1990 04-10
REVISm
A G E N D A
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING
APRIL 10, 1990
ITEM:
MINITPES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING HELD MARQ-I 7, 1990: (APPROVED)
MINUPFS OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING HELD MARCH 13, 1990: (APPROVED)
1: FII~IDINGS OF FACT AND C~7CLUSIONS OF LAW ON REZONE REQUEST BY BOESIGER, INC: (APPROVm)
2: PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR SHIRLEY PERSON: (FINDINGS TO BE PREPARED)
3: PUBLIC HEARING: REZONE REQUEST W/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT BY LIIQDA PADDOCK:
(FINDINGS TO BE PREPARED)
4: PUBLIC HEARING: REZONE REQUEST BY SHARON OLSEN: (FINDINGS TO BE PREPARED)
5: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT W/ VARIANCE BY NADINE MILLER
& BETH BIDDICK FOR WEAT'f~RVANE VILLAGE: (E7P~DA~i IU PE FREFM2FD)
6: PEIDILLC T~aR~: PRELII~IARY PLAT FOR MALLARD LANDING (SKYLII~ DEVEL/JPMENT) (APPROVm)
7: PUBLIC HEARING: REZONE REQUEST W/PRELL]SZTrII~RY PLAT FOR CAPITAL DEVELAPMENT:
CHERRY LANE MEADOWS: (FINDINGS TO BE PREPARED)
8: REVIEW APPLICATION TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
9: REQUEST FOR VACATION OF EASEMENT BY AI~BERTSONS: (CANCELLED)
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING
n
~~
APRIL 10
Regular Meeting of the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission called to order by
Cha;rman Jim Johnson at 7:30 p.m.:
Members Present: Moe Plidjani, Jim Shearer, Charlie Rountree, Tim Hepper:
Others Present: George O"Connor, Jim Rittmueller, Guy Walker, Gordon Schlafke,
Nadine Miller, Brett Murrell, Roy Johnson, Inn Bostran, Sharon Mitchell, Duane Olsen
Robert Strasser, Jerry Phillips, Terry Leighton, Steve Seams, Max Boesiger, Sharon
Olsen, Joan Rath, Jerry Mortenson, Ted Johnson, Gary Fors, John Calhoun, Virginia
Pherige, Wayne Crookston,
The Motion was made by Rountree and seconded by Shearer to approve the Minutes of the
Special Meeting held March 7, 1990 as written:
Motion Carried: All Yea:
Chairman Johnson: The Minutes of the previous meeting held March 13, 1990 any corrections
deletions or additions at this time:
Rountree: I have a correction on page #4, the camtents Need added for the approval of
the subdivision plat, resolving the speed problem, that the developer would be working
out a landscape concept for along Ten Mile and that the irrigation variance not be
allowed since the first phase constitutes 75g of the development.
The Motion was made by Hepper and seconded by Rountree to approve the Minutes of the
Meeting held March 13, 1990 with the corrections stated above.
Motion Carried: All Yea:
Item #1: Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law on Rezone Request by Boesiger, Inc.
Chairman Johnson: is there any questions or .discussion on these Findings?
The Motion was made by Shearer and seconded by Alidjani that the Meridian Planning
and Zoning Commission hereby adopts and approves these Findings of Fact and
Conclusions.
Roll Call: Hepper - Yea; Rountree - Yea; Shearer - Yea; Alidjani - Yea;
Motion Carried: All Yea:
The Motion was made by Rountree and seconded by Shearer that the Meridian Planning and
Zoning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council of the City of Meridian that they
approve the Conditonal Use Permit requested by the Applicant for the property described
in the application, subject to the conditions stated herein.
Motion Carried: All Yea:
Johnson: It appears that the wording has been transposed, it states Conditional Use
and this is a rezone, so could you amend the motion.
The Motion was made by Rountree and seconded by Shearer to state rezone request.
Motion Carried: All Yea:
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZOINING ~ •
APRIL 10, 1990
PAGE #2
ITEM #2: PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR SHIRLEY PERSON:
Johnson: I will open_the Public Hearing, is there anyone present who wishes to
offer testimony?
Lonnie Bostrom, 2355 E. Franklin Rd., was sworn by the attorney.
Bostrom: Yam here representing Shirley tonight, she is sick. She has received a document
from the ACHD and she has reviewed these comments. She was a little disturbed by the
curb and gutter from both. streets were on there, she wondered what could be done there to -
She also has a change of idea on where to put the drive up window, possibly the side
or maybe the front instead of the rear.
Johnson:. We are talking drive up not drive through, right.
Bostrom: Is there any chance of moving the fire hydrant so it wouldn't take up as much
room there.
Johnson: There was a tree back behind that, there was concern about if the tree was
removed what protection would the fire hydrant have.
Bostrom: She plans to remove both trees and to put up some kind of abuttment, we thought
maybe we would be able to relocate it a little bit so that it doesn't break up the parking
and or the drive through.
Johnson: We'd have to talk to the water people, apparently it's a possibility.
Does the Commission have any questions?
Alidjani: Do you have any problems with the City Engineer Gary Smith's comments?
Bostrom: I have looked at them and have no problems.
Johnson: Did she comment to you on the screening?
Bostrom: If she moves the drive through to the front then there won't be any need
to screen.
Rountree: Is there going to be any inside seating?
Bostrom: Yes, there will be some. Probably four or five tables.
Rountree: Do we have any prescribed distance for this type of facility?
Johnson: I noticed that the Building Department had some problems with the setback, but
they didn't elaborate.
Hepper: The only question that I have is about the screening.
Shearer: Only the setback thing which will have to be resolved later.
Rountree: The driveway and parking area is that going to be hard surfaced, paved.
Bostrom: Eventually, but maybe not right at first. The drive through will be cement or black-
top.
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING • •
APRIL 10, 1990
PAGE #3
Johnson: Anyone else from the public that wishes to comment? Being no response
the Public Hearing is closed.
The Motion was made by Alidjani and seconded by Hepper to have the City Attorney prepare
Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law on this request by Shirley Person.
Motion Carried: All Yea:
The Motion was made by Rountree and seconded by Alidjani to have. the recommendation for
approval be prepared and the approval conditioned on resolution of setback requirements and
paving.
Motion Carried: All Yea:
ITEM #3: PUBLIC HEARING: REZONE REQUEST W/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT BY LINDA PADDOCK:
Johnson: I will now open the Public Hearing, is there anyone present who wishes to
offer comments, if so please come forward and be sworn.
George O'Connor, 1819 Crestmont; was sworn by the attorney:
O'Connor: I have been a resident at the corner of Crestmont and Lawndale Drive for
about 10 years and a homeowner there for 3Z years. I like the quiet and peaceful
neighborhood there. I am right now concerned about the additional traffic. The traffic
on Cherry Lane will only increase as Commercially utilized and more residential homes
are being built.
Shearer: This has a fully fenced yard with a locked gate and so on. It was a shelter
home prior.
O'Connor: 2 would imagine that a Day Care is going to require a lot more traffic than
a Nursing Home. I am concerned about the traffic flow.
Johnson: Is there a representative from the applicant that would like to testify?
Guy Walker, 2555 Misty, was sworn by the Attorney:
Walker: I am representing Linda Paddock, she has respectfully requested a rezone for
the lot that she is purchasing. The south half of that lot is already zoned commercial
and she is requesting that the north side of that same lot be zoned commercial. She
is also requesting a Conditional Use Permit at the same time. I'd like to address
a few concerns that the City had. The City Engineer has made an estimate which we certainly
respect his estimation, regarding the water usage on this particular property. We'd
like you to take into consideration our estimate and some of the reasons why we have come
up with these estimates, such as there will be no bathing of the childrenor washing
of any laundry at this facility. We feel like we would like to have some consideration
given to the estimate of 20ga1. per child. Another issue, onscreening and fencing
we are certainly willing to comply on that issue. We willprovide you with a
detailed drawing of the proposed sign prior to the issue of the Conditional Use Permit.
On parking, in answer to your question, there will be one van and five employees
including the owner Linda Paddock, we should have adequate parking available.Regarding
the issue of traffic, I have been involved in other Day Care Centers prior to this
one and also having my own child at a Day Care, we have found that the bulk of the
traffic is going to be arriving at that Day Care early in the morning anywhere from 7:00
ME~tIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING
APRIL 10, 1990
PAGE 114
A.M. to 8:30 A.M. at the latest in the mornings, then there will be no traffic
basically for the rest of the day, the only other traffic will be the bus taking
children to and from school so we are talking one van. The traffic at night will
mostly be coming in after 5:00 P. M. picking up there children it does space out, I
don't feel this will be a problem. I feel that this is an ideal location to have
a Day Care, it's not deep into the Residential Area. We will be fencing the yard
with a fence that is solid, 6 ft. tall so that it does create buffers for the neighbors
around.
Johnson: Anyone from the Commission have any questions for Mr. Walker?
Rountree: Do you propose any change in the parking lot or circulation in or about
the facility to accomodate better traffic movement?
Walker: We could certainly address some parking that would be designated specifically
for clientel, so that they could pull in to pick up their children. That particular
area there is no trees or hedges to prevent good vision both up and down the street.
Rountree: Your application states there will be anywhere from 40 to 50 children
babysat at the sight and you also indicated that most of the traffic is generated in
the early morning presumably during the going to work time. What's going to happen
when 40 or 50 parents show up in a 15 to 25 minute range at the same time.
Walker: Not each person is just going to have one child go there. The average is
going to end up being around thirty cars, these thirty cars are going to spread out
over a 30 or 45 minute period which is normal. The parents are there maybe two minutes
when picking up their child. Consequently we find that you are going to have maybe
at the maximum three or four cars there at the same time. The staff is only going to
have two parking spots taken. A circular could be achieved, but then you would only have
three parking spaces that would be for the staff and for the van.
