Loading...
1985 03-11 A G E N D A MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING March 11, 1985 ITEM: Minutes of Previous Meeting Held February 11, 1985: 1. Findings of Fact and Conclusions on Comprhensive Plan Amendment Request by Claremont Development. (APPROVED) 2. Public Hearing: Annexation & Zoning Request w/ Conditional Use Permit by Leroy Fenstermaker: (ATTORNEY TO PREPARE FINDINGS OF FACT) MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MARCH 11, 1 Regular Dleeting of the Meridian Planning and 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: Le Roy Fenstermaker, Alan Lance, Becci Carmack, Dave Carmack, Bob Mitich, Lloyd Howe, Wayne Crookston, Ronda Lowe The Motion was made by Morrow and seconded by Cole to approve the minutes of the previous meeting held February 11, 1S85 as written. Motion Carried: All Yea: Item #1: Findings of Fact and Conclusions on Claremont Development application to amend the Comprehensive Plan. Chairman Spencer, are there any comments or questions of the Commission? There were none: The Motion was made by Morrow and seconded by Johnson that the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts and approves the Findings of Fact and Conclusions as prepared by the City Attorney. Motion Carried: Morrow, Yea: Alidjani, Absent: Johnson, Yea: Shearer, Yea: Cole, Yea: The Motion was made by Morrow and seconded by Johnson that the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby decides that. the application of Claremont Development Company merits further study and should continue to be processed. Motion Carried: All Yea: Item #2: Public Hearing: Annexation & Zoning Request w/Conditional Use Permit by LeRoy Fenstermaker. Chairman Spencer, this Public Hearing will be conducted under the provis- ion of Ordinance #446. Chairman Spencer opened the meeting for Public Hearing: Mr Fenstermaker and Attorney Alan Lance were present to represent this Request. Attorney Crookston, Mr. Fenstermaker and Mr. Lance, do you swear the testimony you are about to give is the whole truth and nothing but the truth? Mr. Fenstermaker, I do. Mr. Lance, I do. P & Z MEETING • • MARCH 11, 1985 PAGE # 2 Mr. Fenstermaker, I am requesting that my property located at 1665 West Pine be annexed and zoned with a conditional use permit for the operation of a automobile repair shop. I have owned this property for eleven years and operated a repair business at this location. AS you know the building used for repair shop burned and being the contractor who built this building for me did not obtain the necessary permits to make it legal Ada County will not issue a building permit for replacement. I am willing to hookup to the City Sewer but as far as water it would be rather expensive for me to hook up to City water as I recently install- ed a water to air heat system in my home. I realize the sewer charges are based on water usage but believe this could be estimated. I would be willing to pay even the amount that was estimated for the water along with the sewer. I plan on using this property for approximately nine years for this use at which time I would be able to retire. Mr. Lance, Mr. Fenstermaker understand that a Conditional Use Permit would not be for a period of .nine years but would be subject to annual review to insure that they were compling with whatever requirements the Plann- ing & Zoning Commission or the City Council may choose to impose. In regards to the signatures that are required for a Conditional Use Permit signatures of property owners within 300 feet all who have been notified have been obtained with the exception of the Quinlaut Indian Tribe. They have not submitted their approval to Mr. Fenstermaker's request. Many of the other property owners have requested restrictions which the Commission has before them. I understand after visiting with the City Attorney there might be some problem with this use in a R-4 Zone to meet the requirement of the Ordinance, if this is so we would be requesting a Variance. Mr. Fenstermaker has received a copy of the ACRD recommend- ations. Morrow, you have the 75% of .signatures required for approval? Lance, we have the 75% approval however as I indicated some of these have qualifications. Fenstermaker.,: the six foot fence, yes we will put up the six foot fence, regular working hours, yes we will post our regular hours as request- ed. Morrow, let me ask you this, do you intend to honor the regular working hours? Fenstermaker, yes, the best I can. Morrow, you stated you had the water to air pump and did not wish to hook on to City Water, you are aware the sewer is monitored by water useage? Fenstermaker, Yes, that is why I of water they stipulated we wouI~ Morrow, it seems to me you could by simply connecting to the cold ed system for a water to air heat great. stated that we would pay for the amount 1 use. hook up to City water at minimual expense water supply line and capping of the loop- pump. The expense should not be that P & Z MEETING. • March 11, 1985 PAGE # 3 Fenstermaker, it might not but the line is under the concrete which we had to dig up when the