Loading...
1992 07-14 A G E N D A MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING JULY 14, 1992 ITFM: MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING IIII,D JUNE 9, 1992: (APPROVED) MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING HELD JUNE 26, 1992: (APPROVED) 1: FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS ON CONDITIONAL USE PEFS1iT FOR BEPTY CAVANAUGH: (TABLED) 2: FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS ON ANNEXATION & ZONING REQUEST BY L.B.PROPERTIES:(AppROVED) 3: PUBLIC HEARING: PRELIMINARY PLAT THE LANDING # 3:(TABLED) 4: PUBLIC HEARING: REZONE REQUEST BY JAMES THCd~1PSON: (FINDINGS TO BE PREPARED) 5: PUBLIC HEARING: PRELIMINARY PLAT ON KASTLE FALLS SUBDIVISION: (APPROVED) 6: PUBLIC HEARING: REZONE REQUEST W/PRELIMINARY & FINAL PLAT THE CORNER OF THE VINEYARDS # 2: (FINDINGS TO BE PREPARED) 7: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT BY GINGER BARKER: (FINDINGS TO BE PREPARED) 8: PUBLIC HEARING: REZONE REQUEST W/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT BY LINDA PADDOCK: (FINDINGS TO BE 9: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION & ZONING W/PRELIMINARY PLAT, STRATE SUB: (TABLED) 10: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT BY KAYLNY HARKING & TAMERA DAMS: (FINDINGS TO BE PREPARED) 11: AMIIVDN~7TS TO THE ZONING & DEVETAPMENT ORDINANCE: (DISCUSSION) PLANNING & 20NING MEETING JULY i4 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: Charlie Rountree, Tim Hepper, Jim Shearer, Moe Alidjani: Others Present: Vicki Welker, Mike Shrewsberry, Jean Klug, Emma Kubas, P. L. Crispelle, Mattie Thomas, Ella Peabody, Kelly Vick, Lou Wakley, Joan Wakley, Mike & gngie VanOrden, Jim 8 Norma Thompson, Mick & Nel SoRelle, Joyce Law, Ruth Wassmuth, Pat Fujii, Ed Fujii, Frank Thomason, Steve Kurka, Michael Packard, Joe Simunich, Kathe' Mitchell, Jerry Anderson, Ginger Barker, Guy L. Walker,KaLyn Harding, Tamara Davis, Wayne Crookston, Craig Grow, Anthony Hill, Donna Aldrich, Don Hubble, Kelly Vick, Richard Boesiger, Doug Hoy, Ginger Barker, Jane Davlin: MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING HELD JUNE 9, 1992: The Motion was made by Alidjani and seconded by Rountree to approve the minutes of the previous meeting held June 9, 1992 as written: Motion Carried: All Yea: MINUTES OF THE SPECIRL MEETING HELD JUNE 26, 1992: The Motion was made by Rountree and seconded by Rlidjani to approve the minutes of the special meeting held June 26, 1992 as written: Motion Carried: All Yea: ITEM ql: FINDINGS OF FACT d CONCLUSIONS ON CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR BETTY CRVRNRUGH: Johnson: Is there any discussion or changes to the Findings as prepared by the attorney? Rountree: I have a question with respect to the results of the Findings of Facts and based on the presentation at the hearing - would it be better at this point to table this and not go to City Council and in a situation where the applicant could apply for a rezone and then consider this? Johnson: That would be one avenue, the other avenue would be to explore whether or not it's properly zoned. PLRNNING b ZONING JULY 14, 1992 PAGE 2 Rtty. Crookston: I think it would be appropriate to table this item, give the applicant an opportunity to decide whether or not they want to go forward with it. By going forward would mean either they apply for a rezone and that particular rezone in essence could catch up to the conditional use application at the point where they are at the same level before this body and the Planning and Zoning Commission could make recommendations on both items and have them processed to the Council at the same level. The Motion was made by Hepper and seconded by Rlidjani to table this request until the next meeting. Motion Carried: All Yea: Chairman Johnson: We will explain this further after the meeting to the applicant. ITEM #2: FINDINGS OF FACT 8 CONCLUSIONS ON ANNEXATION b ZONING REQUEST BY L.B. PROPERTIES: The Motion was made by Rountree and seconded by Alidjani 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 - Yea; Alidjani - Yea: Motion Carried: All Yea: The Motion was wade 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 Annexation and zoning requested by the Applicant for the property described in the application and approve the conditional use permit for a car sales lot with the conditions set forth in the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and that the Rpplicants meet all of the Ordinances of the City of Meridian. Motion Carried: All Yea: ITEM #3: PUBLIC HERRING: PRELIMINARY PLRT THE LRNDING #3: Johnson: I've been advised by the City Attorney that we can take judicial notice of testimony already presented in the interest of saving time and in the interest of not being repetitive. However if you feel you have any information to give to the Commission please do so. I will open the Public Hearing at this time. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JULY 14, 1992 PAGE 3 Craig Grow, 4105 N. Suntree Way, Boise, was sworn by the attorney. Grow: I'm here this evening on behalf of the applicant who was unable to meet this public hearing. I will address any concerns or thoughts that the Commission might have. I understand that the biggest issue has to do with traffic and extending the development through to Waltman Lane. The applicant has asked that the Commission consider allowing the applicant to go forward with the condition that they will work together with Ada County Highway District to resolve that access to Waltman Lane. Rountree: Have you seen the latest comments from ACRD? Grow: No I haven't. Rountree: They specifically address the issue of Waltman Lane. They are recommending that it not be allowed. Read comments from Ada County Highway District. A) Terminate Waltman Lane at the east boundary of the subdivision; pedestrian and emergency access may be provided between Waltman Lane and the subdivision interior' B) Stub out a new Collector Street to the north or northeast corner of the subdivision, much of the property north- easterly of this location is still undeveloped and the Collector be extended out to Franklin or Meridian Roads as the property develops; C) provide a Collector Street out through the west boundary near the mid-section line. No direct lot access would be allowed. Grow: I can assure you that the developer will do everything possible to work with the Highway District in meeting those conditions. What he is looking for is an approval conditioned upon meeting those requirements from RCHD. Hepper: Have you seen the comments from the City Engineer? Grow: I apologize, I haven't. Hepper: They address that a little bit too. Grow: I was instructed by the applicant that they have reviewed the conditions of RCHD and that if this Council could give them conditional approval that they will work with ACRD to meet those conditions. We da have two accesses already in place in this development that serve less than 90 lots currently. Johnson: Thank you. Anyone else? PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JULY 14, 1992 PRGE 4 Michael Packard, 1577 W. Pintail, was sworn by the attorney. Packard: Your not going to approve this until we get the access issue cleared up, correct? Johnson: What we will probably will end up doing is we are taking testimony and we make recommendations to the City Council. We don't approve anything at this level. Rnybody else to testify? Jerry Andersen, 1471 W. Pintail, was sworn by the attorney. Rndersen: Mr. Grow mentioned that there are two accesses to the Landing at the present time. However, in looking at the future plot, it appears that bath of those access will become a "Y" and go into one road for future development and I just wanted to make sure that you are aware of that. Johnson: Thank you. Anyone else? Anthony Hill, 780 Waltman Ln., was sworn by the attorney. Hill: I'd just like to know if Waltman Lane is still being considered as an access? Johnson: At this point, no. Thank you. Rnyone else? Donna Rldrich, 365 Waltman Lane, was sworn by the attorney. Aldrich: I am glad that they have considered that that is a hazard down that road. We have a hard enough time getting out that road. Johnson: Thank you. Anyone else? No response. I will close the public hearing. Rountree: It seems to me that before we make any kind of recommendation to the City that we ought to have the resolution of questions from the City Engineer as well as ACRD before us as well as the public. Shearer: It appears to me that this is a very radical change as to where that Collector Street comes into this subdivision, etc.. and a good share of the lots will have to redesigned and I'd like to see it before I approve it. Hepper: I feel the same way. PLRNNING & ZONING MEETING JULY 14, 1992 PAGE 5 Rlidjani: I feel the same way. The Motion was made by Rountree and seconded by Shearer to table this until such time as these issues can be resolved. Motion Carried: All Yea: The Motion was made by Rountree and seconded by Shearer that this be tabled until the next regularly scheduled meeting. Motion Carried: All Yea: ITEM #4: PUBLIC HEARING: REZONE REQUEST HY JAMES THOMPSON: Shearer: Wishes to abstain from this, conflict of interest. Johnson: At this time I will open the public hearing. Is there a representative or the applicant that would like to address the Commission? Representative present but nothing to add. No other response. 