Crookston: Is this a State Licensed Day Care?
Walker: She will be, yes.
Crookston: Are there any subdivision covenants that applyto this.
Walker: No.
Johnson: Anyone else present to testify.
Joan Rath, 631 Lawndale, was sworn by the attorney.
Rath: I feel that is a very poor spot to put a Day Care Facility. I think that
Meridian needs a Day Care center but that's not the place for it. There is a
tremendous amount of kids going to and from that Circle K. Store. There is a
bus stop just one house down from this where kids wait. There is a near accident
every morning and evening from cars pulling out from the Circle K. onto that street.
Are all these cars looking for those kids waiting at the bus stop or walking to and
from that store. The yard area is not that big, I cant imagine how that many kids
are going to go out and play. From where we live there is alot of noise that comes
from Cherry Lane, I can imagine what kind of noise increase we are going to get with
a bunch of kids outside. I have to wonder if our property value is going to be worth
that much with that much noise.
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING
APRIL 10, 1990
PAGE IIS
Alidjani: Exactly how far away are you from this Shelter Home?
Rath: We are three houses down on LawxidAle.
Johnson: Anyone else present who wishes to testify?
Jerry Mortinson, 4045 Green Meadows Drive, was sworn by the Attorney.
Mortinson: I have an Insurance Agency right next door to this location. I feel that
the traffic has never been a problem tome. I have been there about 10 years and I
arrive at work anywhere from 7:30 to 8:15 A. M. This is a Commercial Site.
I think it would be a great addition and I would like to see it receive the Use Permit
and the Zoning.
Rountree: Do you access your property off of Cherry Lane or off of Crestmont?
Mortinson: Off of Crestmont.
Crookston: Are there irrigation facilities on your lot or on the subject property?
Mortinson: No.
Johnson: Anyone else from the Public? Being no response, I will close the Public
Hearing. Incidentally, Item #9 has been cancelled.
Rountree: It seems to me that there is not sufficient parking right now at this
sight.
Johnson: It's large enough to put two vehicles end to end and not be out in the street.
Perhaps with some redesign or restriping they. could more efficiently use that.
Shearer: It would be an opportunity to keep a building from not setting empty and
I think everytime we have a Day Care Center come up that there is opposition. I
think that building is well suited for what they planning.
The Motion was made by Shearer and seconded by Alidjani to have the Attorney to prepare
the Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law on this project.
Motion Carried: All Yea:
Johnson: Is there a recommendation for the Council.
Hepper: I would like to see a redesign of the parking lot before we pass on a recommendation.
Johnson: At this point there will be no recommendation made to the Council.
ITEM #4: PUBLIC HEARING: REZONE REQUEST BY SHARON OLSON:
JOhnson: Is there a representative present who would like to testify. I will now
open the Public Hearing.
Sharon Olsen, 807 E. Washington, Boise, was sworn by the Attorney:
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING
APRIL 10, 1990
PAGE #6
Olson: I just wanted a rezone. I have the site plan that you requested. She
handed that to the Commission to review.
Johnson: This changes yourapplication then from 8 units to 6, right?
Olson: Yes.
Rountree: What do you propose to do with the irrigation ditch, the it?
Olson: I'd like to.
Rountree: From W. 8th through your property description lines you indicated that that's
all going to be landscaped as an entry into there.
Olson: Yes. Don't you have to have the 20 ft. setback. It could be landscaped if it's
approved this way.
Rountree: You could. It would be a plus.
Alidjani: Do I read your plan correctly that you have 15 3/4 ft. driveway.
Rountree: 18 ft. wide.
JOhnson: You have reviewed the comments from the City Engineer and you have no
problem with them?
Olson: No problems.
Johnson: Anyone else from the Public who wishes to testify?
Sherry Mitchell, 1413 W. 7th, was sworn by the Attorney.
Mitchell: I talked to Sharon a couple of days ago and she really did not have a
definite structure plan.
Johnson: We did receive a Letter from your husband and it is entered into the record
and we all have a copy of this letter.
Mitchell: We are probably the only ones concerned because she owns that property that
she's taking the back yard off. She has a duplex on the other side that is adjacent
and our yard is kind of kitty corner and we wouldn't object to a single unit but we do
object to a two story. Mainly because we have one single window out of our family room
window and we've seen the maintenance of her other dwellings and some times its not kept
up the way it should be and that concerns us and wondered about access of traffic.
Johnson: In the second paragraph of your husbands letter where he makes reference to
the sidewalk, is he talking about afoot path and not a sidewalk.
Mitchell: Yes, it's afoot path. Our main objection is to the two story dwelling.
Rountree: Where are you located with respect to this parcel?
Mitchell: North of house.
Johnson: Is anyone else from the public here to address this issue. Being no response
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING
APRIL 10, 1990
PAGE #7
before I close the Public Hearing I will officially enter in the letter received
from Mr. Mitchell for the record, it is in opposition to the project, no the Public
Hearing is closed.
The Motion was made by Rountree and seconded by Shearer to have the attorney prepare
the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.
Motion Carried: All Yea:
The Motion was made by Rountree and seconded by Alidjanito recommend approval for the
rezone with the condition of design review and approval of the development that will be
put on this parcel. I also would like to add the condition that the driveway provide
access for fire & safety vehicles and to accomodate sanitation vehicles.
Motion Carried: All Yea:
ITEM #5: PUBLIC HEARING: RE4UEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT W/VAIRANCE BY NADINE MILLER
& BETH BIDDICK FOR WEATHERVANE VILLAGE:
Johnson: I will open the Public Hearing, is there a representative present to testify.
Nadine Miller, 6203 Edgewater Drive, Boise, was sworn by the Attorney:
Miller: Originally Weathervane Village was for mobile homes and modular homes.
We have modular homes totaling 10 and one mobile home. Our request is that you
allow us site built homes to be located here. The site plan has rather small lots,
that's the reason that we are requesting the single story provision be abandoned so that
double garages can be in place. We do have a buyer for the undeveloped portion.
Rountree: Your just looking at single family dwellings?
Miller: Yes.
Rountree: Have you seen the comments from the Irrigation District and the Highway
District.
Miller: Yes from the Irrigation District but not from the Highway District.
Clerk Niemann: We just received those this morning.
Rountree: Reviewed the comments from the Ada County Highway District. Do you have
a problem with these.
Miller: Yes. Going through the files I found that the City consistently requested an
exit onto Linder Road.
Clerk NIemann: The plat needs to be changed to reflect that.
Hepper: The existing subdivision to the east, that would be the proposed.
Miller: There is a proposed one, the original developer here had plans of going on
to the east .
There was discussion on the proposal.
C~
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING
APRIL 11, 1990
PAGE #8
C~
Crookston: I think I misunderstood your comment about a double level garage. Is it
a two car garage.
Miller: A two car garage.
Johnson: Anyone else from the public to testify, being no response the Public Hearing
is closed.
The Motion was made by Alidjani and seconded by Shearer to have the Attorney prepare
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Weathervane Village:
Motion Carried: All Yea:
The Motion was made by Rountree and seconded by Shearer to recommend to the Meridian City
Council approval for this Conditional Use Permit.
Motion Carried: All Yea:
ITEM #6: PUBLIC HEARING: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR MALLARD LANDING (SKYLINE DEVELOPMENT):
Johnson: We are in receipt of a concept plan.
Recess was called - Meeting back to order.
Johnson: I will open the Public Hearing. Is there a representative present to testify.
Roy Johnson, 6017 W. State St., Boise, was sworn by the Attorney.
Johnson: I am the project Engiineer. The project itself is 110 acres total, I have
submitted a concept plan for the balance of the property. The first subdivision is 89
lots plus 1 lot that is set aside for detention for the drainage. The property is zoned
R-4 which allows us to go 8,000 sq. ft. lots. You'll find that along Linder and along
the south side of the property we have much larger lots, we have an overall density
of 2z lots per acre. We are reserving a 30 ft. easement along Linder Road which we
landscaped. It'll be a burin approximately four feet high. One other thing that was not
on the original application, the lot at the SW corner of the subdivision was a flag lot
coming out onto the street, the interior street, in meeting with ACHD they allowed us
to have frontage of that one lot onto Linder Road.
Rountree: Does this go all the way to the freeway?
Johnson: Yes it does.
Rountree: Have you considered any solution the problem those folks are going to have
on Lot 6 abutting the interstate with the noise.
Johnson: What we did with the back lots, those lots are 140 ft. deep, and the plan
would be to put a burin as high as we can get it along the interstate to alleviate some
of the noise problems.
Hepper: A pressurized irrigation system -
Johnson: If this is required then we will provide that pressurized system if necessary.
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING
APRIL 10, 1990
PAGE #9
Crookston: On that flag lot is that going to cause a problem with the lot to the
north with fencing abutting Linder Road and the other one having their front yard
there.
Johnson: Explained. (Tape on File)
Crookston: Your comments about the burin along the interstate. We have had problems
in Crestwood Estates with, there was initially a desire to have a burin with a six
foot fence on top of the burin and that was not allowed, so you should be aware of this.
Johnson: May request a fence on top of the burin along the interstate.
Crookston: Excuse me that's what I meant, along the interstate.
Ted Johnson, 5330 Farrow St., Boise, was sworn by the Attorney.
Johnson: I am the developer of this project. I have been in land development for
23 years in Boise. We want to bring a good quality project to Meridian, we think
that this location is ideally suited for this. We plan to do clot with trees and
planting of shrubs, we do think alot of noise and traffic sound.
Hepper: What was the size of the homes.
Johnson: Most of them will be 1400 to 1500 sq. ft.
Hepper: You will probably be going 1300 or more.
Johnson: The lots are quite large and they would lend themselves to the larger homes.