line from the pump was installed. Would have to dig this out again to hookup to City Water. Water lines are all under the concrete even the floors in house are concrete. There was more discussion on the water hookup. Johnson, on this 75°s, there are 15 properties which are individually owned, take approval of twelve, I cannot find twelve names in here. Lance, 15 is inclusive of Fenstermakers. Johnson, then this would be 750 of 14 or 10.5 is this correct? It was decided there were enough signatures. Johnson, other comment I had was comment made by Gene Ross and Bob Giesler approval as per requirement as per neighbors, this is very vague state- ment, are we talking about those that are on record? Spencer, we have some of the neighbors who are going to testify, this might shed some light on the requirements. Johnson, one other thing Gary Smith's comments, item $3, site drawings need to be submitted, this is the first time I have seen it brought out specifically. Are we going to ask for this or what? Assume he took this out of a requirement. Spencer, it is up to the Commission. Johnson, the pool filled in, first time seen. that come up, what is the pool? Fenstermaker, we have an artisan well, and the water coming from the well runs into this pond, this pond covers about 1800 square feet which is wasted ground. We decided to fill the pond in and use it to park the cars as they would be behind the six foot fence for screening. Johnson, where would the water go if you filled in the pond? Fenstermaker, there is a drain, that runs into a regular field drain. Cole, I have a question if anyone can answer, if the money is put in the Ada County Trust Fund is that designated right on that there is a certain amount of money setting in there for West Pine and only be used for West Pine? No one could answer this question for sure. Morrow, I want to get back to the water, see if it can be resolved does a single supply line come into the house the downstairs with water and then the heat pump, are these supplies located in the wall? Fenstermaker, they are located under the floor, and comes up through the floor inside the house. There was more discussion on the water. P & Z MEETING ~ • MARCH 11, 1985 PAGE # 4 Fenstermaker, if I have to hook to City Water I will. There were no other questions of the Commission. Lance, if this body looks favorable at Mr. Fenstermakers request he is perfectly willing to let the Building Inspector verify the water hookup system He is willing to let that happen if that would assist us. Becci Carmack, 1705 West Pine, Meridian, Idaho Attorney Crookston, Mrs. Carmack do you swear and affirm the testimony you are about to give is the truth the whole truth? Mrs. Carmack, I do. Mrs. Carmack, I think my comments will be brief, I did want to present that letter, thats the one Mr. Johnson inquired about earlier., Mrs. Carmack presented a letter for the record expressing their views and stipulations concerning this application.(Letter is exhibit A of these minutes.) This letter states our opinion right now. Mrs. Carmack inquired about the stipulations,do these happen before the permit is granted or is it granted on the conditions they happen at a certain time, could someone explain that to me? Spencer, the Commission decide when it happens. Mrs. Carmack, in regards to what Mr. Johnson was referring to about the neighbors, from what I have heard it is the very same list about the fencing, business hours, storage of cars and etc. same list as was submitted prior. Vdhen the Conditional_Use permit is granted how often is that renewed, is that an annual thing? Spencer, it is an annual thing, but normally not reviewed unless there are complaints. If there was a violation of the conditions put on the Co- nditional Jse Permit, it could be reviewed at any time. Mrs. Carmack, we do appreciate the concerns of the Commission, want to say it has been such a nice quiet year with no business going there and we feel like if these stipulations are adherred to we can have a co- existence there and still enjoy that we have our rights protected and just hope you will keep that in mind. Johnson, no cars parked within 125 ft. of the front property line, what are we talking about? Mrs. Carmack, that would be even with the back of the Fenstermaker's home, orginally the County suggested 150 feet. We are talking only about the cars he is working on not his own cars. Cars that would be there for a period of time. The fence surrounding the property was discussed. Mrs Carmack stated this was to screen off the property from the traffic and other items. P & Z MEETING • • MARCH 11, 1985 PAGE # 5 Johnson, you wrote this letter two months ago, do you still feel the same? Mrs. Carmack, Yes. Bob Mitich, 5090 View Drive, Meridian, Idaho Attorney Crookston, Mr. Mitich do you swear and affirm the testimony you are about to give is the truth , the whole truth and nothing but the truth? Mr. Mitich, I do. Mr. Mitich, my main concern is the fence, and that fence to stop traffic from going through the back yard of the home I own next to it needs to go right out to his front property