expensive and cumbersome. 12. That it is condluded the amendment regarding "Old Town" and conditional use permits more accurately reflects the intention of Commission and Council when the Zoning Ordinance was adopted and should facilitate development in Old Town. 13. That the Zoning amendments pertaining to the specific of property are house cleaning measures in that the specific parcels should have been so zoned when the Zoning Ordinance was adopted in April, 1984, as the actual uses were those as allowed by this amendment. 14. That to control development and actual construction to see AMBROSE, iITZGERALD 80ROOKSTON Altomay~ aM Counsabro v.o. eo=~xT MxMitn, IE=Ilo B7B~4 T~bpNpNBlHM1 that they occur in accordance with plans and representations after PAGE EIGHT zoning or use approval, design or site review is appropriate and s ~a procedure is in the best interest of the City. 15. That there existed an ambiguity in the Development regarding when and how an extension of t:ime for recording a final should be requested; that the proposed amendment clarifys that ambiguity. 16. That it is in the best interest of the City, developers and Idaho Power Company to have similar lighting requirements. 17. That it is concluded that where a parcel, which is proposed AMBROSE, FITZGERALO d CROOKSTON Attorneys uM Counsebn 0.0. Bow X27 MMGMn, MMo NMY TrrNpKOnslMlMt K.. to be subdivided, is contained in an existing and previously platted subdivision, all the platting and subdivision requirements may not be necessary and that by ma}:ing the platting requirements less onerous for that type of land division, development should be facilitated and should be less expensive. PAGE NINE APPP.OVAL OF FINDING6 CF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts and approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions. ROLL CALL Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Chairman Spe "dorrow Alidjani .Johnson Shearer Cole ncer (Tie Breaker) Voted Voted F~Y~ Seal. Voted Xe,a Voted '~ ~ Voted ,1 Voted -' RECD^4MENDAT ION The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends AMBROSE, F1T2GERALG 6 CROOKSTON Atlomsys uW GouoW01H P.O. Box IZ1 MMEMn, INIw !7l~2 TN~pIgn~BBNMt to the City Council that the Planning and Zoning Commission's proposed Amendments to the Zoning and Development Ordinances should be approved and adopted. APPROVED ~ ' P PAGE TEN DISAPPP.OVED