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. Motion Carried: 3 Yea; 1 Rbstain: ITEM #5: PUBLIC HERRING: PRELIMINARY PLAT ON KASTLE FALLS SUBDIVISION: Johnson: I will open the public hearing and invite the applicant to come forward. Don Hubble, 7025 Emerald, Boise, was sworn by the attorney. Hubble: The site is approximately 24 acres. It's bound up on the south by Cherry Lane and bound on the east by Linder Road. The project is proposing 71 lots, single family residential. The street system would connect from Linder dawn to Cherry Lane. It will be services by City sewer and water. The corner is going to be left out, there are two existing residences there that will be excluded. Crystal Springs Subdivision is on the west and Glennfield Manor is north of this. We've reviewed the conditions prepared by Gary Smith and have no problems with what he is recommending. The Developer will comply with those conditions as well as the conditions of ACHD. I will be happy to answer any questions. PLANNING d ZONING COMMISSION JULY 14, 1992 PRGE 6 Rlidjani: Did you receive a copy of the Engineer's comments? Hubble: Yes I did. (alidjani: Questioned the comment about square footage. Hubble: We have checked that and it will be 8,000 sq. feet. Rountree: On Cherry Lane do you propose to do the berm and fence similar to Crystal Springs? Hubble: Yes. Rountree: I see a potential problem with being right close to the High School and a fairly lengthy signal at that location with increasing traffic loads and changing in timing. With these two access points that close to that intersection, have you given any consideration of that and what might be able to be done with either the configuration of the roadway or some kind of a restriction or barrier to eliminate that. Hubble: We did consider that as a passibility. Due to that we provided for that reversal of direction at that entrance. Johnson: What's the distance from the signal light to the Cherry Lane entrance? Hubble: 900 feet. Johnson: Price range? Hubble: Roughly (115,000.00 to 5150,000.00. Crookston: The access to Cherry Lane, do you know if that lines up with an access on the other side of Cherry Lane with the Vineyards? Hubble: I'm not familiar with their proposed layout. Crookston: It seems to me address the question that Mr. Rountree had, it would be much better off having that aligned from a street from the Vineyards out rather than having one at that junction and then one from the Vineyards 100 or 200 feet either way from there. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JULY 14, 1992 PAGE 7 Hubble: Mr. Boesiger believes that that location could be really close and we better take a look and if we are that close we better line it up exactly. We will either line that up exactly or provide enough off-set that it's not going to interfere with traffic coming out the other direction. Hepper: Rre you going with pressurized irrigation? Hubble: The developer doesn't know at this time. Hepper: Just wanted to confirm the minimum home size is 1500 square feet. Hubble: No not necessarily. It will comply with the City Ordinances. Hepper: It says 1500 on your application. Hubble: Okay. That's correct. Johnson: Thank you. Anyone else to testify? Kelly Vick, 521 Longford, was sworn by the attorney. Vick: Is there consideration for the School system when these are done? Johnson: Schools are considered. We do have a letter from the school district addressing that. The City of Meridian does not have any control over what the School District does. Thank you for your testimony. Anyone else to testify? No response. I will close the public hearing. The Motion was made by Shearer and seconded by Rountree to pass on a favorable recommendation and have the Engineer look at the alignment of the street that has been discussed. Motion Carried: R11 Yea: ITEM #6: PUBLIC HEARING: REZONE REQUEST W/PRELIMINRRY 8 FINAL PLRT THE CORNER OF THE VINEYARDS #2: Johnson: I will open the public hearing. Is there a representative present? Richard Boesiger, 131 Williams, Boise, was sworn by the attorney. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JULY 14, 1992 PAGE 8 Boesiger: When we were initially approached on this proposal we weren't excited because after all we did buy the ground for the Vineyards Subdivision. Rs we got to thinking about it, we began to realize that as the Vineyard's Subdivision developed toward Linder Road, we would have houses that would be backing up to the Maverick Store and to that busy intersection and we began to realize that having this Church on a large parcel of ground would provide a good buffer between that busy intersection and the commercial and a residential. We got together with the Church people and we think it's goad planning to provide for a transitional use between commercial and residential and we think it's going to be in the best interest of the future homeowners in the Vineyards Subdivision to have that buffer. We would not be in favor of any use other than this specific proposal. We would like to ask that if for some reason the Church doesn't get built that the zoning would revert back to R-4. Rountree: If his latter comment is a concern, is that a part of the transaction far this purchase? Boesiger: No. Johnson: Thank you. Anyone else to testify? Doug Hoy, 1806 SE 5th Way, was sworn by the attorney. Hoy: I go to the Meridian Church if the zoning commission approves changes zoning we will be building have already got an architect hired We are not a real large church. We cars is all. Ten years from now we 60 automobiles maximum at one time Road. of Christ. Our plans are that and the Council approves and a church building there. We and getting everything ready. are looking at about 25 or 30 are looking at a maybe 50 to that would be utilizing Linder Johnson: Thank you. Anyone else to testify? No response. I will close the public hearing. The Motion was made by Hepper and seconded by Shearer to have the attorney prepare Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law far this rezone request with a favorable recommendation. Discussion - see tape. PLANNING 8 ZONING COMMISSION JULY 14, 1992 PAGE 9 A revised Motion was made 6y Hepper and seconded by Shearer to have the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law prepared with a favorable recommendation and that should the deal not go through the land use of the zone would revert back to R-4. Motion Carried: R11 Yea: ITEM #7: PUBLIC HERRING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT BY GINGER BARKER: Johnson: I will now open the public hearing. Ginger Barker, 2181 N. Sapphire Place, was sworn by the attorney. Barker: I've applied to put a one chair beauty saloon in my home. There would be one to two cars at the most in my driveway at any one time. Rountree: This will be in your home? Barker: Yes. Rountree: Do you propose any type of advertising or signage? Barker: I don't believe so. Hepper: Do you covenants say anything about a home business? Harker: No. Johnson: Thank you. Anyone else to testify? No response. I will close the public hearing. The Motion was made by Alidjani and seconded by Shearer to have the attorney prepare Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law far the Conditional Use Permit by Ginger Barker and to pass on a favorable recommendation to the City Council. Motion Carried: All Yea: ITEM #8: PUBLIC HEARING: REZONE REQUEST W/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT BY LINDA PADDOCK: Tohnson: I will open the public hearing. Guy Walker, 9119 Austin, Boise, was sworn by the attorney. • ~ PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JULY 14, 1992 PAGE 10 Walker: As you are aware, Linda Paddock now is operating the Inchworm Day Care facility here in Meridian. There is a backup demand waiting to get into her facilities. Therefore we are proposing another Day Care for her on the corner of 11th and Cherry Lane. In reviewing the ACRD and the City Engineer's comments I have prepared some alternatives to some of their recommendations. Passed out copy of plat to Commission. We feel that our original proposal outside of the parking along the front is still a more viable type of solution to the turn-around to go through the Day Care. Our reasoning far that is that 11th Street only has a stop sign on it. That stop sign would help with slowing down the traffic and controlling the traffic so that when people enter into the easterly part off of Cherry Lane, they are already going to be stopped or observing traffic off of Cherry Lane at that time. They would turn in and either park along the front then exiting on the westerly part. Explained parking - see tape. Feel that the nine parking spots plus