line. This would separate his drive- way from mine. Mr. Mitich showed the Commission on the map what he was referring to. Each of us would still have a serviceable driveway. I would like to see this fence six foot. This would keep the traffic from crossing over into my place. There were no questions of Mr. Mitich by the Commission. Mr. David Carmack, 1705 West Pine, Meridian, Idaho Attorney Crookston, Mr. Carmack do you swear and affirm the testimony you are about to give to be the truth the whole truth. Mr. Carmack, I do. Mr. Carmack, I just want to say I support my wife in what she has testified, I feel exactly the same way she does. Wants to make sure the fence is built. Shearer, this would be acceptable if he meets the conditions set forth in your letter? Carmack, Yes, I guess so, if he follow the conditions and we are going to be assured they will be adherred to, we will go along with it. Morrow, Mr. Fenstermaker why has this building been under construction since 1984? Fenstermaker, we went to Ada County for a building permit and theygave us a permit for 900square feet. This is not enough space. The building I would like to put up is 2000 square foot building. Morrow, did you get the permit for the 900 square foot building prior to construction or starting construction of the 2000 foot building? Fenstermaker, no, I had the 2000 foot building started before getting the permit for the 900 foot building. I just used the rest for a park- ing place and barrier wall. Morrow, were you aware you needed a building permit? P & Z MEETING ~ • MARCH 11, 19.85 PAGE # 6 Fenstermaker, I did not think I needed a permit because the building had already been there before the fire. Morrow, if this application is not approved, is it true you are going to build the 900 .foot building that the County has approved and the rest of the building you have started is going to be a screening wall? Fenstermaker, yes, I would like very much if the permit is not granted to be annexed to the City and allowed to put up the 2000 foot building for a hobby shop and go some place else to make a living or retire. Morrow, where are you conducting your business now? Fenstermaker, renting a building from Briscoe Builders, which is to small to even have all my equipment in. Crookston, I did not understand what you said, if the application for the Conditional Use Permit is not granted you still want to be annexed? Fenstermaker, I would still like to be annexed and get the permit to build the building that is started for a hobby shop. Morrow, are talking about the 900 foot building or the 2000 foot build- ing? Fenstermaker, the 2000 foot building. Shearer, I have a question regarding what the Ordinance says about screening between commerical and residential property, Ordinance says there will be-four foot planting screen between these types of property I think we have this in our Ordinance we should be enforcing it spec- ifically in a condition like this. Spencer, we are not giving him a special zone, this is being done by Conditional Use Permit. The speaks to two different types of zoning. Shearer, this is a commercial building and according to State Law it has to be drawn up by a licensed architect or engineer and should be adherred to and also some site plan shown so somebody can see these things are being done. Mainly so it can be seen before it is built. Johnson, this dividing fence for the road that Mr. Mitich is talking about, do you have any problem with that? Fenstermaker, if we put a fence down it,it will eliminate both drive- ways, unless we both move everything over. Fenstermaker explained to the Commission how this could be fixed so people could not go around Mitich house without eliminating the driveway. Morrow, if there is a fence put down the property line, is there ad- equate room on either lot to make those exiting driveways work? Fenstermaker, yes I guess there is sufficient room to widen both driveways for useage. P & Z MEETING S • MARCH 11,1985 PAGE # 7 Lance, to answer your question Mr. Morrow, I think the answer is yes. Cole, if everything was approved and you went back into business, could all repairs be done inside the shop, is there any repairs that need to be done outside? Fenstermaker, I would say 99% unless it was something minor and the shop was full, thats all there would be, no major repairs would ever be done outside the shop. Cole, what about storage of parts, can all parts be stored inside? Fenstermaker, inside or where they cannot be seen. Chairman Spencer, are there any other questions by the Commission? No response. Mitich, I would like to make a statement regarding the fence, I would like one of the stipulations that the fence be installed first and would like that with a licensed surveyor to locate the property line. Mr. Mitich advised he would be willing to split the cost of this survey. Mr. Fenstermaker, I have already made arrangements to have this completed. Chairman Spencer closed the Public Hearing. The Commission discussed the stipulations that needed to be placed on this application. These conditions are: Solid fencing is