Chairman Johnson: Anyone else from the public who wishes to testify?
Jim Rittmueller,4535 Ramblin Rose, was sworn by the Attorney.
Rittmueller: I have nothing against the subdivision, I'd like to raise a few issues
for you folks to consider. I currently live very close to Clover Creek. It's a
real nice subdivision, one of the things I would concern myself with before we put
in a subidivision like this especially with the number of potential homes and things
like that is the ability to address traffic issues up front and make some adjustments
to intersections, traffic lights, etc. before it all happens. Along with that would
be some ideas for providing schools & parks. Another thing, how are we going to
treat Ten MIle Drain.
Chairman JOhnson: Anyone else present to testify.
Gary Fors, 843 Lilac, was sworn by the attorney.
Fors: I hAve no objections to this subdivision,. although I would like to request that
there would be a chain link fence put on the south side of the property. I do have a
business. adjacent to the south of the property. I would definitely want a fence.
I didn't understand what was meant by the drainage lot.
Clerk NIemann: Explained what a drainage lot was.
MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL
APRIL 10,, 1990
PAGE #10
Fors: You are aware that my drain irrigation water goes through that lot.
Are any of you aware of the water table? Voiced concerns about the water table.
Johnson: Anyone else to come forward?
Steve Seamons, 515 S. Linder, was sworn by the attorney.
Seamons: I live just west of what was the flag lot. The main concern that I have is
the road access to the subdivision,, it looks like it will put alot of traffic onto
Franklin Road which is at times built up pretty much anyway. I'd like to see more
access 'to the subdivision other than Franklin Road.
John Calhoun,, 660 S. Linder,, was sworn by the attorney.
Calhoun: My biggest concern is the traffic. If we do this subdivision we do need a
light at the intersection of Franklin & Linder. I would.-.like to see Waltman Lane gc
all the way through eventually,, that would take alot of the traffic off of Franklin and
other roads.
Johnson: Anyone else to testify, being no response,, the Public Hearing is closed.
Rountree: Has the City Engineer looked into the drainage and ground water situation?
Johnson: We will have to look into it. We will follow up.
Rountree: Are you folks willing to work with Mr. Fors in terms of fencing and such with
his parcel.
Johnson: The question of the fencing along the south boundary is a good idea. We
could put it into the covenants that a buffer fence is required around that back lot line.
We would have a problem with a chain link fence.
Alidjani: How hard would it be to get you to put in some kind of park area in?
Johnson: We do intend to put a park in there. In this first phase there will be a park
like setting in the front,, back into the parcel there is a place in there where there is
about an acre or two that would make an ideal park area,. we are studying that now.
It is our intention that there will be some place for the kids to go.
The Motion was made by Hepper and seconded by Shearer to approve the preliminary plat
for Mallard Landing.
The Motion was made by Rountree to amend that Motion to include that the eventual concept
of this subdivision does include recreational park like setting for the use of the
neighborhood,, this amended Motion was seconded by Alidjani.
Hepper withdrew his original motion.
Motion Carried: All Yea:
ITEM #7: PUBLIC HEARING: REZONE REQUEST W/PRELINIMARY PLAT FOR CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT:
CHERRY LANE MEADOWS:
MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL
APRIL 10,, 1990
PAGE #11
Johnson: The name has changed to Duten Place. I will open the Public Hearing is there
a representative present.
Roy Johnson,, 6017 w. State,, Boise was sworn by the Attorney.
Johnson: I am the project engineer for this project,, Mr. Jorgenson is the developer
and he is also here tonight. We are requesting a rezone from R-4 to R-8 so we can have
slightly smaller lots. We have a density of approximately 4.5 units per acre. We've
tied into Meadowview Subdivision to the north so we have two access points and we will
also be providing an additional access directly to Cherry Lane for Meadow View Subdivision.
There is an existing subdivision to the West that has a present zone of R-15. Those
are very small lots,, and on the basis of the those small lots and the type of housing
that is built in the area we fell like the R-8 Zone is appropriate.
Clerk Niemann: Have you been to ACRD with this?
Johnson: As of yesterday I have heard no comanents.
Alidjani: As you said you are changirrj it from R-4 to R-8, your not talking about duplexes
or triplexes or anything like that, or are you?
Johnson: We are not. Just a single family subdivision but we would like to have the
ability to go down to the 6,000 sq. ft.
Rountree: What happens with Storey Street, right now it was projected to go on through,
has there been some consideration with at least putting some drainage there at the
end of the street, curb gutter and sidewalk and to get some kind of a loop there or
is it going to be barricaded.
Johnson: I think Storey Street will remain barricaded, it only serves two or three
lots. The reason we didn't bring that on through is if you look at the alignment on
the vicinty map what you'd see is that it would be a short cut from Linder Rd. straight
through the subdivision and just bypass the intersection of Cherry Lane & Linder.
It would cause a great deal of traffic.
Hepper: What's the frontage on the lots going to be.
Johnson: The frontage for the most part is between 60 & 75 feet, we have a minimum
setback of 60 ft.
Johnson: Anyone else to testify.
Gordon Schlafke, 1900 N. Linder, was sworn by the attorney.
Schlafke: I have approximately five acres adjacent to Hunter Estates and eventually
it will be developed. When it is developed there will be a road which will come off
of Linder in the middle of this property. I have no objection as far as this subdivision
going in.
Alidjani: Your house is on the corner.
MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL
APRIL 10, 1990
PAGE #12
Johnson: Is there anyone else to testify.
Terry Layton, 1811 Leisure Lane, was sworn by the Attorney.
Layton: I just purchased my house, I unfortunately was not happen to see the development
going in but I have built houses around Mr. Jorgenson's developments before so I know
he does a good job. I have a few questions for him and the City. I was wondering the
cost of the lots.
Johnson: The application says $15 to $18thasars9.
Layton: The cost of the houses, how are they based, about $60,000. I would hope they
would be of that. The houses on Storey, I wouldn't want those by my house.
The size of the houses will be 1300 ft. minimum, is that right.
Clerk Niemann: Explained the sq. footage.
Layton: Right now we are under a community well and septic system, the City Clerk said
there is a possibility of providing for sewer hookups from them through that subdivision
back to our properties, I was wondering if that provision is going to be made and how
much it would cost.
Clerk Niemann: I said they were probably going to leave a stub out there.
Alidjani: Explained the laying of the sewer lines and the cost.
R.Johnson: The home values will be probably low end of $60,000 and high end of $80,000.
Chairman Johson: Anyone else from the public to testify.
Virginia Pherigo, 1838 Leisure Lane, was sworn by the Attorney.
Pherigo: I live on Leisure Lane which is east of this proposed subdivision. One of
my concerns is the overcrowding in the schools.
Johnson: That is a good concern. It is hard for us to stop development growth on the
basis of crowded schools.
Pherigo: Okay, how about a park. Is there some provisions to have a park in that area.
Chairman Johnson: I have heard no plans for a park. The homeowner usually considers
those types of things when buying a house.
Pherigo: Also irrigation, we do have flood irrigation now. Are there provisions made
for the irrigation within the subdivision.
Chairman Johnson: Explained the City does have a Pressurized Irrigation Ordinance
now.
MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL
APRIL 10, 1990
PAGE #13
Chairman Johnson: Is there anyone else present to testify, being no response the Public
Hearing was closed.
The Motion was made by Shearer and seconded by Hepper to have the Attorney prepare the
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for this project.
Motion Carried: All Yea:
The Motion was made by Alidjani and seconded by Shearer to recommend favorably to the
Meridian Council for the Rezone.
Motion Carried: All Yea:
ITEM #8: REVIEW APPLICATION TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
There was some discussion. (Tape on file)
The Motion was made by Rountree and seconded by Shearer to adopt the ordinance application
or petition to amend the Meridian Comprehensive P1an.Wi11 be discussed at May 8th meeting.
Motion Carried: All Yea:
The Motion was made by Shearer and seconded by Rountree to adjourn at 9:43 P.M.:
APPROVED:
1~.~ ~ ~ l~
IM OHIO ON, CHAIRMAN
ATTEST:
pc: Mayor & Council
P & Z Members, Atty,
Eng., Bldg. Ward,
Stuart, Valley News,
Statesman, Gass, Police,
ACHD, NMID, CDH, Settlers,
Mail (7)
File (7)
BEFORE THE MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
SHARON OLSEN
REQUEST FOR REZONE
1400 BLOCK OF WEST 8TH STREET
MERIDIAN, IDAHO
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The above entitled matter having come on for public
hearing April 10, 1990, at the hour of 7:30 o'clock p.m., the
Petitioner appearing in person, and the Planning and Zoning
Commission of the City of Meridian having duly considered the
evidence and the matter, makes the following findings of Fact
and Conclusions of Law:
FINDINGS OF FACT //
e~oN'~1
1. That a notice of public hearing on the
AM BROSE,
FIT2GEPALD
B CROOKSTON
At~ornaye and
Counselors
F.G. BOY IIT
MetlCbn, ICeNo
Bu+z
TeleFNOne BBN.81
digit was published for two (2) consecutive weeks prior to
the said public hearing scheduled for April 10, 1990, the
first publication of which was fifteen (15) days prior to said
hearing; that the matter was duly considered at the April 10,
1990, hearing; that the public was given full opportunity to
express comments and submit evidence; and that copies of all
notices were available to newspaper, radio and television
stations;
2. That this property is located within the City of
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
PAGE - 1
Meridian and is described in the application, which description
is incorporated herein as if set forth in full and is across
from the Meridian Middle School on West 8th Street; the
property is presently zoned R-4 Residential and is and has in
the past been vacant ground and a back yard; the proposed use
of the property as stated in the Application is to construct an
eight-plex multi-family structure but which the Applicant
reduced to a six-plex structure.