the drive through is going to be more than adequate for the amount of children that are going to be there. She is proposing that her marketing is going to be for primarily infants up to three years old. There was some concern regarding the irrigation box that is sitting in the corner, that side is part of the public right-of-way that was approved with the Whitetail Subdivision and has already been approved by ACHD as far as the City and along with Deerfield. I did speak with the irrigation department regarding that and they are very dubious whether they would allow any kind of alteration to that alteration box whatsoever. It does not create a vision problem when you go up there. That has been determined by your Engineer and RCHD. Johnson: How high is it? Walker: Four feet. It has already been approved on the plat itself. Johnson: On your handout, are you proposing any type of direction arrows painted anywhere or is it just either way? Walker: Rbsolutely. There would be stripping of all the parking spots and as well as a marking of the entrance. Hepper: How many children would be in this facility? Walker: Maximum 35. PLRNNING & ZONING COMMISSION JULY 14, 1992 PRGE 11 Rountree: When you indicated that you had looked at RCHD's comments, we received two comment letters from them on this particular request. The way I read their specific comments is they are saying that the easterly curb cut on Cherry Lane be closed and the existing curb cut, the rest of that be the access to the driveway and that the driveway go in front of the facility and develop a loop in the vicinity of where the easterly curb cut is now. I assume by that they want access egress and so forth at the curb cut on Cherry Lane away from the intersection at 11th. I also read into this that they do not want access on 11th Street that close to the intersection with Cherry Lane and I can understand why. The other option they presented is coming off the furthest west access on Cherry Lane behind the facility and then accessing 11th Street further down. I agree with their specific comments about access. Walker: I appreciate your comments. I might make the comment that as you are aware on Cherry Lane there is a turning lane in the middle of Cherry Lane and if in fact vehicles are coming from 11th Street, stopped at that stop sign and are making a left or right turn, they are not going to be of any consequences to anybody entering the Day Care as is proposed. (Further Discussion - see tape) Walker: At this time we would request approval for the this zoning with the exception of a design that would meet the approval of the Commission and the City Engineer as far as parking and the loop which we could redesign and make the loop go around back. Johnson: Thank you. Rnyone else? Jane Davlin, 603 Lawndale Drive, was sworn by the attorney. Davlin: Inchworm Day Care as it is right now is about 15 feet from our property. When they gat their permit last time, they started work on a Saturday morning at 6:30 in the morning. I called Linda Paddock at home and asked her if she'd please stop it and she did. If they get this other one I would hope they would be a little more considerate of the neighbors. I am able to hear and see what goes on at the present location. On two occasions there was a child on the roof. They also allow children to go into the fenced area behind where the apartments are and get the toys that have been thrown over the fence. Last PLANNING b ZONING COMMISSION JULY 14, 1992 PAGE 12 school year I had to pick up a friends child at Inchworm, the child is the one that asked me to sign her out. Nobody asked me who I was, why I was taking this child or anything else. In their flyer they assure parents that they do check I.D.. When I heard they were going to open a new facility I decided to take a tour of the whole facility. (Explained further observations opposing - see tape) Alidjani: What time do you leave your house in the morning? Davlin: I only work maybe one day a month that I have to leave but I also when I get my child up for school if I don't have something to put in her lunch I run up to Circle K, that's around anywhere from 7:30 to 8:30 A. M.. Johnson: Thank you. Anyone else? Kelly Vick, 521 Longford, was sworn by the attorney. Vick: I do not live in the immediate area of Inchworm Day Care. But I did visit to see about enrolling my children at this facility. When I visited, I was also told that they are licensed for fifty but have 62 enrolled and they could take my three. That's not keeping under