1992 08-11
A G E N D A
MERIDL?1N PLANNING & ZONING
AUGUST 11, 1992
ITEM:
MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING HELD JULY 14, 1992 (APPRVED)
1: PREL~INARV PLAT ON THE LANDING SUBDIVISION: TABLID AT LAST MEETING: (APPROVED)
2: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION & ZONING W/PRELIMINARY PLAT: STRATE SUBDIVISION:
TABLID AT LAST MEETING: (FINDINGS ~ BE PREPARED)
3: FIIVDINGS OF FACT ON REZONE REQUEST BY JAMES THC+IPSON: (APPROVED)
4: FINDINGS OF FACT ON REZONE REQUEST W/PRELIMINARY & FINAL PLAT ON THE CO12~iJER OE'
THE VINEYAIt[1S # 2 : (APPROVID )
5: FIDIDINGS OF FACT ON REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT i~Y GINGER BARIlG/RR: (APPROVED)
6: FINDINGS OF FACT ON REZONE REQUEST W/CONDITIONAL ~JSE PERMIT BY' LIDIDA PADDOCTC: (DENIED)
7: FIIVDINGS OF FACT' ON REQUEST FOR CONIDITIONAL USE; PEE~4IT BY KAYLYN HERDING &
TAMERA DAMS: (APPROVED)
8: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERb'LiT BY KARIN & WAYNE FORRFY:
(FINDINGS TO BE PREPARED)
9: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT BY R.T.NAHAS: (FINDINGS TO BE PREPARED)
10: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PEE~IIT BY GARY FARNSWORTH: (FINDINGS TO BE
PREPARED)
11: FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS ON REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PEF3VLiT BY BETTY
CAVANAUGH: TABLID AT LAST MEETING: (TABLED)
12: PUBLIC HEARING: ANIENDNIE[VTS TO THE ZONING & DEVETAPMENT ORDINANCE: (FINDINGS TO BE PREPARED)
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING AUGUST il. 1992
The Regular meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning
Commission was called to order by Chairman Jim Johnson at 7:30
P. M. .
Members Present: Tim Hepper, Charlie Rountree:
Members Rbsent: Moe Alidjani, Jim Shearer:
Dthers Present: Don Bryan, Steven Breen, Gene Strate, Laura
Conner, Wayne S. Forrey, Karen L. Forrey, James M. Reas, Steve
Kurka, Kathe' Mitchell, Billy Ray Strite, Wayne Crookston, Oscar
Saavedera:
MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING HELD JULY 14, 1992:
The Motion was made by Rountree and seconded by Hepper to approve
the minutes of the previous meeting held July 14, 1992 as
written:
Motion Carried: Hepper - Yea; Rountree - Yea, Johnson - Yea:
ITEM #1: PRELIMINARY PLAT ON THE LANDING SUBDIVISION: TABLED RT
LRST MEETING:
Johnson: There is a new design on this. Any discussion?
Rountree: Jack I have a question about the functional
classification of the roads in that area. Does it show, on the
functional classification map, Waltman being a Collector?
Clerk Niemann: I'm not sure on the latest one how its shown.
Rountree: I thought the functional classification was to be a
collector.
Discussion Held (See Tape:
The Motion was made by Rountree and seconded by Hepper to
recommend approval of the preliminary plat as redesigned
conditioned on meeting the recommendations from ACHD and that
Waltman Lane phase connecting to Linder to the west be designed
to a Collector.
Motion Carried: Rountree - Yea; Hepper - Yea; Johnson - Yea:
ITEM #2: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION 8 ZONING W/PRELIMINARY PLAT:
STRATE SUBDIVISION: TABLED AT LAST MEETING:
MERIDIAN PLRNNING & ZONING
AUGUST 11, 1992
PRGE 2
Johnson: We tabled this because we had some questions of the
developer and he was not present. Is he present tonight? We
will re-open the Public Hearing at this time conditioned upon
that.
Jim Reas, 707 N. 27th, Boise, was sworn by the attorney.
Reas: I am the engineer for the developer and the developer Mr.
Strate is also here to answer questions.
Rountree: The only question I have is in reference to a comment
from ACRD and the classification of Chateau, not allowing direct
access without a circular drive. You have one lot shown on the
plat that will have to access Chateau, what's the situation on
that lot?
Reas: That is true. Actually that lot at present has access
onto Chateau from the existing house that we are going to change
and have the existing house onto the new road that goes through
there. The driveway is there, we will have the builder put a
turn-around on it so they will not be backing onto Chateau.
Hepper: Is the minimum square feet 1300 on the structures?
Reas: That is what the developer intends to do.
Johnson: We had a call from a lady that lives in Gem Park #2,
says there is all kinds of junk, etc. around and behind the old
house that sits in this subdivision. We are bringing that up for
your comments on that at this time.
Reas: It needs to be cleaned up, it's a mess. We would like to
start tearing that old building down and cleaning as soon as
possible. We thought we should have at least approval before we
do that.
Hepper: Do you have pressurized irrigation or are you going to
go with paying the fees to the City?
Reas: I'm not sure at this time. We will pipe, there is an
irrigation ditch across it that will be piped.
Hepper: Do you have any problem with any of the comments from
ACHD or the Engineer?
Reas: No problem with ACHD or Engineer comments.
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING
AUGUST 11, 1992
PAGE 3
Johnson: Anyone else to testify? No response. I will close the
Public Hearing.
The Motion was made by Hepper and seconded by Rountree to have
the attorney prepare Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law.
Motion Carried: Hepper - Yea; Rountree - Yea; Johnson - Yea;
ITEM #3: FINDINGS OF FACT ON REZONE REQUEST HY JAMES THOMPSON:
The Motion was made by Rountree and seconded by Hepper that the
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts and
approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions.
Roll Call Vote: Hepper - Yea; Rountree - Yea; Shearer - Absent;
Rlidjani - Absent; Johnson - Yea:
Motion Carried: All Yea:
The Motion was made by Rountree and seconded by Hepper that the
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends to the
City Council that they approve the rezone request by the
applicant for the property described:
Motion Carried: Rountree - Yea; Hepper - Yea; Johnson - Yea;
ITEM #4: FINDINGS OF FACT ON REZDNE REQUEST W/PRELIMINARY 8
FINAL PLAT ON THE CORNER OF THE VINEYARDS #2:
The Motion was made by Rountree and seconded by Hepper that the
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts and
approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions.
Roll Call Vote: Rountree - Yea; Hepper - Yea; Shearer - Absent;
Alidjani - Absent; Johnson - Yea;
Motion Carried: All Yea:
The Motion was made by Rountree and seconded by Hepper that the
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends to the
City Council of the City of Meridian that they approve the rezone
application by the applicant for the property described, and as
stated in the decision and recommendation with one minor small
correction in the last sentence, to read the property be rezoned
to R-4 and no other uses other than church will be allowed.
Motion Carried: Rountree - Yea; Hepper - Johnson - Yea:
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING
AUGUST 11, 1992
PAGE 4
The Motion was made by Hepper and seconded 6y Rountree to
recommend approval of the preliminary and final plat.
Motion Carried: Hepper - Yea; Rountree - Yea; Johnson - Yea;
ITEM #5: FINDINGS OF FACT ON REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
BY GINGER BARKER:
The Motion was made by Hepper and seconded by Rountree that the
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts and
approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions.