3. That some of the surrounding property is zoned R-4
Residential, however there has been a rezone of the property to
the south to R-15 and there are presently located multi-family
structures on that property and there are other apartment
complexes along West 8th Street; the Meridian Middle School is
across 8th Street from the subject property.
4. The Applicant requests that the property be rezoned
from R-4 Residential to R-15 Residential.
5. That the property is contained in the WARRIOR
AMBROSE,
FITZG ERALD
B CROOKSTON
Attorneys and
Counaebra
P.O. Box 62)
Meridian, IdeKo
83862
releolwnaeee-uBi
neighborhood as designated on the Policy Diagram at Page 7 of
the Meridian Comprehensive Plan; neighborhoods are defined in
the Plan at Page 6 and states as follows:
"Definition: The neighborhood is a residential area
with uniform characteristics of a size comparable to
that usually served by an elementary school or a
small business convenience center or a local park.
Although neighborhoods occur in various shapes and
sizes, a section of the City measuring one-half to
one-and-one-half miles across is usually used for
planning purposes. It has facilities within easy
walking distances and provides the basis for community
identification."
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
PAGE - 2
6. That the R-15 Residential District is described in the
Zoning Ordinance, 11-2-408 8. 3 as follows:
(R-15) Medium Hi~h__Density Resid_ent_ial District: The
purposee oi` the (R-i5) Distrc£ is to permit the
establishment of medium-high density single-family
attached and multi-family dwellings at a density not
exceeding fifteen (15) dwelling units per acre. All
such districts must have direct access to a
transportation arterial or collector, abut or have
direct access to a park or open space corridor, and be
connected to the Municipal Water and Sewer systems of
the City of Meridian. The predominant housing types
in this district will be patio homes, zero lot line
single-family dwellings, townhouses, apartment
buildings and condominiums.
7. That the uses proposed by the Applicant of a six-plex
are allowed in the R-15 District.
8. That the property is a parcel of ground that is
approximately .42 acres in size.
9. That the property can be connected to City sewer and
water and those services are available.
10. That West 8th Street is not presently designated as a
AM BROSE,
FITZG ERALO
B CROOKSTON
Attorneys and
Counselors
P.O. Boz I2]
MerlElan, Itla~o
838,2
TeleP~ona 88&aa81
collector or arterial street but it does have a 60 to 66 foot
right-of-way which meets the criteria of a collector street and
it is if fact one of the principal transportation arteries in
the Warrior Neighborhood and does channel traffic into a
principal arterial, Cherry Lane.
11. That there was one person, Sherry Mitchell, who
presented testimony at the public hearing objecting to the
proposed use; the objection was not to the proposed use of
apartments but to the height of the proposed apartments, that
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
PAGE - 3
being two story units; she did not have objections to one story
units; she also wanted to make sure that the foot path adjacent
to the subject property was maintained. There was also a letter
submitted in objection to the Application from Mr. Mitchell
which was substantially the same objection as presented by Mrs.
Mitchell.
12. That comments were submitted by the City Engineer,
Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District and may be submitted by the
Ada County Highway District; those comments are incorporated
herein as if set forth in full herein.
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.
2. That the City of Meridian has authority to grant
~oning amendments and rezones pursuant to Title 67, Chapter 65,
Idaho Code, and pursuant to 11-2-416 of the Revised and
Complied Ordinances of the City of Meridian, Idaho.
3. That the City has the authority to take judicial
AM BPOSE,
FITZG ERALO
A CROOKSTON
Attorneys and
(.OYn98018
P.O. Box 627
Metltllan, Itlallo
83862
TeleP~one 80&IIBt
notice of its own ordinances, other governmental statues and
ordinances, and of actual conditions existing within the City
and state.
4. T`at the City of Meridian has authority to place
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
PAGE - 4
conditions upon granting a zoning amendment.
5. That the City has judged this Application upon the
basis of guidelines contained in Section 11-2-416 of the Revised
and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian and upon the
basis of the Local Planning Act of 1975, Title 67 Chapter 65,
Idaho Code, the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Meridian, and
the record submitted to it and the things of which it can take
judicial notice.
6. That 11-2-416 (K) of the Revised and Compiled
Ordinances of the City of Meridian sets forth standards under
which the City shall review applications for zoning amendments;
that upon a review of those requirements and a review of the
facts presented and conditions of the area, the Planning and
Zoning Commission specifically concludes as follows:
(a) The new zoning would be harmonious with and in
accordance with the Comprehensive Plan and no
Comprehensive Plan amendment is required.
(b) The area is in the WARRIOR neighborhood which is
designed for residential uses and a mix of those uses
and a rezone of the subject property is in line with
that designation.
(c) The area included in the zoning amendment was not
intended to be developed in the future in the fashion
that would be allowed under the new zoning but the
recent rezoning of adjacent parcels and the location
of the property near the school and open areas
associated therewith indicate the new zoning would not
be contrary to the allowed uses in the area and would
be in line with existing developments in the area.
(d) The road, 8th Street is wide which tends to
dictate that the area may lend itself to be rezoned.
AMBROSE,
FITZGERALO
B CROOKSTON
Attorneys end
Counselors
P.O. eov 12T
Merldlen, IdeNo
83812
TelepKOne BB&/IBt
(e) That the property should be designed and
constructed to be harmonious with the surrounding
area, and such is a requirement and condition of the
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
PAGE - 5
rezone.
(f) The proposed uses would not be hazardous or
disturbing to the existing or future uses of the
neighborhood.
(g) The property will be able to be adequately
served with public facilities, and connection to
municipal sewer and water is required.
(h) The proposed use would not create excessive
additional requirements at public cost for public
facilities and services and would not be detrimental
to the economic welfare of the community but should
in fact be beneficial.
(i) The proposed uses will not involve any
detrimental activity to any person's property or the
general welfare.
(j) Development would not cause a significant
increase in vehicular traffic and should not interfere
with surrounding traffic patterns.
(k) That this rezone will not result in the
destruction, loss or damage of any natural or scenic
feature or major importance.
(1) The proposed zoning amendment is in the best
interest of City of Meridian.
7. That the comments submitted by the Nampa & Meridian
Irrigation District, the Ada County Highway District, and the
City Engineer as incorporated herein and shall be a requirement
for the rezone.
8. That all applicable fire, life safety, building codes,
and other codes and regulations and all of the ordinances of the
City of Meridian shall be met prior to occupancy and thereafter.
9. That the development of the property and the
AMBROSE,
FIRGERAID
B CROOKSTON
ABOmays en0
Counaelora
P.O. eos dY7
MerlUlen, IONo
B3BIP
TeleOhone BBBddfit
construction of the dwelling shall be subject to Design Review.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
PAGE - 6
APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts
and approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions.
ROLL CALL:
Commissioner Hepper Voted ~~°~
Commissioner Rountree Votedu~'~`^
Commissioner Shearer Voted- !
Commissioner Alidjani Voted
Chairman Johnson (Tie Breaker) Voted
DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION
The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby
AMBROSE,
FITZG ERALO
S CROOKSTON
recommends to th City Council of the City of Meridian that they
~o~J
approve the it requested by the Applicant
for the property described in the application, subject to the
conditions stated herein.
MOTION:
APPROVED:~_
DISAPPROVED:
A..prReys.ne FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
°ouoeB~°`° P A G E - 7
P.O. Box IPT
MerlCl•n, IE••o
87812
T•lap•on°BBB-U81
._
Planning and Zoning Connission
City of Meridian
Oear Sirs:
I appreciate the opportunity to express our
rezoning request of Ms. Sharon Olson for the
I apologize for not being able to appear in
connitnent to my Boy Scout Troop.
~~
e~~ ~ ~ f(1
Icy` ~ Q
N
concerns regarding the
lot on West Sth street.
person, but I have a
Our concerns focus on three areas. First and foremost is our concern
with the access planned to this development. The sidewalk between
our property and hers is heavily used by many children (including
ours> to get to and fron the piddle school. I would not be
comfortable if the driveway to the planned construction was in the
innediate vicinity of the sidewalk. In my opinion, careful
consideration of this issue must 6e given prior to approval far any
construction, regardless of zoning.
Second, we are concerned with the maintenance of the property.
Currently there are two junk cars parked against my back fence on
chat was the only "lawn" available to the residents of her fourplex.
Precious residents had cleaned and Wowed the area, but that has not
happened in at least a year. The lack of any lawn or play space for
younger residents resulted in our yard being the playground for then.
This was not a major problen, nor is it currently, houe~er, again not
knowing what is planned, could become a problen in the future. Ue
spoke recently with Sharon regarding the cars and she indicated that
she has spoken with the owner of the cars and would again. Ue
appreciate her efforts, but with her not liming in the area, it is a
concern.
Third, we have lined in our hone on Uest 7th for over 10 years, and
have enjoyed the sunshine and the view fron our backyard. When we
spoke to Sharon, she first indicated that a building similar to the
one she currently Duns next to it was being considered but that she
would also consider a single story unit. R two story structure could
not only destroy our view, but also cut out most of the late
afternoon sunshine we currently enjoy as well as what privacy we now
hare. R two story building overlooking our backyard would greatly
reduce the attractive nature of our backyard as well as the value of
our property.
She also indicated that the probable parking area for the proposed
construction would 6e behind the building. This also bothers us fron
the perspective of looking out our only back window on cars and a
parking area. Most hones look out over the neighbors backyard, and
ue would like the sane.
Our preference, obviously, would be for a single family dwelling or
secondarily, a single story unit, to be built upon the property.
Even so, sane of our concerns would still remain. The probability of
maintaining the quality of the neighborhood, ue feel, would 6e Huth
greater in either case.
f .
• •
Rt the minimum, we request that rezoning not 6e granted until we are
given the opportunity to examine the details of the proposed
construction. We have contacted both the City of Meridian and Ms.