their fifty limit. I am the one that noticed the padlock on the bus, if they cannot make that door stay closed or whatever their reason is, then they should not 6e hauling children in it. I do work everyday and when I come home at five or five fifteen, there is a problem on Crestmont. There is a need for good Day Care. I was not impressed with what I saw. Johnson: Thank you. Anyone else? Ed Fujii, 4345 Pasadena Drive, Boise, was sworn by the attorney. Fujii: I own the property to the west bordering this property in question. What comes to mind right now is if they put this three car parking on the west side of that, I presume that means that that will be surfaced driveway there. The border between the two properties right now is a hedge. My question is, if they surface that parking lot I would like to see them provide some kind of irrigation for that hedge. Johnson: Who's property is the hedge on? PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JULY 14, 1992 PRGE 13 Fujii: It's on their property. If they choose to eliminate the hedge, we recommend a fence the full length of the border to separate the two properties. Our lot is a single family rental but I also have a storage shed there which I retain controlling use of. I have trucks, fork lifts, etc. running around in our driveway and I think there needs to be some separation. There is a headgate that leaks. Have had ACRD look at this and they cannot spend the money to improve so it will remain that way. Johnson: Thank you. Anyone else? No response. I will close the public hearing. The Motion was made by Shearer and seconded by Alidjani to have the attorney prepare Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. Motion Carried: All Yea: ITEM #9: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION & ZONING W/PRELIMINARY PLAT, STRRTE SUB: Johnson: I will open the public hearing. Joan Wakley, was sworn by the attorney. Wakley: I am disappointed that there is not a representative here tonight for the Strate Subdivision. Voiced concerns about impact on School District, additional traffic in school zone and on Locust Grove Road. Concerns about impact on water system, etc. Johnson: Anyone else? No response. I will close the public hearing. The Motion was made by Rountree and seconded by Alidjani to table this matter until the next regular meeting on August 11, 1992. Discussion. Rountree withdrew original motion and Alidjani withdrew his second. The Motion was made by Rountree and seconded by Rlidjani to table this matter until the next regular meeting on August il, 1992 with option to reopen the Public Hearing. Motion Carried: All Yea: PLRNNING & ZONING COMMISSION JULY 14, 1992 PAGE 14 ITEM q10: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT BY KAYLYN HARDING & TRMERA DAM S: Johnson: I will open the public hearing. Kaylyn Harding, 212 W. Willowbrook, was sworn by the attorney. Harding: Tamera Davis and I would like to open up a Day Care at 230 W. Idaho, Meridian. We plan to have between 13 and 24 kids. We plan to have a good stabile environment. We are planning on spending quite a hit of money to fix this home up to meet all codes. Recording to the Fire Department we can have up to 25 children. I'd say six to seven of the children will be infants and will be indoors. I received a letter stating we need to construct curb, gutter and sidewalk. None of the houses in this area have curb, gutter and sidewalk. There was a comment from ACRD saying that we need to keep the irrigation ditch in the back, my parents have owned the house for eight years and there has never been water in there. We wish to cover the ditch or run a pipe through it and cover it. I don't think there's a problem with parking in this area. Alidjani: What are your hours? Harding: Probably six to six. Rountree: There won't 6e mare than 25, is that correct? Harding: There will be just Tamera and I with one part time backup. There's plenty of parking along the back. Johnson: When you say parking how much are you talking? Harding: I think there is ample parking. Johnson: Where would the space be far dropping off children? Harding: In front of the house. There is also parking for three cars along 3rd Street. Rountree: I think our Drdinance would require that to be paved. Johnson: The current site of the place is really unsightly. The place needs a lot of work. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JULY 14, 1992 PAGE IS Harding: Well if it doesn't look good I certainly would want to take my child to someplace that looked like that. We plan on laying sod, putting fence in and separating the lawn from the parking. Rountree: Is the applicant willing to provide the required paved parking space for the employees as well as a paved parking area outside the street proper for the dropping off of children as indicated in the Engineer's notes and the City Ordinance? Harding: I would if it's feasible. I'd have to check costs. Johnson: Received a letter from Ruth Wassmuth in opposition to this request. Anyone else from the public? Ruth Wassmuth, 222 W. Idaho, was sworn by the attorney. Wassmuth: I am very much opposed to this. Presented a petition signed by 23 households in opposition. Johnson: This statement was on there and they read it and then signed. Wassmuth: The tenants are going to be the ones that have to listen and see this. Johnson: Again, are you telling me that most of these people are tenants as opposed to owners? Wassmuth: There are four tenants, the rest of them are the homeowners. This is a 1/2 lot, it's not even a full city lot. It's an older house and if they put the fence up as it states, that house is 21 feet from my house on the west side. The irrigation system is a good when and it does work well when it's used. The lot line would be just 6 feet from my west kitchen door. I'm not gone from my home all day long. There are a lot of good places for Day Care in the Meridian area and this is not a goad site nor is it a good location. Johnson: Thank you. Crookston: We need to enter her written letter into the record also. Jean Klug, 722 W. 3rd Street, was sworn by the attorney. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JULY 14, 1992 PRGE 16 Klug: I have some questions. Is it a 24 hour service? Is it a seven day a week operation? How many children and how many teachers? Can you guarantee the noise level won't be out of site? Johnson: No. Klug: How about security? I am not going to be living in fear of seeing a child being run aver because of no security. Johnson: It wouldn't be a twenty four hour operation and it will be 5 days a week. Anyone else to testify? Mike VanOrden, was sworn by the attorney. VanOrden: I'm a next door also to this corner lot. I welcome anything these folks can do as long as it is within the current State regulations for child care. We have one concern, our huge tree in the front of our yard is right where they are proposing to park their cars. We would also be willing to help them do anything to cut the costs in their paving. I agree with Mrs. Klug about the fencing. We would really welcome a fence between them and us. There are some neighbors there that support this project. Johnson: The Killians are the owners, is that correct? Harding: I propose to rent it from them, they are my parents. Sohnson: Who is overseeing the place now for the renters? Harding: I suppose basically I do, because I collect the rent. Johnson: That's not what I wanted to hear. Okay. Harding: Our intentions are to fix the place up. It is a mess and we don't like it either. We do want the current renters out of there. As far as the fence, we plan on putting up a six foot cedar fence up. Did you send a copy of the map to the neighbors? Johnson: Not sure what Jack sent. Rre there dimensions somewhere of the lot? Harding: No. There is a legal description of the lot. Johnson: Thank you. anyone else? PLRNNING & ZONING COMMISSION SULY 14, 1992 PAGE 17 Robert Crispelle, 306 W. Pine, was sworn by the attorney. Crispelle: We moved into 306 W. Pine because it was a quiet neighborhood. We'd like to keep it that way. Johnson: Anyone else? No response. I will close the public hearing. The Motion was made by Alidjani and seconded by Shearer to have the attorney prepare Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. Motion Carried: All Yea: ITEM #li: RMENDMENTS TO THE ZONING & DEVELOPMENT ORDINRNCE: Johnson: We will take a short break. Johnson: Called back to order. Crookston: Paragraph 2 is the old paragraph 3. Paragraph 2 was a change in the definition of lot. Johnson: I thought we were going to define irrigation easements elsewhere? Crookston: It's in the schedule of bulk and coverage. Paragraph 10, minimum lot size shall be determined exclusive of land that is used for streets, highways, alleys, roads, rights- of-way, irrigation easement, unless the water is conveyed through pipe or t he and included as part of the utility easements that generally run along the lot lines and land that is used for conveyance of irrigation water, drainage water, creek or river flows. That was rather than changing the lot definition. Then we changed the 7 1/2 interior side setbacks. We changed on Page 4, item 7, there was a flaw in our ordinance in one place it said accessory uses were allowed in the R-4 and in another place it said that accessory uses were not allowed in the R-4. I've moved it back so that they were the same and family child care homes and home occupations are permitted as accessory uses in the R-4 district. 