Roll Call Vote: Hepper - Yea; Rountree - Yea; Shearer - Rbsent;
Alidjani - Yea; Johnson - Yea;
Motion Carried: All Yea:
The Motion was made by Hepper and seconded by Rountree that 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 with the conditions set
forth in the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.
Motion Carried: Hepper - Yea; Rountree - Yea; Johnson - Yea;
ITEM #6: FINDINGS OF FACT DN REZONE REQUEST W/CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT BY LINDR PADDOCK:
The Motion was made by Rountree and seconded by Hepper that the
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts and
approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions which recommend
denial of this request.
Roll Call Vote: Hepper - Yea; Rountree - Yea; Shearer - Rbsent;
Alidjani - Absent; Johnson - Vea;
Motion Carried: All Yea:
The Motion was made by Rountree and seconded by Hepper that the
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission, based on these Findings
of Fact and Conclusions of Law, hereby recommends to the City
Council of the City of Meridian that this request far rezone be
denied:
Motion Carried: Rountree - Yea; Hepper - Yea; Johnson - Yea;
MERIDIAN PLRNNING 8 ZONING
AUGUST il, 1992
PAGE 5
ITEM #7: FINDINGS OF FACT ON REQUEST FOR CONDITIONRL USE PERMIT
BY KAYLYN HARDING & TRMERR DAVIS:
The Motion was made by Hepper and seconded by Rountree that the
Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts and approves these
Findings of Fact and Conclusions.
Roll Call Vote: Hepper - Vea; Rountree - Yea; Shearer - Rbsent;
Rlidjani - Rbsent; Johnson - Yea:
Motion Carried: R11 Yea:
The Motion was made by Hepper and seconded by Rountree that 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 with the conditions set
forth in the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and that the
Rpplicant be specifically required to meet all of the Ordinances
of the City of Meridian, specifically including the Uniform
Building Code, the Fire Code, the Life Safety Code, the
Electrical Code, and the Plumbing Code.
Motion Carried: Hepper - Yea; Rountree - Yea; Johnson - Yea:
Johnson: On this particular application, Mr. Hepper thought it
would be appropriate that we read Item #10 on the Findings of
Fact and Conclusions of Law.
Due to the many objections, it i
pointed out that a conditional use,
which the property is located, is
conditions placed on the use but it
are indication or evidence that the
or general welfare; the objections
not constitute such a situation.
s specifically concluded and
if allowed in the district in
an allowed use but it may have
cannot be denied unless there
use would incur a life safety
put before the Commission did
ITEM #8: PUBLIC HERRING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONRL USE PERMIT BY
KAREN & WAYNE FDRREY:
Johnson: I will open the Public Hearing.
Wayne Forrey, 3045 Thayen Place, Boise, was sworn by the
attorney.
MERIDIAN PLANNING 8 ZONING
AUGUST 11, 1992
PAGE 6
Forrey: My wife and I have been looking for an older home to
convert to an office for ourselves and possibly one other tenant.
Right after I purchased the property I contact the Highway
District and asked them the status of Williams Street because
there is no access on Franklin. They indicated it was unknown to
them what the official status was. I wrote a letter to RCHD
asking about curb, gutter, sidewalk, etc. I indicated in that
letter that I want to put in curb, gutter and sidewalk on the
portion that abuts Williams if they can decide the future status
of that road. It's all gravel and no-one has done anything with
it. I don't have any problems with the conditions, I think they
are good. Just those site specific requirements from the Highway
District that pertain to Williams and actually if the Highway
District wants 10' out front for future expansion of Franklin,
that's fine, although I asked them about that and there's nothing
in the planning for any improvement to Franklin.
Johnson: What is the use of the immediate contiguous properties?
Forrey: On the east side it's the Home Federal Bank and on the
west side it's a rental property and the owner of that property
also owns the Tangles Beauty Parlor. Farther west of that is the
Meridian Office Plaza.
Johnson: None of those areas other than those developed with
paving have any access off Franklin do they?
Forrey: The Tangles has access. The rental property and the
property we bought do not have a curb cut on Franklin.
Discussion.
Forrey: The other thing in their comment #1, they are asking us
to pave from the curb to the centerline on the south side and
then also to pave twelve feet north of centerline. That might be
excessive in that, the other side of the centerline perhaps is
St. Vincents responsibility.
Johnson: Have you read the City Engineer's comments and do you
have any problem with them?
Forrey: Yes and I have no problems.
Johnson: Your business, does it generate much in the way of
traffic?
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING
AUGUST 11, 1992
PAGE 7
Forrey: No. I had one visitor in the first quarter of this year
and that's about it. There is parking far employees and this
tenant.
Rountree: What's the status of the parking, is it surfaced or is
it turf?
Forrey: It's lawn.
Johnson: Thank you. Anyone else to testify? No response. I
will close the Public Hearing.
Rountree: Just a point about ACHD's comments, they are not
terribly inconsistent with what they have told us about some
situations in Old Town as well, that they don't have any answers
for us and I don't see that this is any different.
The Motion was made by Rountree and seconded by Hepper to have
the attorney prepare Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law with
a favorable recommendation to the City Council, with one of the
conditions in the Findings of Fact addressing waiving of RCHD's
comments until such time as the status of Williams Street can be
resolved.
Motion Carried: Hepper - Yea; Rountree - Yea; Johnson - Yea;
ITEM ii9: PUBLIC HERRING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT BY
R. T. NAHAS:
Johnson: I will open the Public Hearing. Is there a
representative present for this request?
Billy Ray Strite, 1087 River Street, Boise, was sworn by the
attorney.
Strite: I'm here on behalf of the R.T. Nahas Company. This
request I've run past most of the agencies, the only thing that I
find that may be of question to you folks is comments made by the
City Engineer. On Sheet 3 of your packet comments relative to
the intersection and future signalization. I believe that the
signal will still be installed at latest spring of 1993. The
reason for the evaluation today is not so much from traffic
numbers or volumes but the problem with that westerly leg coming
off just south of Meridian Road, they are having a little
difficulty trying to figure out how they are going to handle
that. This particular project, I'm told that the number
generated by this would have probably absolutely no affect on the
potential signalization.
MERIDIAN PLANNING 8 ZONING
AUGUST 11, 1992
PAGE B
You might also note that ACRD makes no comment relative to the
traffic there. I think Gary being out here and seeing what
happens there and I myself went out there today for lunch just to
see what it was like and it's pretty miserable. We have no
problems with anything else that has be placed before us. I will
be happy to answer any questions you have.
Clerk Niemann: CH2M Hill is holding a public information meeting
on August 25th from 6:00 - 8:00 P. M. here at City Hall.
Rountree: With respect to the one comment Gary made about
sharing common access with Chevron Gas and Convenience Store, has
that been resolved with Nahas or whoever owns that piece of
property?
St rite: Yes sir.
Rountree: When would you expect to open?
Strite: I understand, weather permitting they would like to have
a spring opening. I think that the way things are going today if
we get through this process we've got another thirty to sixty
days. Start construction probably early spring.
Johnson: Anyone else to testify? No response. I will close the
public hearing.
The Motion was made by Hepper and seconded by Rountree to have
the City Attorney prepare Findings of Fact and Conclusions of
Law.
Motion Carried: Hepper - Yea; Rountree - Yea; Johnson - Yea;
The Motion was made by Hepper and seconded by Rountree to pass on
a favorable recommendation to the City Council.