important, including the six foot chain link fence, screened up to within necessary set back from front property line so no variance is required, hours be designated, separate the resident from the repair with a gate with hours posted on gate, water hookup to City Water mandatory, sewer hook- up to City mandatory, no parts stored outside and repairs done inside the shop, address the issue of cars being stored there, mainly the quantity in the fenced area, see copy of recorded copy of survey, maybe have a site plan showing the location of different items. The motion was made by Morrow and seconded by Johnson to have the City Attorney prepare Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law on the request of LeRoy Fenstermaker for Annexation and R-4 Zoning w/ a Conditional Use Permit for an auto repair shop contingent upon the City Council granting a Variance to the Ordinance to allow this useage in a R-4 Zone. Motion Carried: All Yea: The Motion was made by Morrow and seconded by Cole that the Findings of Fact not show any recommendation. Motion Carried: Morrow, Yea: Johnson, Nay: Shearer, Yea: Cole, Yea: City Clerk advised that next meeting to be held on April 8, 1985 would include the Public Hearing on the two proposed Comprehensive Plan P & Z MEETING • • MARCH 11, 1985 PAGE # 8 Amendments, plus other items and wondered if they wanted to have sep- arate meetings or combine all in one meeting. It was the consensus of the Commission to have this as one meeting, which would be held at the Meridian Grade School. Being no further business to come before the Commission the Motion was made by Cole and seconded by Johnson to adjourn at 9:00 p.m. Motion Carried; All Yea: (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) APPROVED: t%~~ BOB CER, CHAIRMAN ATTEST: ~ -~ ,~ c~.,~,~ ~ i-t,,,~~- _-_- Jack '-emann, ity Clerk pc: Mayor & Council P & Z Members Atty., JUB, Ward, Stuart, Fire, Police, Mitich, Hein, Kiebert Statesman, Valley News ACHD, NIMD, ACC, APA, CDH, ACZ File (2) Mail (4) EXHIBIT "A" January 4, 1985 To [al:om It May Concern: Our views regarding the auto repair shop at 1665 West Pine are: 1) This repair shop should have been located in an industri- al rather than a residential area. 2) The business area of this property has not been kept up throuh the years. 1[owever, we wou13 like to make two oi;acrvations. First of all, rather than relocating in another area (industrial), construction on this shop has been underway since October of 1984. In spite of all considerations, the fact remains that a partial structure currently exists on this property. Since available funds have undoubtedly Seen used to commence construction, tii possibility of relocation from lir. Fenstermaker's financial point of view is -iuestionable. Secondly, we have observed recent efforts on the part of iir. Fenstermaker to be more compatible with the neighborhood--i. e., removal of some cars, decreased profanity and noise, general cleaning of the business area, etc. 6Te not only appreciate these efforts, but hope they are an in- dication of how this business would continue to be run. In view of these observations and in an effort to co-operate, we would be willing to agree to the use of this property as indicated provided the following s_ipulations are adhered to: 1. 6' screened fence to surround the property. 2. Regular business hours to ire posted and lcent. 3. 1Vo cars parked within 125' of the front property line. 4. lv'o outside storage of auto Harts. 5. Repairs done inside the shop. We appreciate any efforts to protect our rights as residential homeowners. Sincerely, 7 C~~ t`~- David G. Carmack Eecci Carmack EXHIBIT "A" CITY COUNCIL and PLANNING and ZONING City of Meridian a Ada County, Zdahc • ORDINANCE 446 VF~2BAL TESTIMONY of SPEAKERS at PUBLIC HEARING SIGN-UP SHEET i'J t;:~Y~'.vL i'N.i 1' dt17 ''iii(. ,-1.: s'i 'iaz:Y 'I:; fi PV >i'.:.vY.: PRINTID NAME SIGNID NAME RESIDENTIAL ADDRESS TO SPEAK YES 140 i~0 4 uS ^~nt ~K/ X /44'~ ~'a,7 / / /~4t !~r< l: On. Li >C f ~ f ~ ~ /9 V<~ fJ R ryl /? C yi r' 70~ Py ti ~ '.~ AMBROSE, FITZGERALD B CROOKSTON Attonroys and Counselors P.O. Boa 1Z7 McMlen, WsAo B7MY TeMPNOM BBB~MB1 • • • • BEFORE TILE _dF.RIDIAN PLnNNIDI ; AND ?ONIN~ COf'_?~1ISSIODI CLAREMONT DEVELOPfiEfdT C0"1P11NY' S APP7.IC.?:TIOfd TO Ar.1END THE rxERIDIAN CODIPREHENSIVE PLAN FINDITdGS OF FACT AIdD CONCLUSIONS The above entitled application to amend the Pleridian Comprehen- sive Plan having come on for public hearing and the rlanning and Zoning Commission having held a workshop on said application, and the Commission having heard any and all testimony that was subr~.itte< and habinr. duly considered the evidence and. its own opinions and the matter, the Planning and 7.oning Commission makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. That notice of the public hearing on the application vras published for two (2) consecutive weeks prior to the said public hearing scheduled for February 11, 1985, the first publication of which was fifteen (15) da_rs prior to said hearing; that the matter was duly considered at the February 11, 1985, hearing; that copies of all notices were available to newspapers, and radio and televis stations. 