Olson and there does not appear to be a plan for the property. While
both the city employees and Sharon have been most cooperative and
willing to discuss what is going on, we feel that it is impossible to
determine if a rezoning is acceptable without knowing the details of
the plan.
Thank you again for the opportunity to discuss this matter.
S'„'` '~
S III • •
BEFORE THE MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
LINDA PADDOCK
REZONE AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
1717 CRESTMONT DRIVE
MERIDIAN, IDAHO
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
The above entitled matter having come on for public hearing
April 10, 1990, at the hour of 7:30 o'clock p.m., the
Petitioner appearing through Guy Walker, the Planning and Zoning
Commission of the City of Meridian having duly considered the
evidence and the matter makes the following Findings of Fact and
Conclusions:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. That a notice of a public hearing on the Rezone
AMBROSE,
FITZGERAID
B CROO KSTON
AtlOmeya entl
Counselors
P.O. Box ~2l
MerlElen, Itle~o
B7B~2
TalePAOne BBB~UBt
Application and the Conditional Use Permit was published for two
(2) consecutive weeks prior to the said public hearing scheduled
for April 10, 1990, the first publication of which was fifteen
(15) days prior to said hearing; that the matter was duly
considered at the April 10, 1990, hearing; that the public was
given full opportunity to express comments and submit evidence;
and that copies of all notices were available to newspaper,
radio and television stations;
2. That this property is located within the f,ity of
Meridian and the Applicant has an agreement to purchase the
property which property is described in the application which
description is incorporated herein; that the property to the
south is zoned C-N and is used for an insurance office and
another parcel of property to the south is a vacant lot and is
zoned C-N; that one parcel of property to the east is zoned C-N
and is used as a convenience store and other parcels to the east
are duplexes; the property to the west is used predominantly for
single family dwellings; the property to the north is used for
multi-family dwellings.
3. That approximately one-half of the property is already
zoned Neighborhood Commercial and one-half is zoned R-4
Residential; that the Applicant requests that the portion zoned
R-4 be rezoned to C-N; that both of the zones require a
conditional use permit for the operation of a day care center
caring for thirteen (13) or more children, which is the use the
application requests; that such use requires a conditional use
permit in any zone where allowed.
4. That the C-N District is described in the Zoning
AMBROSE,
FITZG ERALD
B CROOKSTON
Attorneys antl
Counselors
P.O. Box /27
Meritlian, Idaho
838/2
Telephone BB&/d81
Ordinance, 11-2-408 B. 2 as follows:
(C-N) Nei hborhood Business District: The
purpose o the ( -N District is permit
the establishment of small scale convenience
business uses which are intended to meet the
daily needs of the residents of an immediate
neighborhood (as defined by the policies of
the Meridian Comprehensive Plan); to
encourage clustering and strategic siting of
such businesses to provide service to the
neighborhood and avoid intrusion of such
uses into adjoining residential districts.
All such districts shall give direct access
to transportation arterial or collectors,
be connected to the Municipal Water and
Sewer systems of the City of Meridian and
shall not constitute all or any part of a
strip development concept.
5. That the property is contained in the CAIRNS
neighborhood as designated on the Policy Diagram at Page 7 of
the Meridian Comprehensive Plan; neighborhoods are defined in
the Plan at Page 6 and states as follows:
"Definition: T`e neighborhood is a residential area
with uniform characteristics of a size comparable to
that usually served by an elementary school or a
small business convenience center or a local park.
Although neighborhoods occur in various shapes and
sizes, a section of the City measuring one-half to
one and one-half miles across is usually used for
planning purposes. It has facilities within easy
walking distances and provides the basis for community
identification."
6. T`at the use proposed by the Applicant is set forth
AM BROGE,
FITZG ERALO
E CROONBTON
Allorneye anE
Counaelore
P.O. Box 13]
MerlElen, IEaNo
89812
Telepftone 8B8-<1B1
above and the Applicant proposes to care for 45 to 50 children
and indicates that she will be state licensed.
7. That the day care use proposed by Applicant is an
allowed conditional use in the R-4 or the C-N districts if it
does not violate subdivision covenants or deed restrictions;
that buy Walker, representative of the Applicant, stated at the
hearing that there were no covenants applicalbe to the property
but no evidence was submitted to substantiate that nor did the
Applicant state in her Application that her use would not
violate subdivision covenants or deed restrictions.
8. That the subject property is presently vacant but has
been used in the past as a shelter home for the elderly and for
those in need of supervised care; that the structure on the
premises is designed as a single-family dwelling; that the
property is fenced; that the property has no irrigation canals
or facilities on the property; .that .there are no visible
hazardous areas on the property.
9. That the property does not have immediate direct
access to a transportation arterial or collector but is only
approximately 110 feet from Cherry Lane which is a principal
arterial and the property has good access to Cherry Lane; that
vehicular access should not be a problem and the proposed use
does not require greater access to a collector or arterial.
10. That sewer and water is already connected to the
property, but the use may require additional charges or fees.
Also, the City Engineer submitted comments which are
incorporated herein as if set forth in full herein; that the
comments specifically address, in addition to the possible
increase in water and sewer fees, the need for off-street
parking and screening of the parking from the adjacent
residential developments.
11. That the applicant was not required to obtain the
signatures of owners of lots within 300 feet of the subject
property showing approval of the application if the rezone is
granted since the conditional use would not be a residential
district; if the rezone is not granted, but the Applicant still
desires to operate the day care center, the Applicant would have
to submit the required approvals.
12. That there was testimony submitted in opposition to
AMBROBE,
FITZG ERALD
B CROOKSTON
Attorneys an0
Counselors
P.O. Boa 62]
Marlolan, IEaho
83812
Telephone BBB~Mei
the application; that the objections centered on requesting that
the area maintain its peaceful and quiet residential character,
concern over the possible increase of traffic in the adjacent
residential areas, and concern over the possibility of increased
noise from the day care, all of which may reduce property
values. That there was one individual testifying in favor of
the Application and he owned the property to the immediate south
of the subject parcel which is used for his insurance office.
He testified that he did not think that the traffic would be a
problem and thought the application should be granted.
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.
2. That the City of Meridian has authority to grant
conditional uses pursuant to 67-6512, Idaho Code, and, pursuant
to 11-2-418 of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City
of Meridian; and
3. That the City has the authority to take judicial
notice of its own ordinances, other governmental statues and
ordinances, and of actual conditions existing within the City
and state.
4. That the City of Meridian has authority to place
AMBROSE,
FITZGERALD
B CROO KSTON
Attorneys end
Counselors
P.G. BOR /Z]
MerlElen, Idaho
B9B/2
Telephone BBB-/S61
conditions on a conditional use permit and the use of the
property pursuant to 67-6512, Idaho Code, and pursuant to 11-2-
418(D) of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of
Meridian, Idaho; that the City of Meridian has authority to
place conditions upon granting a zoning amendment.
r~
L
5. That 11-2-418(C) of the Revised and Compiled
Ordinances of the City of Meridian sets forth the standards
under which the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City
Council shall review applications for Conditional Use Permits;
that upon a review of those requirements and a review of the
facts presented and the conditions of the area, the Planning and
Zoning Commission concludes as follows:
a. The use, would in fact, constitute a
conditional use and a conditional use permit
would be required by ordinance.
b. The use would be harmonious with and in
accordance with the Comprehensive Plan but
the Zoning Ordinance requires a conditional
use permit to allow the use.
c. The use is designed and constructed to
be harmonious in appearance with the
character of the general vicinity.
d. That the use would not be hazardous nor
should it be disturbing to existing or
future neighboring uses; that traffic should
not increase significantly because of the
proposed day care center.
e. The property has sewer and water
service already connected.
f. The use would not create excessive
additional requirements at public cost for
public facilities and services and the use
would not be detrimental to the economic
welfare of the community.
g. The use would not involve a use,
activity, process, material, equipment or
conditions of operation that would be
detrimental to person, property or the
general welfare by reason of excessive
production of traffic or noise.
AMBROSE,
FITZG ERALD
6OROO KSTON
Attorney9 and
Couneeioro
P.O. Box /]]
Marldlan, IOeNo
838/4
Talap~one 88&//81
h. That sufficient parking for the
property and the proposed use will be
required and the parking layout in the
Application will have to be redesigned to
meet the requirements of the City ordinance.
i. The development and uses will not
result in the destruction, loss or damage of
a natural or scenic feature of major
importance.
6. That the City has judged this Application far a zoning
amendment upon the basis of guidelines contained in Section 11-
2-416 of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of
Meridian and upon the basis of the Local Planning Act of 1975,
Title 57 Chapter 65, Idaho Code, the Comprehensive Plan of the
City of Meridian, and the record submitted to it and the things
of which it can take judicial notice.
7. That 11-2-416 (K) of the Revised and Compiled
Ordinances of the City of Meridian sets forth standards under
which the City shall review applications for zoning amendments;
that upon a review of those requirements and a review of the
facts presented and conditions of the area, the Planning and
Zoning Commission specifically concludes as follows:
(a) The new zoning would be harmonious with and in
accordance with the Comprehensive Plan and no
Comprehensive Plan amendment is required.
(b) The area is in the CAIRNS neighborhood which is
designed for residential and other uses which support
residential needs and a mix of those uses and a rezone
of the subject property is in line with that
designation.
AMRROS E,
FIT2G ERALO
BCROOKSTON
A~~orneys and
COOnS810A
P.O. Boz 12]
MariElan, l0eno
&9Sa2
Teleplrona BSBaa81
(c) The area included in the proposed zoning
amendment was not apparently intended to be developed
in the fashion that would be allowed under the new
zoning but the fact that the other one-half of the lot
is already zoned C-N indicates the new zoning would
not be contrary to the allowed uses in the area and
would be in line with existing adjacent developments
in the area.