Motion Carried: Hepper,- Yea; Rountree - Yea; Johnson - Yea;
ITEM X10: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT BY
GARY FRRNSWORTH:
Johnson: I will open the public hearing. Is there a
representative present for this request?
Oscar Saavedera, 355 S. 3rd St., Boise, was sworn by the
attorney.
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING
AUGUST 11, 1992
PAGE 9
Saavedera: I'm representing Gary Farnsworth, I am the architect
on the project. I have reviewed the comments from the City
Engineer. Regarding the water services, he's asking us to where
the water would be coming from and most likely we will be going
towards Cherry Lane on the north side where there is water
service at that point. As far as item #3 - the sewer - Mr.
Farnsworth is discussing this matter with the owner of the
property. #6 - the property is totally owned by Maverick but a
portion of it has not been developed and that's a portion that
Mr. Farnsworth will be leasing from the Maverick Co.. It will be
a lease with a possible purchase. Rs far as the 39 foot access
easement that's shown, the 25' was with regard to - it had a
fifteen foot setback which left it approx. 25' remaining on that
easement and that's why that plat shows it that way. Any of the
other comments we don't see any problem with meeting those
regulations.
Rountree: We don't have a particularly good drawing of how this
relates to the area that was just rezoned on Linder and how it
relates to the rest of the Vineyards Subdivision Development and
what the potential conflict might be with vacuums in peoples
backyards, if in fact that's the case. Could you address that?
Saavedera: The owner has been speaking to the developer and
there has been talk about a fence that would be constructed on
the south and west properties I believe.
Rountree: Which portions of this property would be bordered by
residential?
Saavedera: The west and the south.
Discussion on boundaries.
Rountree: You will have landscaping between this and the next
subdivided commercial lot?
Saavedera: Yes.
Hepper: Is there going to be any automatic bays in this or is it
strictly hand?
Saavedera: Right now there are four bays that are just hand but
the owner is considering making one of those an automatic.
Johnson: How much property are we actually going to utilize for
this?
MERIDIRN PLANNING & ZONING
RUGUST il, 1992
PAGE 10
Saavedera: It's 1/2 acre.
Johnson: Rre those vacuums right
or they kind of back a ways?
up to the edge of the property
Saavedera: I would say the vacuums are at least a good sixty
feet from the south property line. Presented drawing of site for
P & Z review.
Johnson: Thank you. Anyone else to testify?
Richard Boesiger, 131 E. Williams, Boise, was sworn by the
attorney.
Boesiger: We just received a notice on this last week. We all
agree that we have no objections to the proposed use. We did
want to look at the plans to see architectural if it was a proper
building to fit the neighborhood. We attempted to get through to
Mr. Farnsworth but wasn't able to as he was out of town. My
intent isn't to slow down this process. We assume that if we do
have some objections after reviewing these plans we can bring it
up at Council. Basically we would like some time to look at the
plans and if we have any objections we will voice them at the
Council level.
Rountree: I believe this development was originally Boesiger
Development along with the rezone request for commercial on this
corner. If your concerned about design and quality of structures
on that corner now, why weren't you when you sold the property?
Boesiger: We had intended to have some input. The Mavericks
when they bought their corner lot, they took an option on the
second lot, this particular lot. We had expressed our interest
at that time that we have some input on the use and the
architectural design to the Mavericks. We didn't have the time
to get together and get that done.
Rountree: Is it your opinion that the development there now is
what you would a reasonable design that fits with the
neighborhood now?
Boesiger: Yes. The concerns get stronger as we go back because
the Church property gives us a certain amount of buffer and as we
move back into those future lots, those lots become closer and
closer to the residential. We still own those lots and will have
control.
Johnson: Thank you. Anyone else to testify? No response.
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING
AUGUST 11, 1992
PAGE 11
I will close the public hearing.
The Motion was made by Rountree and seconded by Hepper to have
the attorney prepare Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law with
a favorable recommendation to the City Council.
Motion Carried: Rountree - Vea; Hepper - Yea; Johnson - Yea:
ITEM #11: FINDINGS OF FRCT AND CONCLUSIONS ON REQUEST FOR
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT BY BETTY CAVANAUGH: TABLED AT LAST
MEETING:
The Motion was made by Rountree and seconded by Hepper to table
this until the next meeting which is September 8, 1992:
Motion Carried: Rountree - Yea; Hepper - Yea; Johnson - Yea;
ITEM k12: PUBLIC HEARING: RMENDMENTS TO THE ZONING &
DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE:
Johnson: I will open the public hearing. Is there anyone who
wishes to testify?
Don Bryan, 2070 N. Locust Grove, was sworn by the attorney.
Bryan: Questions concerning the tiling of ditches.
Crookston: That actually is
requirement that they t he the
was a little confusion as to s
fact the boundary line. This
take measures to t he the ditch
on their boundary.
an amendment, we already have a
ditches on the property. There
ome properties where a ditch in in
basically says that they have to
even though half of it may not be
Bryan: Concerns about fencing on developing ground adjacent to
agricultural ground. Explained - see tape.
Discussion - see tape.
Crookston: I think it's great that Don appears and voices his
opinions.
Johnson: I have a note here from Engineer Smith regarding tiling
of irrigation ditches outside the jurisdiction. His comments need
to be incorporated into this.
Crookston: We need to make a motion to add it to the petition.
Rountree: If I read this correct, it's just an amendment to
existing language in this.
Johnson: That's correct. I'm going to read this. "In light of
several recent problems involving the piping of irrigation
ditches I suggest the following be added to our petition for the
zoning and subdivision ordinances. The tiling of any irrigation
or drainage ditch not inside a jurisdiction of an
irrigation/drainage district shall be done so as to not impede
the movement of the amount of water crossing the property in the
open ditch prior to development. The pipeline shall have a
sloped bar-gated inlet structure and access clean out boxes at a
maximum four hundred foot spacing and at all angle points of the
pipeline." Any questions on that?
Anyone else to testify? No response. I will close the public
hearing.
The Motion was made by Rountree and seconded by Hepper to amend
our petition on development ordinance to include the statement as
highlighted on the paragraph before you from the City Engineer,
will he Page 12, Item 29.
Motion Carried: Rountree - Yea; Hepper - Yea; Johnson - Yea;
The Motion was made by Rountree and seconded by Hepper to have
the attorney prepare Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law with
a favorable recommendation to the City Council.