1_. That the property included in the application and the exact nature of the application is set forth in the application and by this reference is incorporated herein as if set forth in full; that the property lies generally in the Dlortheast quadrant of the intersection of I-84 and Eagle toad; that, in summary, the applicati is to designate the site as a regional shopping center site. PAGE 1 on i , • • • 3. That the land concerned in the application is not containe within the City limits but is contained in Meridian's Area of Impact; that at present the area is governed by the Ada County Comprehensi Plan-P.ural Area Section and will be until annexation is accomplis 4. That at the public hearing held :'ebruary 11, 1985, at 7:30 o'clock p.m., there was no public comment, either oral or written, on the application, other than from the Applicant's representative. 5. That the petitioner sets forth as the public need and benefit for the Comprehensive Plan Amendment as follows: (A) Provide for the orderly growth of the City of reridian and its environs; (b) bake readily available to the residents of the City of Meridian a variety of shopping facilities and services that can only be furnished by a regional shopping center; (C) Attract a regional shopping center to the City ;which would generate a large volume of business- (D) Provide a place of employment for Peridian residents- and (E) Provide an alternative regional shopping center site whereby major retailers would have a choice of sites within the City. 6. That the application addresses the requirements, time- tables and procedures to amend the Comprehensive Plan. 7. That there is no regional shopping center actually in existence in the City of Meridian, Ada County, or the Treasure Valley. CO~dCLt?SIONS 1. That the City has authority to amend its Comprehensive AMBROSE, FITZGERALD B CROOKSTON Atlorrnya and Counaelora P.O. Box /27 MMMitn, IEMa &1N2 TNapliarolB6aMt .i:~:;~,oe.~, . Plan pursuant to Title 57, Chapter 65, Idaho Code, and pursuant PAGE 2 • to the Amendment Provisions and Procedures of the Comprehensive Plan of Meridian, as amended February 11, 19c~5. 2. That all notices and hearing requirements set forth in Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code, the Ordinances of the City of Peridian, and the Comprehensive Plan have been complied with. 3. That the application itself meets the requirements of an application to amend the Comprehensive Plan; that is, it con the statements required by Paragraph h under the Amendment Provi- sions and Procedures, beginning on Page 54 of the Plan. 4. That the Commission may take judicial notice of govern- mental statutes, ordinances, and policies, and of actual conditions existing within the City, County, and State. 5. That the Planning and Zoning Commission's purpose at this stage of the proceedings in processing and decidinc a Comprehensive Plan Amendment is to determine whether the proposed amendment merit: further study. 6. That the effect of a regional stopping center on Meridian': downtown business needs to be specifically studied. 7. That since there is no regional shopping center in actual qM BROSE, PITZGERRLO BCROOKSTON Attwneya en0 Counaabra P.O. Boz 12] MMIOW, IGYa 630/2 TshpNww666N81 existence. in L4ericlian, Ada County, or Treasure Valley, and since there was no evidence submitted as to why the Plan should not be amended, it is concluded that the application of '..Claremont... Development Compa.ny.to amend the Meridian Comprehensive Plan merits further study. 8. That even thouc_,h the land area contained in tine applicatic is not within the T•ieridian City limits and therefore the PAGE 3 is governed by the Ada County Comprehensive Plan-Rural Area Section and the county's zoning policies, the Application contains an annexation request and the Comprehensive Plan Amendment could be approved contingent upon annexation. It is to be noted that once land in annexed by the City it is no longer governed by the County's Comprehensive Plan or Zoning Ordinance. 9. That the above conclusion .that the application merits further study is just that; it is not a decision that the Plan should be amended as set `orth in the application, nor is the con- clusion to be construed in any fashion to indicate development as proposed should occur at the location. APPROVAL OF FIP]DINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS The P4eridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts and approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions. ROLL CALL Commissioner P~orrow Voted .6 Commissioner P,lidjani Voted Commissioner Johnson Vote d/°i Commissioner Shearer Voted~(~y Commissioner Cole Voted~t,~ Chairman Spencer (Tie Breaker) Voted DECISION The P~eridiar. Planning and Zoning Commission hereby decides tha AMSROSE, FITZG ERALD 6 CROOKSTON Attorneys me Coonaelon P.O. Oov 12] Merlobn, IGNo 09614 the P.pplication of Claremont Development Company merits further study and should continue to be processed. APPROVED PAGE 4 DISAPPRO~,'ED