(d) The access to Cherry Lane is good and Cherry
Lane is close enough to meet the requirement of the C-
N district that land zoned C-N have access to a
collector or an arterial and thus the property lends
itself to a rezone.
(e) That the property is designed and constructed to
be harmonious with the surrounding area.
(f) The proposed uses should not be hazardous or
disturbing to the existing or future uses of the
neighborhood.
(g) The property will be able to be adequately
served with public facilities, and connection to
municipal sewer and water is completed.
(h) The proposed use would not create excessive
additional requirements at public cost for public
facilities and services and would not be detrimental
to the economic welfare of the community.
(i) The proposed use should not involve any
detrimental activity to any person's property or the
general welfare.
(j) Development should not cause a significant
increase in vehicular traffic and should not interfere
with surrounding traffic patterns.
(k) That this rezone will not result in the
destruction, loss or damage of any natural or scenic
feature or major importance.
(1) T`e proposed zoning amendment is in the best
interest of City of Meridian.
8. It is further concluded that the comments,
AMBR08E,
FITZGERgLD
6 CROOKBTON
Attorneys and
Counselors
P.O. eos 127
Meritllan, Itlaho
83612
Telephone 888-1181
recommendations and requirements of the City Engineer will have
to met and complied with.
S
• •
APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts
and approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions.
ROLL CALL
COMMISSIONER HEPPER
COMMISSIONER ROUNTREE
COMMISSIONER SHEARER
COMMISSIONER ALIDJANI
CHAIRMAN JOHNSON (TIE BREAKER)
DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION
V O T E D~eQ:~.,
VOTED~~
VOTED
VOTED
VOTED
The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby
AMBROSE,
FITZG ERAID
S CROOKSTON
Atlorneya and
Couneelore
P.O. Box 117
Merl0lan, ICaKo
83 W2
TelaP~one BB&NBl
recommends to the City Council of the City of Meridian that they
approve the Rezone and the Conditional Use Permit requested by
the Applicant for the property described in the application with
the conditions set forth in the Findings of Fact and Conclusions
of Law and that the property be required to meet the water and
sewer requirements, the fire and life safety codes, and the
Uniform Building Code, and other Ordinances of the City of
Meridian. Additionally it is recommended that the Applicant be
~~
required to redesign the parking and provide proof that the use
of the property does not violate covenants of the subdivision or
any deed restriction applicable to the property. The
conditional use should be subject to annual review upon motion
by the City.
MOTION:
APPROVED: DISAPPROVED:
AM BROBE,
FITZG ERALD
&CROOKSTON
A~~orneya antl
Counaelon
P.O. Boy 62]
MarlCian, Itla~o
83841
TBIap~OnB BBb4481
BEFORE THE MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
SHIRLEY PERSON
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
310 EAST FIRST STREET
MERIDIAN, IDAHO
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The above entitled matter having come on for public
hearing April 10, 1990, at the hour of 7:30 o'clock p.m., the
Petitioner appearing through Lonnie Bostrom, the Planning and
Zoning Commission of the City of Meridian having duly
considered the evidence and the matter, makes the following
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. That a notice of public hearing on the Conditional
AM BROSE,
FITZG ERALD
d CROOKSTON
Attorneys ane
Counaebra
p.o. 90. dxy
Merl0lan, nano
easax
Telepnone BBS~aeB1
Use Permit was published for two (2) consecutive weeks prior to
the said public hearing scheduled for April 10, 1990, the first
publication of which was fifteen (15) days prior to said
hearing; that the matter was duly considered at the April 10,
1990, hearing; that the public was given full opportunity to
express comments and submit evidence; and that copies of all
notices were available to newspaper, radio and television
stations;
2. That this property is located within the City of
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
PAGE - 1
Meridian and is owned by the Mr. and Mrs. Paul Pack and the
Applicant, Shirley Person and is described in the application,
which description is incorporated herein as if set forth in
full; the property is generally described as at the northeast
corner of East First Street and King Street; that the property
fronts on East F~rst Street; the proposed use of the property
is to operate a Yogurt Shop with a drive-up window.
3. That the property has been used for commercial
businesses for some period of time in the past.
4. The surrounding property is zoned Old Town.
5. That the Old Town District is described in the Zoning
Ordinance, 11-2-408 B. 10 as follows:
(0-T) OLD TOWN DISTRICT: The purpose of
the (0-T District is tto accommodate and
encourage further expansion of the
historical core of the community; to
delineate a centralized activity center and
to encourage its renewal, revitalization
and growth as the public, quasi-public,
cultural, financial and recreational center
of the City. A variety of these uses
integrated with general business, medium-
high to high density residential, and other
related uses is encouraged in an effort to
provide the appropriate mix of activities
necessary to establish a truly urban City
center. The district shall be served by
the Municipal Water and Sewer systems of
the City of Meridian. Development in this
district must give attention to the
handling of high volumes of traffic,
adequate parking, and pedestrian movement,
and to provide strip commercial
development, and must be approved as a
conditional use, unless otherwise
permitted.
AM BROSE,
FITZGERALD
dCROO KSTON
AROrneya end
Coonaelora
P.O. BOY e2T
MerlElen, IdeNo
BaBa2
TeleRNOne 8884181
6. That the use proposed by the Applicant is an
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
PAGE - 2
enumerated allowed conditional use in the Old Town District as
there are no listed permitted uses in the Old Town District.
7. That the property to the west and across East First
Street is a parking lot for a grocery store and property which
has been used for a delicatessen; the property to the east is a
residence; the property to the south is used for an automobile
parts retail store and a lock and key shop; the property to the
north is used commercially; that kitty corner to the subject I
property is a grocery store.
8. That the immediate past use was for a health food
store.
9. That the Applicant has submitted the names of the
people owning property within 300 feet of the property but
their approval of the use of the property is not required
because the property is not in a residential district.
10. That there was no public testimony at the public
hearing objecting to the proposed use.
11. That comments were submitted by the City Engineer,
AMBROSE,
FITZG ERALD
d CROOKSTON
Atrorneya and
(.OVnaBIOrB
P.O. Box 427
Meriolen, loallo
83842
Telep~ona 808-<I81
Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District, and the Ada County
Highway District; Those comments are incorporated herein as if
set forth in full herein.
12. The Applicant agreed with the comments of the City
Engineer, but had objection to the requirements of ACHD
regarding curb and gutter.
CONCLUSIONS
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
PAGE - 3
AMBROSE,
FIT2GERALD
B CROOKSTON
Attorneys an0
Counselors
P.O. Box 12T
MerlElen, IEe~o
&981]
TeleOeone 88BJ181
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.
2. That the City of Meridian has authority to grant
conditional uses pursuant to 67-6512, Idaho Code, and, pursuant
to 11-2-418 of the Revised and Complied Ordinances of the City
of Meridian, Idaho;
3. That the City of Meridian has authority to place
conditions on a conditional use permit and the use of the
property pursuant to 67-6512, Idaho Code, and pursuant to 11-2-
418(D) of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of
Meridian, Idaho;
4. That it is concluded that the proposed use is similar
to and compatible with listed permitted uses in the Old Town
District and with the existing uses presently in the immediate
vicinity of the subject property even though there are no
listed permitted uses since all uses in the Old Town District
are only allowed under a conditional use.
5. That 11-2-418(C) of the Revised and Compiled
Ordinances of the City of Meridian sets forth the standards
under which the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City
Council shall review applications for Conditional Use Permits;
that upon a review of those requirements and a review of the
facts presented and the conditions of the area, the Planning
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
PAGE - 4
and Zoning Commission preliminarily concludes as follows:
a. The use, would in fact, constitute a conditional
use and a conditional use permit is required by
ordinance.
b. The use, if operated in compliance with
applicable building code, fire code, life safety
code, and other applicable codes would be harmonious
with and in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan
but the Zoning Ordinance requires a conditional use
permit to allow the use.
c. The use apparently would be designed and
constructed, to be harmonious in appearance with the
intended character of the general vicinity, such
being designated as set forth in the definition of
Old Town as contained in Section 11-2-408 B 10.
d. That from a zoning standpoint, the use would not
be hazardous nor should it be disturbing to existing
or future neighboring uses, if operated in accordance
with the conditions contained herein.
e. The sewer and water service is available.
f. The use would not create excessive additional
requirements at public cast for public facilities and
services and the use would not be detrimental to the
economic welfare of the community.
g. The use would not involve a use, activity,
process, material, equipment or conditions of
operation that would be detrimental to person,
property or the general welfare by reason of
excessive production of traffic or noise, if operated
in accordance with the requirements contained herein.
h. Sufficient parking for the property and the
proposed use must be provided.
i. The development and uses will not result in the
destruction, loss or damage of a natural or scenic
feature of major importance.
5. That the comments submitted by the Nampa & Meridian
AMRROSE,
FITZG ERALD
S CROOKSTON
Attorneys antl
DOYnbaOra
P.O. Boz /2]
Meritlian, Itlaho
83862
TelaP~ona 8366681
Irrigation District and the City Engineer as incorporated
herein and shall be a requirement for issuance of the
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
PAGE - 5
AMBROBE,
FITZGERALD
4 CROO KSTON
conditional use permit at this time. The requirements of ACRD
shall not be required.
6. That all applicable rules and regulations of the
Central District Health Department shall be met and complied
with.
7. That also as a condition of receiving the conditional
use permit the remodeling, drive-up window, screening, and
other changes to the land and structure shall be subject to
design review.
APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts
and approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions.