Motion Carried: Rountree - Yea; Hepper - Yea; Johnson - Yea;
The Motion was made by Rountree and seconded by Hepper to adjourn
at 8:50 P. M.:
Motion Carried: All Yea:
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
MERIDIAN PLRNNING & ZONING
AUGUST 11, 1992
PAGE 12
[i
MERIDIAN PLRNNING & ZONING
AUGUST 11, 1992
PAGE 13
RPPROVED:
JI JOHI N, CHAIRMAN
RTTEST:
JAC~,C NIEMANN, ,CITY CLERK
cc: Mayor & Council,
P & Z Members, Rtty., Bldg.,
Police, Ward, Stuart, ACC, ACRD,
NMID, APA, CDH, Settlers, Valley News,
Hallett
File (7)
Mail (7)
BEFORE THE MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
PIONEER INVESTMENTS AND W.J. BUCHANAN
ANNEXATION AND ZONING
A PORTION OF SECTION 6, TOWNSHIP 3 NORTH, RANGE 1 EAST
MERIDIAN, IDAHO
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The above entitled annexation and zoning application having
come on for consideration on July 14, 1992, and continued until
August 11, 1992, at the hour of 7:30 o'clock p.m. on said date,
at the Meridian City Hall, 33 East Idaho Street, Meridian, Idaho,
and the Planning and Zoning Commission having heard and taken oral
and written testimony, and the Engineer for the Developer, Jim
Reas, and the Applicant, W. Eugene Strate, appearing in person and
having duly considered the matter, the Planning and Zoning
Commission makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
AMBROSE,
FITZG ERALD
d CROOKSTON
Attorneys entl
Counselors
P.O. Box lT7
MeriClan, Itleho
B38AZ
Telsplwne SB&d81
1. That notice of public hearing on the annexation and zoning
was published for two ( 2 ) consecutive weeks prior to the said
public hearing scheduled for July 14, 1992, the first publication
of which was fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing; that the
matter was duly considered at the July 14, 1992, hearing; that
the public was given full opportunity to express comments and
submit evidence; and that copies of all notices were made
available to newspaper, radio and television stations;
2. That the property included in the application for
annexation and zoning is described in the application, and by this
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PAGE 1
reference is incorporated herein; that the property is
approximately 4.79 acres in size; it is located on the west of
Locust Grove Road and is adjacent to Gem Park Subdivision and Gem
Park Subdivision No. 2, and also adjacent to Chief Joseph
Elementary School; the legal description is included in the
application and is incorporated herein as if set forth in full.
3. That the property is presently zoned by Ada County as
R-8 Residential and the proposed use would be for a residential
subdivision and the requested zoning is R-8 Residential.
4. The general area surrounding the property is used
residentially; Chief Joseph Elementary School is adjacent on the
west.
5. That the property is adjacent and abutting to the
present City limits.
6. The Applicant, William J. Buchanan, is the owner of
record and he has consented to annexation.
7. That the property included in the annexation and zoning
application is within the Area of Impact of the City of Meridian.
8. That the entire parcel of ground is included within the
Meridian Urban Service Planning Area as the Urban Service Planning
Area is defined in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan.
9. That the Application requests that the parcel be annexed
AMBROSE,
FITZG ERALO
dCROOKSTON
Attorneys and
Counaeloro
P.O. Boa 147
MarMlan, Itlaho
838/4
TelaPhone 8881181
and zoned R-8; that the present use of the property is for a
single family dwelling; that the applicant indicated that the
intended development of the property would be for a residential
subdivision and has submitted a proposed preliminary plat.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PAGE 2
10. There were no property owners in the immediate area that
testified objecting to the Application.
11. That the property is in the NORTH CURVE Neighborhood as
set forth in Policy Diagram in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan.
12. That the property can be serviced with City water and
sewer.
13. Ada County Highway District, Central District Health
Department, Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District, City Engineer,
Sewer Department, and the City Fire Department submitted comments
and such are incorporated herein as if set forth in full.
14. That the R-8 Residential District is described in the
Zoning Ordinance, 11-2-408 B. 2 as follows:
(R-81 MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT:
The purpose of the (R-8) District is to
permit the establishment of single and two
(2) family dwellings at a density not
exceeding eight (8) dwelling units pre acre.
This district delineates those areas where
such development has or is likely to occur in
accord with the Comprehensive Plan of the
City and is also designed to permit the
conversion of large homes into two (2) family
dwellings in well-established neighborhoods
of comparable land use. Connection to the
Municipal Water and Sewer systems of the City
of Meridian is required.
15. That proper notice was given as required by law and all
AMBROSE,
FITZG ERALD
SCROOKSTON
Apomeye eno
Counselors
P.O. Box s2T
Merl0len, ICello
87NP
TalePftone BBNN1
procedures before the Planning and Zoning Commission were given
and followed.
CONCLUSIONS
1. That all the procedural requirements of the Local
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PAGE 3
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 annex land
pursuant to 50-222, Idaho Code, and Section 11-2-417 of the
Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian; that
exercise of the City's annexation authority is a Legislative
function.
3. That the Planning and Zoning Commission has judged this
annexation and zoning use application contained in Section 50-222;
Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code, the Meridian City Ordinances,
Meridian Comprehensive Plan, as amended, and the record submitted
to it and things of which it can take judicial notice.
4. That all notice and hearing requirements set forth in
Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code, and the Ordinances of the City
of Meridian have been complied with.
5. That the Commission may take judicial notice of
government ordinances, and policies, and of actual conditions
existing within the City and State.
6. That the land within the proposed annexation is
contiguous to the present City limits of the City of Meridian,
and the annexation would not be a shoestring annexation.
7. That the annexation application has been initiated with
AMBROSE,
FITZGERAlO
dCROOKSTON
Attorneys snE
Couneelon
P.O. Boz IZ7
MerlOlen, IOe~o
88E12
Taleplrone SBBJeB1
the consent of the owner and the annexation is not upon the
initiation of the City of Meridian.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PAGE 4
AMBROBE,
FITZG ERALO
6CROOKBTON
Attomeye entl
Counselors
P.O. Box 12]
Merltllan, Itla~o
838x2
TeleONOne BB&aa81
8. That since the annexation and zoning of land is a
legislative function, the City has authority to place conditions
upon the annexation of land.
9. That the development of annexed land must meet and
comply with the Ordinances of the City of Meridian and in
particular Section 11-9-616 which pertains to development time
schedules and requirements; that the Applicant will be required
to connect to Meridian water and sewer; that the property will be
subject to the Subdivision and Development Ordinance; that any
waterways and canals within the property will have to be tiled.
10. That proper and adequate access to the property is
available and will have to be maintained.
11. That the comments submitted by the City Engineer will
have to be met and complied with as well as the comments of the
Ada County Highway District (ACHD).
12. That since the Applicant's property is in the NORTH
CURVE NEIGHBORHOOD of the Comprehensive Plan, the annexation and
zoning Application is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan.
13. Therefore, based on the Application, the testimony and
evidence, these Findings of Fact and Conclusions, and the
Ordinances of the City of Meridian, it is ultimately concluded
that Applicant's property should be annexed and zoned as
requested; that the conditions should be those stated above and
other conditions to be explored at the City Council level; that
such annexation would be orderly development and reasonable if
the conditions are met.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PAGE 5
14. That any ditches, canals, and waterways shall be tiled
as a condition of annexation and if not so tiled the property
shall be subject to de-annexation.
15. That any of the requirements of the Nampa Meridian or
AMSROSE,
FITZGERALD
d CROOKSTON
Attorneys en0
Couneeloro
P.O. Bov lZ7
MMCIen, IENo
8.982
telselwne BB&N61
Settlers Irrigation Districts shall be met as well.
16. With compliance of the conditions contained herein, the
annexation and zoning of R-8 Residential would be in the best
interest of the City of Meridian.
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 VOTEDf~y ~
COMMISSIONER ROUNTREE VOTED
G`,
COMMISSIONER SHEARER VOTED
COMMISSIONER ALIDJANI VOTED ~ `~
CHAIRMAN JOHNSON (TIE BREAKER) VOTED
DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION
The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends
AM BROSE,
FITZGERALD
6 CROO KSTON
Allomaye end
Counsalore
P.O. Boz 127
MMEbn, 10No
83812
TeleplaM 8861181
to the City Council of the City of Meridian that they approve the
Annexation and zoning 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 Applicants
be specifically required to the all ditches, canals and waterways
as a condition of annexation and that the Applicants meet all of
the Ordinances of the City of Meridian, specifically including the
development time requirements.
