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