ROLL CALL:
Commissioner Hepper
Commissioner Rountree
Commissioner Shearer
Commissioner Alidjani
Chairman Johnson (Tie Breaker)
Attorneys en0 FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Coonaelora
R.o. Bo. ~zT P A G E - 6
Matl0len, IdNo
aaBaz
TeleeKOne 88BN81
Voted
Voteda~fr~
Voted~a
Voted ~/~
Voted_7I-
DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION
qM BROSE,
FITZGERALD
B CROOKSTON
Attorneys entl
Couneelore
P.O. Boa 127
MerlOlan, Itlaho
BJ812
TeleOhone BBBSIBt
The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby
recommends to the City Council of the City of Meridian that
they approve the Conditional Use Permit requested by the
Applicant for the property described in the application,
subject to the conditions stated herein.
MOTION:
APPROVED: ~C DISAPPROVED:
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
PAGE - 7
. -
BEFORE THE MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
NADINE MILLER and BETH BIDDICK
VARIANCE AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
WEATHERVANE VILLAGE AT CINDER AND PINE STREETS
MERIDIAN, IDAHO
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The above entitled matter having come on for public
hearing April 10, 1990, at the hour of 7:30 o'clock p.m., the
Petitioner, Nadine Miller, appearing in person, the Planning
and Zoning Commission of the City of Meridian having duly
considered the evidence and the matter, makes the following
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. That a notice of public hearing on the Conditional
AMBROSE,
FITZGERALD
A OROOKSTON
Atlornaya and
Counseiora
G.O. Boz t2]
MarlElan, IOeho
83842
Telephone BB&aaei
Use Permit was published for two (2) consecutive weeks prior to
the said public hearing scheduled for April 10, 1990, the first
publication of which was fifteen (15) days prior to said
hearing; that the matter was duly considered at the April 10,
1990, hearing; that the public was given full opportunity to
express comments and submit evidence; and that copies of all
notices were available to newspaper, radio and television
stations;
2. That this property is located within the City of
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
PAGE - 1
Meridian and is owned by the Applicants and is described in the
application, which description is incorporated herein as if set
forth in full; the property is generally described as at the
southeast corner of Linder Road and Pine Street; the present
use of the property is a mobile home and manufactured housing
subdivision; the proposed use of the property is to continue to
allow mobile homes and manufactured housing but also to allow
on-site constructed homes but which can be as small as 960
square feet. To create a compatible size of structures in the
subdivision the Applicants also request a variance from the
residential housing size ordinance in that if they were
required to meet that ordinance the on-site constructed homes
would be much larger than the mobile homes or manufactured
houses in the subdivision; that the Applicant also desires to
amend the covenants of the subdivision to allow two story
dwellings.
3. That the property is zoned as R-4 and has been used
in the past for a mobile home and manufactured housing
subdivision.
4. The surrounding property to the west is zoned Light
AMBROSE,
FITZO ERALD
S GROOKSTON
Attorneys and
Goonaelors
P.O. Box 4D
MeriEian, IOeho
83642
Telephone BB&U61
Industrial; the property to the north is zoned Limited Office;
the property to the south is R-4 and developed in that fashion
and some property to the south is vacant ground and railroad
property; the property to the east is vacant land but is
proposed to be developed with a nursery home or residentially.
5. That this subdivision was initially approved as an R-
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
PAGE - 2
4 Residential subdivision with permission to develop the
property with mobile homes and manufactured houses; that there
was a minimum house size placed on the subdivision of 960
square feet; that the subdivision has been developed in the
above fashion.
6. That the R-4 Residential District is described in the
Zoning Ordinance, 11-2-408 B. 1. as follows:
(R-4) Low Density Residential District:
The purpose of the R-4 District is to
permit the establishment of low density
singe-family dwellings, and to delineate
those areas where predominantly residential
development has, or is likely to occur in
accord with the Comprehensive Plan of the
City, to protect the integrity of
residential areas by prohibiting the
intrusion of incompatible non-residential
uses. The (R-4) District allows for a
maximum of four dwellings per acre and
requires connection to the Municipal Water
and Sewer systems of the City of Meridian.
7. That the use proposed by the Applicant is an
gMBROSE,
FITZG ERALD
S CROOKBTON
Attorneys en0
Counaelora
P.O. Box 4Z]
Merlalen, IOeNo
8981]
Telepgone 888-~~B1
enumerated allowed use in the R-4 Residential District but
Section 11-2-411 D. requires that single-family detached houses
contain a minimum of 1,300 square feet of living space but
allows a limited number of smaller houses, down to 1,000 square
feet within a subdivision and those must be evenly dispersed
throughout the subdivision pursuant to the above reference
section; therefore to allow the Applicants to develop the
property in the fashion desired a variance from section 11-2-
411 D. would be required.
8. That the Applicant has submitted the names of the
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
PAGE - 3
AM BROSE,
FITZGERALO
6 CROO KSTON
Attorneys and
Coonaeiora
P.O. Box 627
MerlOlan, IEaKo
83812
TelePNOne BBB~U61
people owning property within 300 feet of the property and has
obtained the approval of 75% of those owners; that the
Applicant has also, pursuant to the conditional use
requirements, obtained the approval of 100% of the property
owners within the area where the conditional use is being
requested.
9. That the Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District
submitted comments and the Ada County Highway District
submitted comments the day of the hearing; those comments are
incorporated herein as if set forth if full by this reference.
That there was some comment as the public hearing regarding an
exit from the subdivision on to Linder Road and that the Plat
would have to be amended.
10. That there was no public testimony at the public
hearing objecting to the proposed use.
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 submission of approval of all
property owners within the area of the conditional use permit.
2. T'-at the City of Meridian has authority to grant
conditional uses pursuant to 67-6512, Idaho Code, and pursuant
to 11-2-418 of the Revised and Complied Ordinances of the City
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
PAGE - 4
of Meridian, Idaho; and the City has authority to grant
variances pursuant to Sections 11-2-419 and 11-9-612 of the
Zoning and Development Ordinances.
3. That the City of Meridian has authority to place
conditions on a conditional use permit, on a variance request,
and on the use of the property pursuant to 67-6512, Idaho Code,
and pursuant to 11-2-418(D} of the Revised and Compiled
Ordinances of the City of Meridian, Idaho;
4. That it is concluded that the proposed use is similar
to and compatible with listed permitted uses in the R-4
Residential District and particularly since the property is
presently developed in a similar fashion as that requested and
the only difference will be the construction of on-site homes
in addition to modular homes manufactured off-site and moved on
to the lots within the subdivision.
5. That 11-2-418(C) of the Revised and Compiled
Ordinances of the City of Meridian sets forth the standards
under which the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City
Council shall review applications for Conditional Use Permits;
that upon a review of those requirements and a review of the
facts presented and the conditions of the area, the Planning
and Zoning Commission preliminarily concludes as follows:
a. The use, would in fact, constitute a conditional
use and a conditional use permit is required by
ordinance.
AMBROSE,
FITZGERALO
B CROO KSTON
AtlomeYS and
Counselors
P.O. Boa 4Z]
Meritllen, Itlaho
8381]
Telephone 888-U81
b. The use would be harmonious with and in
accordance with the Comprehensive Plan but the Zoning
Ordinance requires a conditional use permit to allow
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
PAGE - 5
the use.
c. The use would be designed and constructed, to be
harmonious in appearance with the intended character
of the general vicinity since similar structures as
that proposed are already in existence on the
property.
d. That from a zoning standpoint, the use would not
be hazardous nor should it be disturbing to existing
or future neighboring uses.
e. The sewer and water service is available.
f. The use would not create excessive additional
requirements at public cost for public facilities and
services and the use would not be detrimental to the
economic welfare of the community.
g. The use would not involve a use, activity,
process, material, equipment or conditions of
operation that would be detrimental to person,
property or the general welfare by reason of
excessive production of traffic or noise.
h. Sufficient parking for the property and the
proposed use must be provided.
i. The development and uses will not result in the
destruction, loss or damage of a natural or scenic
feature of major importance.
5. That the following provisions of Section 11-9-612,
Variances, of the Development Ordinance are noted which is
pertinent to the Application and these are similar to the
provisions of 11-2-419:
11-9-612 A. 1. PURPOSE
AM BROSE,
FITZG ERALO
6 CROO KSTON
Attorneys and
Counselors
The Council, as a result of unique
circumstances (such as topographic-
physical limitations or a planned unit
development), may grant variances from the
provisions of this Ordinance on a finding
that undue hardship results from the strict
compliance with specific provisions or
requirements of the Ordinance or that
application of such provision or requirement
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
PAGE - 6
P.O. Box e2]
MeriElen, IGNo
B3N2
is impracticable.
6. That the specific requirements regarding a
variance that must be evidenced and found by the City
Council are as follows:
11-9-612 A. 2, FINDINGS
No variance shall be favorably acted upon by the
Counci 1 unless there is a finding, as a result of a
public hearing, that all of the following exist:
a. That there are such special circumstances or
conditions affecting the property that the strict
application of the provisions of this Ordinance would
clearly be impracticable or unreasonable; in such
cases, the subdivider shall first state his reasons in
writing as to the specific provision or requirement
involved;
b. That the strict compliance with the requirements
of this Ordinance would result in extraordinary
hardship to the subdivider because of unusual
topography, other physical conditions or other such
conditions which are not self-inflicted, or that these
conditions wou]d result in inhibiting the achievement
of the objectives of this Ordinance;
c. That the granting of the specified variance will
not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious
to other property in the area in which the property
is situated;
d. That such variance will not violate the
provisions of the Idaho Code; and
e. That such variance will not have the effect of
nullifying the interest and purpose of this Ordinance
and the Comprehensive Development Plan.
AMBROSE,
FITZGERALD
d CROONSTON
Allorneys end
Counselors
P.O. eos 127
MerlAlen, IOCho
&7812
Talep~ane 888-NB1
7. That it is concluded that all of the above items in
Conclusion No. 6. exist; that there does not appear to be a
benefit of profit, economic gain or convenience to the Applicant
over and above that already available to the Applicants. The
variance would just make the property more marketable and the
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
PAGE - 7
profit or economic gain should be the same.