MOTION: //,,~~nn l ~
APPROVED •y V'Y` DISAPPROVED:
I
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PAGE 7
BEFORE THE MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
WAYNE and KAREN FORREY
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
52 WEST FRANKLIN ROAD
MERIDIAN, IDAHO
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
The above entitled matter having come on for public hearing
August 11, 1992, at the hour of 7:30 o'clock p.m., the Petitioner
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:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. That a notice of a public hearing on the Conditional
AM BROSE,
FIRGERALD
6 CROOKSTON
Attorneys en0
Counselors
P.O. Bov l2]
MerlEisn, IOSKo
83862
Telephone BB&N81
Use Permit was published for two (2) consecutive weeks prior to
the said public hearing scheduled for August 11, 1992, the first
publication of which was fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing;
that the matter was duly considered at the August 11, 1992,
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 the property is located within the City of
Meridian; the property is described in the application which
description is incorporated herein.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW -- PAGE 1
II • •
3. That the property is zoned Old Town, which requires a
conditional use permit for the operation of professional office
buildings for two small professional firms which the application
requests.
4. That the Old Town District is described in the Zoning
Ordinance, 11-2-408 B. 10. as follows:
(OT1 Old Town District: The purpose of the
(OT) District is to 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, and
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 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 provide strip commercial
development, and must be approved as a
conditional use, unless otherwise permitted.
5. That the use proposed by Applicant is a specific allowed
conditional use in the Zoning Schedule of Use Control, 11-2-409
B.
6. That the abutting properties are used for commercial
purposes.
7. That proper notice has been given as required by law and
AMSROSE,
FITZG ERALD
d CROONSTON
Attorneys an0
Counselors
P.O. Soy ~Py
Mer101en, IENo
83&2
TalepNOne BB&N8t
all procedures before the Planning and Zoning Commission have been
given and followed.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW -- PAGE 2
AMBROSE,
FIT2GERALD
BCROOKSTON
Attorneys en0
Counselors
F.G. BoY ~2T
McNElan, l0e~o
83842
TelepNOne BB&N81
8. That sewer and water is available to the property, but
the property will have to comply with the commercial sewer and
water rates.
9. That the City Engineer, Ada County Highway District
(ACHD), Central District Health Department, Nampa & Meridian
Irrigation District, Fire Department, Police Department and Sewer
Department have submitted comments and they are incorporated
herein as if set forth in full herein.
10. That there was no testimony objecting to the
application.
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;
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;
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW -- PAGE 3
4. 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
is required by ordinance.
b. The use should 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.
d. That the use would not be hazardous nor
should it be disturbing to existing or future
neighboring uses.
e. The property has sewer and water service
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.
AMBROSE,
FIT2G ERALD
d CROOKSTON
Attorneys antl
Counaelon
P.O. Boa e17
Me~ltllan, IGNo
838/I
Telapnone 888-He1
h. That sufficient parking for the property
and the proposed use will be required.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW -- PAGE 4
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 of the City Engineer must be met and
complied with.
6. The requirements of the Ada County Highway District must
be met, except for those comments pertaining to Williams Street
which only must be met when Ada County Highway District (ACRD)
commences construction on Williams Street; that the requirements
of the Nampa 6 Meridian Irrigation District and Sewer Department
shall be met.
7. That all ordinances of the City of Meridian must be met,
AMBROBE,
FITZOERALD
S CROOKSTON
Attomaye me
Counealore
P.O. Box 1Y7
MarlOlan, IE1~o
83812
Telap~ona BBB-1181
including but not limited to, the Uniform Building Code, Uniform
Fire Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, the Fire and Life Safety Code,
all parking and landscaping requirements.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW -- PAGE 5
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
r
COMMISSIONER HEPPER VOTED `1fL ~---'
COMMISSIONER ROUNTREE VOTED ~-J
COMMISSIONER SHEARER VOTED ~/`
~
COMMISSIONER ALIDJANI VOTED '
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 approve 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.
MOTION:
:;,
APPROVED: DISAPPROVED:
AMBROSE,
FITZG ERALD
S CROOKSTON
Attomeye antl
Counselors
I P.O. Boz ~Y7
Merltllen, Itle~o
83BeZ
TelepMna 886L1B1
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 VOTED
COMMISSIONER SHEARER VOTED
COMMISSIONER ALIDJANI VOTED
CHAIRMAN JOHNSON (TIE BREAKER) VOTED
DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION
AMSROSE,
FITZGERALD
b CROOKSTON
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 with the conditions set forth in the
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.
MOTION:
APPROVED:
DISAPPROVED:
Attomsye and
D°°"'°I°" FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW -- PAGE 6
P.O. Soz IZ7
MerMl~n, WNo
BJM2
T~N°NOn~ bbbNbt
„-
BEFORE TBE MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
R.T. NAHAS COMPANY
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
LOT 2, BLOCK 3, CENTRAL VALLEY CORPORATE PARK
MERIDIAN, IDAHO
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
The above entitled matter having come on for public hearing
August 11, 1992, at the hour of 7:30 o'clock p.m., the Petitioner
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:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. That a notice of a public hearing on the Conditional
AMBROSE,
FITZG ERALD
d CROOKSTON
Atlorneye entl
Coonseloro
P.O. BoM X27
Merltllen, Itleflo
&'f M2
TelepMne B88 {~6t
Use Permit was published for two (2) consecutive weeks prior to
the said public hearing scheduled for August 11, 1992, the first
publication of which was fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing;
that the matter was duly considered at the August 11, 1992,
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 the property is located within the City of
Meridian; the property is described in the application which
description is incorporated herein.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW -- PAGE 1
3. That the property is zoned C-G Commercial with a Planned
Unit Development, which requires a conditional use permit for the
operation of a fast foot restaurant drive-thru which the
application requests.
4. That the (C-G) GENERAL RETAIL AND SERVICE COMMERCIAL is
described in the Zoning Ordinance, 11-2-408 B. 9. as follows:
IL-~~ IiCNN'HA1, RE~PAIL AND SERVICE COMMERCIAL: The purpose of
the (C-G) District is to provide for commercial uses which
are customarily operated entirely or almost entirely within
a building; to provide for a review of the impact of proposed
commercial uses which are auto and service .oriented and are
located in close proximity to major highway or arterial
streets; to fulfill the need of travel-related services as
well as retail sales for the transient and permanent motoring
public. All such districts shall be connected to the
Municipal Water and Sewer systems of the City of Meridian,
and shall not constitute strip commercial development and
encourage clustering of commercial development.
5. That the use proposed by Applicant is a specific allowed
conditional use in the Zoning Schedule of Use Control, but the use
calls for a drive-in window which requires a Conditional Use
Permit and the Planned Unit Development requires a Conditional Use
Permit.
6. That the property to the north, south, east and west are
used commercially.
7. That proper notice has been given as required by law and
AM BROSE,
FITZG ERALO
dCROO KSTON
Auomeye antl
Counseloro
P.O. Bax IY7
Merltllan, Itla~o
BSNE
TeleP~ona 88BL181
all procedures before the Planning and Zoning Commission have been
given and followed.
8. That sewer and water is available to the property.
9. That the City Engineer, the Ada County Highway District
(ACRD), Central District Health Department, Nampa & Meridian
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW -- PAGE 2
Irrigation District, Meridian Police, Fire Department and Sewer
Department have submitted comments and they are incorporated
herein as if set forth in full herein.
10. That no people submitted objections to the application.
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;
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 11-2-418(C) of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances
AMBROBE,
FITZGERALD
B CROOKSTON
Attorneys m0
Counselors
P.O. Box 12T
Merltllan, Itle~o
B8B12
TalePNOne 8881x81
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
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW -- PAGE 3
conditions of the area,
concludes as follows:
the Planning and Zoning Commission
a. The use, would in fact, constitute a
conditional use and a conditional use permit
is required by ordinance.
b. The use should 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.
d. That the use would not be hazardous nor
should it be disturbing to existing or future
neighboring uses.
e. The property has sewer and water service
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. That sufficient parking for the property
and the proposed use will be required.
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 of the City Engineer must be met and
AMBROSE,
RITZGERALO
B CROOKSTON
Attorneys an0
Counaelore
P.O. Box {27
Merltllan, IEeKo
&1812
Telephone BBBJ~81
complied with.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW -- PAGE 4
AMBROSE,
FITZG ERALD
S CROOKSTON
Attomeye end
Coonaelora
P.O. BOx 02]
McMtllan, Itlallo
83G2
Talap~one B8BJ~81
6. The requirements of the Ada County Highway District, the
Central District Health Department, the Nampa & Meridian
Irrigation District must be met.
7. That all ordinances of the City of Meridian must be met,
including but not limited to, the Uniform Building Code, Uniform
Fire Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, the Fire and Life Safety Code,
all parking and landscaping requirements.
8. That the planning and construction shall be subject to
Design Review.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW -- PAGE 5
AMBROSE,
FITZG ERALG
d CROONSTON
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
i
COMMISSIONER HEPPER VOTED~-
COMMISSIONER ROUNTREE VOTED
G`
COMMISSIONER SHEARER VOTED ~
cl ~~
COMMISSIONER ALIDJANI VOTED
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 approve 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.
MOTION:
APPROVED:
DISAPPROVED:
Attomeye ane
COY"eB10f° FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW -- PAGE 6
P.O. Boz /Z7
Merl0len, IEWIo
89M2
Teleptlone BSSJZEI
BEFORE THE MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING
GARY FARNSWORTH
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
DIRECTLY WEST OF THE MAVERICK STORE AT THE
SW CORNER OF CAERRY LANE AND CINDER ROAD
MERIDIAN, IDAHO
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
The above entitled matter having come on for public hearing
August 11, 1992, at the hour of 7:30 o'clock p.m., the Petitioner
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:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. That a notice of a public hearing on the Conditional
AM BROSE,
FI72GERALD
6 CROOKSTON
ArrOfneYe NE
Counselors
P.O. BOM X27
Merl0len, IENo
83M2
TelspMm BBB-N6/
Use Permit was published for two (2) consecutive weeks prior to
the said public hearing scheduled for August 11, 1992, the first
publication of which was fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing;
that the matter was duly considered at the August 11, 1992,
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 the property is located within the City of
Meridian; the property is described in the application which
description is incorporated herein.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW -- PAGE 1
3. That the property is zoned (C-N) Neighborhood Business
District, which requires a conditional use permit for the
operation of a four (4) bay self-serve car wash which the
application requests.
4. That the (C-N) Neighborhood Business District is
described in the Zoning Ordinance, 11-2-408 B. 6. as follows:
(C-N1 NEIGABORHOOD BUSINESS DISTRICT: The purpose of the (C-
N) District is to 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 the adjoining residential
districts. All such districts shall give direct access to
transportation arterials 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 use proposed by Applicant is a specific allowed
conditional use in the Zoning Schedule of Use Control, 11-2-409
B.
6. That the property to the west is used as a residential
subdivision; that property to the north is used for a residence
and agricultural; that the property to the east is a Maverick
Convenience Store with gasoline facilities; that the property to
the south is used for residential and a church is planned.
8. That proper notice has been given as required by law and
all procedures before the Planning and Zoning Commission have been
given and followed.
9. That sewer and water is available to the property.
AMRROSE,
FITZG ERALD
d CROOKSTON
Attorneys antl
Counaeloro
P.O. Bov 1T]
Msritllen, Me~o
83812
Telsplwne BB6N61
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW -- PAGE 2
10. That the City Engineer has submitted comments and they
are incorporated herein as if set forth in full herein.
11. That the Ada County Highway District (ACHD) has not
submitted comments but they may and they shall be incorporated
herein as if set forth in full herein.
12. That Nampa Meridian Irrigation District, Central
District Health Department, and the Meridian Fire Department may
submit comments and they shall be incorporated herein as if set
forth in full.
13. That there was testimonial comments submitted by the
owner of the adjacent Vineyards Subdivision; that the comments
were not objecting to the proposed use but desired adequate
protection for the subdivision.
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
AM BROSE,
FITZGERALD
dCROOKSTON
ATtomsye end
Coonaelore
D.O. Boz 12]
MerlOlen, IoNo
B3BIt
TsIeDNOns BBB MEI
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;
3. That the City of Meridian has authority to place
conditions on a conditional use permit and the use of the property
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW -- PAGE 3
pursuant to 67-6512, Idaho Code, and pursuant to 11-2-416(D) of
the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian,
Idaho;
4. 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
is required by ordinance.
b. The use should 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.
d. That the use would not be hazardous nor
should it be disturbing to existing or future
neighboring uses.
e. The property has sewer and water service
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.
AM BROSE,
FITZG ERALD
dCROOKSTON
Attorneys end
Counselors
P.O. BOY 1T]
Meridian, IONo
&9812
TeleDlwne 8881181
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
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW -- PAGE 4
general welfare by reason of excessive
production of traffic or noise.
h. That sufficient parking for the property
and the proposed use will be required.
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 of the City Engineer must be met and
complied with.
6. The requirements of the Ada County Highway District, if
submitted prior to City Council action, must be met; that the
requirements of the other governmental agencies shall be met.
7. That all ordinances of the City of Meridian must be met,
including but not limited to, the Uniform Building Code, Uniform
Fire Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, the Fire and Life Safety Code,
all parking and landscaping requirements.
8. The construction shall be subject to Design Review.
9. In the Design Review process adequate buffers and
fencing shall be required to protect the adjacent residential
subdivision.
10. The conditional use may be terminated if the conditions
AMBROBE,
F1T2GERALD
0. CROO KSTON
Attomays Antl
Counaelore
P.O. Boa IY7
Merltllen, ItlNo
8382
Telsplrone BB&~M1
stated herein are not met and the conditional use may be
terminated for cause.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW -- PAGE 5
AMBROSE,
FITZG ERALD
6 CROOKSTON
Anomeya anE
Counsaloro
P.O. Boz 127
Merltllan, IONo
83842
Telsp~ona 88&1181
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
VOTED'
COMMISSIONER HEPPER ~~J~~J,,,,,,pppppp
VOTEDG`-
COMMISSIONER ROUNTREE
VOTED w"
COMMISSIONER SHEARER
VOTED L l"
COMMISSIONER ALIDJANI
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 approve 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.
MOTION: ,~
J
APPROVED:~~ DISAPPROVED:
.;
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW -- PAGE 6
, ~
;
; .