8. That the comments submitted by the Nampa & Meridian
Irrigation District shall be a requirement for issuance of the
conditional use permit and a grant of the variance. The
requirements of ACRD should
be considered by the City Council
and further investigated.
APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts
and approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions.
ROLL CALL:
Commissioner Hepper
Commissioner Rountree
Commissioner Shearer
Commissioner Alidjani
Chairman Johnson (Tie Breaker)
DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION
Votedl~
Vote d assa«~
Voted
Voted
Voted
The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby
AMSROSE,
FITZG ERALD
6 CROOKSTON
Attorneys and
Counselors
P.O. Boz 63]
Maritlian, Idaho
83662
Telephone 888-IdBt
recommends to the City Council of the City of Meridian that
they approve the Conditional Use Permit and Variance requested
by the Applicant for the property described in the application,
subject to the conditions stated herein and recommends that the
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
PAGE - 8
AM BROBE,
FI7ZGERALD
6 CROO KBTON
City Council investigate the status of the access to Linder
Road comment by the Ada County Highway District.
MOTION:
APPROVED:
DISAPPROVED:
Allprneys.na FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Couneelore
v.o. ea. es~ PAGE - 9
Meritllen, Itlello
B39e4
Telephone 88&eeB1
r +~
BEFORE THE MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT INC.
REQUEST FOR REZONE
1200 BLOCK OF CHERRY LANE
MERIDIAN, IDAHO
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The above entitled matter having come on for public
hearing April 10, 1990, at the hour of 7:30 o'clock p.m., the
Petitioner appearing in person, and the Planning and Zoning
Commission of the City of Meridian having duly considered the
evidence and the matter, makes the following Findings of Fact
and Conclusions of Law:
FINDINGS OF FACT ~~~
1. That a notice of public hearing on the 1+-
AMBROSE,
FIT2GERAlO
B OROOKSTON
AllorneYe en0
Counealore
P.O. Bov 42]
Merltllen, Idaho
89802
TaleOhone BBB-N81
Use Permit was published for two (2) consecutive weeks prior to
the said public hearing scheduled for April 10, 1990, the
first publication of which was fifteen (15) days prior to said
hearing; that the matter was duly considered at the April 10,
1990, hearing; that the public was given full opportunity to
express comments and submit evidence; and that copies of all
notices were available to newspaper, radio and television
stations.
2. That this property is located within the City of
FINDINGS OE FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
PAGE - 1
Meridian and is described in the application, which description
is incorporated herein as if set forth in full and is across
Cherry Lane and a little bit west of the Meridian Middle
School; the property is presently zoned R-4 Residential and is
and has in the past been vacant ground and pasture land; the
proposed use of the property as stated in the Application is to
develop a residential single- family subdivision, and even
though the requested zoning would allow duplexes, the property
will not be developed in that fashion.
3. That there is an R-4 subdivision to the north of the
proposed subdivision and property to the east which is
developed in an R-4 fashion; there is an R-15 subdivision to
the west of the subject property; the Meridian Middle School
is across Cherry Lane as is some vacant property which is
zoned R-8 and some property west of the R-8 property which is
zoned Neighborhood Commercial.
4. The Applicant requests that the property be rezoned
from R-4 Residential to R-S Residential.
5. That the property is contained in the CAIRNS
AMBROSE,
FITZG ERALD
B GROOKBTON
AtlorneYa end
Couneelora
P.O. Box 027
MerlE lsn, IEa~o
B~Ba2
Talep~one BBBJa81
neighborhood as designated on the Policy Diagram at Page 7 of
the Meridian Comprehensive Plan; neighborhoods are defined in
the Plan at Page 6 and states as follows:
"Definition: The neighborhood is a residential area
with uniform characteristics of a size comparable to
that usually served by an elementary school or a
small business convenience center or a local park.
Although neighborhoods occur in various shapes and
sizes, a section of the City measuring one-half to
one-and-one-half miles across is usually used for
planning purposes. It has facilities within easy
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
PAGE - 2
walking distances and provides the basis for community
identification."
6. That the R-8 Residential District is described in the
Zoning Ordinance, 11-2-408 B. 2 as follows:
(R-8) Medium Density Residential District: The
purpose of the (R- District is to permit the
establishment of single and two family dwellings at a
density not exceeding eight (8) dwelling units per
acre. This district delineates those areas where such
development has or is likely to occur in accord with
the Cornprehensive Plan of the City and is also
designed to permit the conversion of large homes into
two (2) farnily dwellings in well-established
neighborhoods of comparable land use. Connection to
the Municipal Water and Sewer systems of the City of
Meridian is required.
7. That the uses proposed by the Applicant of a single-
family subdivision and the applicant has indicated that there
will be no duplexes in the subdivision even though the requested
zoning would allow for such and the purpose of the zoning is to
allow for smaller lots than required in the R-4 zone.
8. That the property is a parcel of ground that is
approximately 12 acres in size.
9. T`at the property can be connected to City sewer and
water and those services are available.
10. That the Applicant has submitted a proposed
AMBROSE,
F1T2GERALD
B CROOKSTON
Amrneya and
Covnaelon
P.O. Box 62]
MariEian, IOat1o
83&14
TelapKOne 888-6161
subdivision plat of the subject property; that the density would
be approximately 4.5 dwellings units per acre.
11. That comments were submitted by the City Engineer and
the Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District and may be submitted by
the Ada County Highway District; those comments are incorporated
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
PAGE - 3
herein as if set forth in full herein.
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.
2. That the City of Meridian has authority to grant
zoning amendments and rezones pursuant to Title 67, Chapter 65,
Idaho Code, and pursuant to 11-2-416 of the Revised and
Complied Ordinances of the City of Meridian, Idaho.
3. That the City has the authority to take judicial
notice of its own ordinances, other governmental statues and
ordinances, and of actual conditions existing within the City
and state.
4. That the City of Meridian has authority to place
AMBROSE,
FITZG ERALD
S CROOKSTON
Attorneys antl
Counaelon
P.O. Boa 62]
Merltllen, ItlMo
83861
TelepBOne B88~N81
conditions upon granting a zoning amendment.
5. That the City has judged this Application upon the
basis of guidelines contained in Section 11-2-416 of the Revised
and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian and upon the
basis of the Local Planning Act of 1975, Title 67 Chapter 65,
Idaho Code, the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Meridian, and
the record submitted to it and the things of which it can take
judicial notice.
6. That 11-2-416 (K) of the Revised and Compiled
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
PAGE - 4
Ordinances of the City of Meridian sets forth standards under
which the City shall review applications for zoning amendments;
that upon a review of those requirements and a review of the
facts presented and conditions of the area, the Planning and
Zoning Commission specifically concludes as follows:
(a) The new zoning would be harmonious with and in
accordance with the Comprehensive Plan and no
Comprehensive Plan amendment is required.
(b) The area is in the CAIRNS neighborhood which is
designed for residential uses and a mix of those uses
and a rezone of the subject property is in line with
that designation.
(c) The area included in the zoning amendment was
intended to be developed in a neighborhood fashion
which is the fashion proposed.
(d) The area has direct access to Cherry Lane which
is principal arterial which tends to dictate that the
area may lend itself to be rezoned.
(e) That the property should be designed and
constructed to be harmonious with the surrounding
area, and such is a requirement and condition of the
rezone.
(f) The proposed uses would not be hazardous or
disturbing to the existing or future uses of the
neighborhood.
(g) The property will be able to be adequately
served with public facilities, and connection to
municipal sewer and water is required.
(h) The proposed use would not create excessive
additional requirements at public cost for public
facilities and services and would not be detrimental
to the economic welfare of the community but should
in fact be beneficial.
AM6ROSE,
FITZG ERALD
BCROOKSTON
Attorneys entl
OOUnaBOA
R.o. eo. ~z~
MerlElen, Itla~o
8382
Telep~ona 886u81
(i) T`e proposed uses will not involve any
detrimental activity to any person's property or the
general welfare.
(j) Development would not cause a significant
increase in vehicular traffic and should not interfere
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
PAGE - 5
with surrounding traffic patterns.
(k) That this rezone will not result in the
destruction, loss or damage of any natural or scenic
feature or major importance.
(1) The proposed zoning amendment is in the best
interest of City of Meridian.
7. That the comments submitted by the Nampa & Meridian
Irrigation District, the Ada County Highway District, and the
City Engineer as incorporated herein and shall be a requirement
for the rezone.
8. That all applicable fire, life safety, building codes,
and other codes and regulations and all of the ordinances of the
City of Meridian shall be met prior to any occupancy.
9. That even though the requested rezone is to R-8 which
allows duplexes the use of the property shall be limited to
single-family dwellings and such shall be a restriction in the
rezone ordinance.
APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts
gMBROSE,
F1T2G ERALD
SCROOKSTON
Attorneys and
Counselors
P.O. Box OtT
Merld lan, Ide~o
8]802
Telepeona BB8~0081
and approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions.
ROLL CALL:
Commissioner Hepper Voted_`~
I jjJJr~~jj~~~~
Commissioner Rountree Voted
Commissioner Shearer Voted _
Commissioner Alidjani Voted ~./
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
PAGE - 6
~- ii • •
AM BROSE,
FITZG ERALO
S GROO KSTON
AROmeys an0
Counaelora
P.O. Box 42T
MerlEien, 18a8o
&7802
Talepeone 8864481
Chairman Johnson (Tie Breaker)
Voted
DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION
The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby
recommends to the City Council of the City of Meridian that they
. ReLONE
approve the C ~ requested by the Applicant
for the property described in the application, subject to the
conditions stated herein.
MOTION:
APPROVED: DISAPPROVED:
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
PAGE - 7