•
BEFORE THE MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
CITY OF MERIDIAN'S
JULY 1992 APPLICATION TO AMEND
THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND THE
SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The above entitled application to amend the Meridian Zoning
Ordinance and the Subdivision and Development Ordinance having
come on for public hearing on August 11, 1992 at 7:30 o'clock
p.m., and the Planning and Zoning Commission having heard any and
all testimony that was submitted, which there was no testimony,
including the taking of judicial notice of matters of which it may
take judicial notice, and including its knowledge of existing
conditions and prior findings of fact and conclusions of law
adopted on prior amendments to the above Ordinances and having
duly considered all the evidence, officially noticed evidence and
the facts of the Ordinance themselves, the Local Planning Act of
1975, the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Meridian, the Planning
and Zoning Commission makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
AMBROSE,
FITZG ERALD
8 CROOKSTON
Attomeya entl
Couneelora
P.O. Boa 427
MetlClan, ItlMo
&7812
TelePlwne B8B 4181
1. That the Application was submitted by the Planning and
Zoning Commission and is an amendment proposed by the Commission
after holding special work sessions which were duly noticed.
2. That there are two specific types of amendments involved
FINDING OF FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PAGE 1
r ~ II • •
in the Petition which are 1) context, procedural, definitional and
text amendments to clarify and 2) substantive amendments.
3. That there are amendments that pertain to specific
parcels of land but there are no amendments to the zoning
boundaries of any Zoning District; there are two amendments which
add two new residential districts and two essentially commercial
districts pertaining to the Foreign Trade Zone.
4. That the amendments are legislative and do not
specifically involve the owners or users of any specific property
or of the specific uses of any property, except for the parcels
of land that are being rezoned.
5. That at the public hearing held before the Planning and
Zoning Commission there were no public comments or testimony or
evidence submitted on the Petition to amend objecting to the
amendments.
6. The amendment to Section 11-2-402 A. 11., of the INTENT
AND PURPOSE declaration of the Zoning Ordinance is to change the
mandatory language as it exists so that it is not mandatory to
integrate commercial uses into all residential areas.
7. The amendment to 11-2-404 C, COMMISSION, 3., Rules,
AMBROSE,
FITZG ERALD
BCROOKSTON
Allorneye end
Couneelore
P.O. Box 02]
MerlElsn, Idaho
8782
TeleOhone BB%ebl
Records and Meetings, is to make it discretionary to the Planning
and Zoning Commission to adopt by-laws.
8. The amendment to Section 11-2-405 B. 2. is to reflect
the previous Zoning Ordinance interpretation by the City Council
that grandfather rights shall not be transferred upon the
conveyance of the property.
FINDING OF FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PAGE 2
9. The amendment to Section 11-2-405, by the addition
thereto of two new subsections, is to adopt a procedure where an
applicant for a matter before the City desires to amend or change
the application or to change the approved use.
10. The amendment to Section 11-2-408 B. by the addition of
two new subsections is to add two new residential zoning districts
to the Zoning Ordinance to allow for larger lots with consequent
less density.
11. The amendment to Section 11-2-408 B. is to add two new
zoning districts that pertain to the Foreign Trade Zone to afford
protection from infringing uses.
12. The amendment to Section 11-2-409, ZONING SCHEDULE OF
USE CONTROL, A., Residential, is to allow family child care homes
and home occupations as a Permitted Accessory Use in the R-4
District; that it is believed that the existing restrictions are
too prohibitive.
13. The amendment to Section 11-2-409, ZONING SCHEDULE OF
AMBROSE,
F1T2GERAlD
B CROOKSTON
Allomeys anO
Counselors
P.O. BOZ 42]
MeriEisn, ICello
83812
TalePnone 888J1B1
USE CONTROL, B., Commercial, Automobile Repair Shop, is to change
the District in which automobile repair shops is a permitted use
and to change it to a conditional use for the reason that it has
been the experience of the City that these types of repair shops
can turn into junk vehicle collection businesses, and therefore
it is more appropriate to allow them as conditional uses.
14. The amendment to Section 11-2-410, ZONING SCHEDULE OF
BULK AND COVERAGE CONTROLS, A., is to add bulk and coverage
controls for the new Residential Districts of R-2 and R-3.
FINDING OF FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PAGE 3
;~ . ii • ~
15. The amendment to 11-2-410, ZONING SCHEDULE OF BULK AND
COVERAGE CONTROLS, A., relating to the Residential Districts of
R-4 and R-8, is to increase the lot requirements for the R-4 and
R-8 districts, due to the fact that the City has a large amount
of small lot subdivisions.
16. The amendment to 11-2-410, ZONING SCHEDULE OF BULK AND
COVERAGE CONTROLS, A., footnote 8, is to define how the minimum
lot size is determined so that streets, highways, alleys, roads,
rights-of-way, irrigation easements, and some utility easements,
are not included as part of the lot size.
17. The amendment to 11-2-410, D. 1. b., should be stricken
as it is in conflict with the amendment to 11-2-409, ZONING
SCHEDULE OF USE CONTROL, A. Residential, and the intent of the
proposed amendment was to allow home occupation and family child
care homes in the R-4 Residential District.
18. The amendment to Section 11-2-411, RESIDENTIAL HOUSING
STANDARDS, D., is to set the minimum square footage of houses in
the new R-2 and R-3 Residential Districts at 1,500 square feet and
increasing the minimum square footage in the R-4 District to 1,400
square feet; the reason for these minimum square footages is due
to the fact that the City of Meridian has an over abundance of
small sized homes within the City limits.
The amendment also changes the minimum square footages in the
AMBROBE,
FITZGERALD
&CROOKSTON
Attomeya an0
Counaelore
P.O. BOK 427
MerlElan, IOello
BSBA2
Talep~ona BBB-x481
R-8 and R-15 zones to 1, 301 square feet, but homes of smaller
sizes, down to 1, 000 square feet, may be constructed in those
zones if they are disbursed according to the percentages in the
FINDING OF FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PAGE 4
AMBROSE,
FITZG ERALD
6 CROOKSTON
Atlornaya antl
Couneelora
P.O. Boa <R]
Merltllan, Itlalro
838AY
Talaplwne SSSJ~S1
amendment throughout the subdivision.
19. The amendment to Section 11-2-411, RESIDENTIAL HOUSING
STANDARDS, pertaining to duplex sizes, is to establish a minimum
square footage for duplex units, and to state that a double garage
is a minimum requirement.
20. The amendment to Section 11-2-411, RESIDENTIAL HOUSING
STANDARDS, F., is to state that the disbursement of houses smaller
than 1,350 feet within the subdivision does not apply to the
Residential Districts of R-2, R-3 and R-4.
21. The amendment to Section 11-2-411, RESIDENTIAL HOUSING
STANDARDS, is to add a new sub-section numbered I., which provides
for manufactured housing; the provisions provide that manufactured
homes shall be considered single family dwellings and may be
placed in the R-8, R-15, R-40 and Old Town Districts; the
provisions provide for regulations of manufactured houses; that
there were no provisions for manufactured houses within the zoning
ordinance and such are necessary since manufactured housing has
become a viable housing option.
22. The amendment to Section 11-2-416, adds a new section
to be known as L., and relates to development agreements; that the
1991 Legislature passed a provision that enabled cities to adopt
provisions for development agreements upon the rezone of any
property; that such agreements are an appropriate vehicle to
assist the zoning and development of property.
23. The amendment to Section 11-2-417, is to renumber the
two existing paragraphs and to add three additional paragraphs
FINDING OF FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PAGE 5
which relate to the City only being able to annex and zone
property that is within the Meridian Urban Service Planning Area,
and that if it is not in the Urban Service Planning Area that the
applicant for annexation shall also apply for an amendment to the
Comprehensive Plan to amend the Urban Service Planning Area; that
the amendment also reflects that the City may also require the
owner or developer making application for annexation and zoning
to enter into a written commitment concerning the use and
development of the property; that the amendment also authorizes
the City Council to adopt rules governing the creation, form,
recording, modification, and termination of commitments for
development of the property, which commitments were entered into
at the time of annexation and zoning.
24. The amendment to Section 11-2-416, E., PROCEDURE FOR
HEARING AND NOTICE, is to adopt an expedited hearing procedure for
conditional use applications in the industrial and commercial
districts.
25. The amendment to Section 11-2-416, to add a new
paragraph K. , known as REVOCATION, is to adopt in writing the
existing policy of the City, which is that conditional use permits
are subject to revocation by the City Council; the amendment
establishes a procedure for revocation.
26. The action on 11-2-419, C. 2., is to remove the "self-
AMBROSE,
FIRGERALD
B CROOKSTON
Attorneys sne
Counselors
P.O. BDY sY7
Menoi.n, ia.no
exez
Telephone BBB.Npt
inflicted" idea that previously existed to obtain a variance. The
removal of the "self-inflicted" will make it easier for the City
to grant variances but the other requirements will still restrict
FINDING OF FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PAGE 6
AMBROSE,
FITZGERALD
B CROOKSTON
A~~omeys and
Counselors
P.O. Box OR7
MerlElan, Idaho
SBB42
Telephone BBB~U81
the ability to obtain a variance and the requirements will still
have to be met.
27. The amendment to Section 11-2-423, is to add to the
Zoning Ordinance the penalties that are contained in the
Subdivision and Development Ordinance.
28. The amendment to rezone Lots 16 and 17 in Block 2 of
Bowers Addition, is to reflect the actual use of the lots and the
proposed use.
29. The amendment to 11-2-425, is to reflect the addition
of the Foreign Trade Zone and to reflect what areas would be in
that zone.
30. The amendment to 11-9-601 C., JURISDICTION, is to
reflect that the Subdivision and Development Ordinance only
applies within the Meridian City limits, and not within the Area
of Impact.
31. The repeal of 11-9-604 C. 4 c., is to reflect that the
City of Meridian, rather than the applicant, now notifies the
adjoining property owners of hearings.
32. The amendment to amend the first sentence of 11-9-604
C. 9 c., is to reflect that the City notifies the property owners.
33. The amendment to Section 11-9-604 H. 1 a., is to
increase the number of copies of final plats that are required to
be submitted.
34. The amendment to Section 11-9-605 B. 3 a., is to reflect
an increase in the width in minor arterials to 80 feet from 66
feet.
FINDING OF FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PAGE 7
35. The amendment to Section 11-9-605 M., PIPING OF DITCHES,
is to reflect that there has been problems with the previous
requirement on piping of irrigation ditches where the ditches are
in fact the property line and the property line runs down the
middle or a portion of the ditch. The new provisions will supply
guidance for such situations, and still require the piping of the
ditch.
36. The amendment to Section 11-9-606, IMPROVEMENT
STANDARDS, A. Responsibility for Plans and Requirements, is to
reflect that any improvements included on the plat of a
subdivision are the responsibility and liability of the subdivider
and owner of the land being subdivided to install.
37. The amendment to the first paragraph of Section 11-9-
606 B., IMPROVEMENTS, Public, 14. Pressurized Irrigation System,
is to remove the authorization to the City Engineer to establish
rules and regulations and standards for pressurized irrigation
systems and substitute that any such systems have to be approved
by the City Engineer.
38. The repeal and re-enactment of Section 11-9-612 A. 2
b., is to remove from the variance procedure the "self-inflicted"
requirement; this has been too restrictive and this amendment
dove-tails the amendment to the variance procedure in the Zoning
Ordinance.
39. The amendment to Section 11-9-613, adds a new section
AM BROBE,
FITZOERALD
iCROOKSTON
Allomeye entl
Counselors
V.O. Boz 42]
MerlElen, ItlNo
B3M2
TelsV~one 8BBa4l1
which allows the City to withhold, and elect not to issue,
building, electrical, or plumbing permits, zoning certificates,
FINDING OF FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PAGE 8
AMBROSE,
FITZG ERALD
6 CROOKSTON
Attorneys end
Counselors
P.O. Box e27
Msdtllen, Itle~o
83802
Telsenona 88BJx81
or certificates of occupancy, due to violations of the Subdivision
and Development Ordinance or the Zoning Ordinance.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. That the requirements of the Local Planning Act, Title
67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code, including all notice and hearing
requirements have been met; that the Planning and Zoning
Commission has authority to recommend changes to the Zoning
Ordinance and the Subdivision and Development Ordinance.
2. That the Application was initiated by the Planning and
Zoning Commission and not by any individual or private entity.
3. That the Commission may take judicial or official notice
of existing conditions in the City, County and State, and of
governmental actions, policies and ordinances and of its own prior
findings in other land use Applications and those of the City
Council.
4. That the function of adopting and amending the Zoning
Ordinance and the Subdivision and Development Ordinance is a
legislative function mandated by the Local Planning Act itself.
Burt vs. The City of Idaho Falls. 105 Idaho 65, 665 P.2d 1075
(1983). That even though this is a legislative function, the
Local Planning Act requires that the procedures of 67-6509, Idaho
Code, be met and thus Findings of Fact and Conclusions have been
made.
5. That the Application itself is concluded to meet the
requirements of the Local Planning Act.
FINDING OF FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PAGE 9
AMRROSE,
F1T2G ERALO
d CROOKSTON
Allomaye end
Counaslon
P.O. Boz ~YT
MarlElen, IEeNo
89M2
Telap~one BBBJ~61
6. That it is concluded that there has been changes in the
area such as many smaller sized housing subdivisions developed and
the addition of a foreign trade zone which warrant changes to the
Ordinances and their substantive provisions.
7. That there have been circumstances which have arisen
which make application of the present requirements of the
Ordinances unworkable and too restrictive; examples of these
situations are the "self-inflicted" requirement of the variance
provisions, the piping of irrigation and waterways where the
property line is the waterway, and home occupations and family
child care facilities only being allowed in R-8 and R-15
Districts.
8. That there have been new developments and laws passed
which require provisions to be made to provide regulation
therefor; examples of theses situations are manufactured housing
and development agreements.
9. That there have been situations arise where the
enforcement provisions of the Ordinances have been ineffective to
control the violations and additional enforcement means were
necessary.
10. That it is concluded that the amendments are necessary
to improve the Ordinances and that they are in the best interest
of the City and its residents.
11. That there were no specific facts presented to the
Commission other than its own thinking and items that the
Commission can take judicial notice of.
FINDING OF FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PAGE 10
12. That the Commission concludes that the facts presented
and the officially noticed facts are sufficient to amend the
Ordinances.
APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts and
approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.
ROLL CALL:
Commissioner Hepper Voted
Commissioner Rountree Voted '~~9
Commissioner Shearer Voteci
Commissioner Alidjani Votedf,% ~ _
Chairman Johnson (Tie Breaker) Voted
The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends
AMBROBE,
F1T2GERAlD
B CROOKBTON
to the City Council that the Planning and Zoning Commission's
proposed Amendments to the Meridian Zoning Ordinance and
Subdivision and Development Ordinances be approved and adopted.
MOTION:
APPROVED: / ~~~IC~ -
DISAPPROVED:
AtiMneye end
Coune.lon FINDING OF FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PAGE 11
P.O. Box ~R7
Mar101en, IMIro
Q'N~7
TslePllone BBB~pE1