7A was a change where we changed automobile repair shops from a permitted use to a conditional use in the industrial zone. PLANNING 8 ZONING COMMISSION JULY 14, 1992 PAGE 1B Johnson: This is in respect to manufactured housing. We are going to be getting a request for a manufactured housing subdivision just north of Cherry Lane between the apartments and Wheel Inn Mobile Manor. They asked me and I couldn't answer them as to what our square footage requirements would be. It will be owned and deeded lots. I guess my question is, if we continue to leave our sizes in accordance with the ordinance, that means that whatever the percentages are - what I'm saying is they probably aren't going to be that large. Discussion. (See Tape) Crookston: I think it would be wise to state that residential housing sizes do not apply to manufactured homes or specifically state that it does apply. Decision to leave manufactured housing as is for time being. Crookston: The next change is on Page 11, Paragraph 21, it just adds a provision for penalties that under the Zoning Ordinance we can apply the penalties that are in the Subdivision and Development Ordinance. I think Paragraph 24 is a change, we had language that said that the applicant shall notify the property owners, and the City does that so I changed it to reflect that. The last change is Paragraph 31, in addition to the penalties and revisions above the City may with hold and elect not to issue building, electrical or plumbing permits, zoning certificates or certificates of occupancy to any violations of the provisions of this ordinance or the zoning ordinance. (Discussion - Tape on File) The Motion was made by Rountree and seconded by Alidjani to advance the petition to amend the zoning ordinance and subdivision development ordinance to public hearing at our next regularly scheduled meeting and include the amendment with respect to neighborhood commercial zoning in the vicinity of Meridian and Rda Street. Motion Carried: All Yea: The Motion was made by Rountree and seconded by Alidjani to adjourn at 10:38 P. M.: PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JULY 14, 1992 PRGE 19 Motion Carried: R11 Yea: (TRPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) ATTEST: __ ~~ .~ ~~ ~ <l--, ~ ~-. 'JRCK N E71 NN, CITY CLERK RPPROVED: JIM JOHNSON, CHRIRMRN t BEFORE THE MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MAX A. BOESIGER, INC. & MERIDIAN CHURCH OF CHRIST REZONE APPLICATION NE 1/4 OF THE NE 1/4 OF SECTION 11, T. 3N., R. 1W. MERIDIAN, IDAHO FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS The above entitled matter having come on for public hearing July 14, 1992, at the hour of 7:30 o'clock p.m., the Petitioners appearing through Rich Boesiger and Doug Hog, 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 Application 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 available to newspaper, radio and television stations; 2. That this property is located within the City of Meridian and is owned by the Applicant, Max A. Boesiger, Inc., AnteROSE, FITZG ERALD S CROOKBTON which property is described in the application which description Attorneys entl Counselors is incorporated herein; that the property is presently zoned R-4 P.O. Box 42] Matlalan, Itleno Residential; the area in which Applicants' property is located is eauz TalepMne 8BB-N81 FINDINGS OF FACE AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PAGE 1 developed, and is being developed, as a residential area; that the property is part of what has been processed by the City of Meridian as the Vineyards Subdivision; that land adjacent to the north is developed as a convenience and gasoline retail establishment. 3. That the Applicant, Meridian Church of Christ, propose to construct a church on the property and have the property rezoned from R-4 to L-0. 4. That the L-0 District is described in the Zoning Ordinance, 11-2-408 B. 5 as follows: (L-0) LIMITED OFFICE DISTRICT: The purpose of the (L-0) District is to permit the establishment of groupings of professional, research, executive, administrative, accounting, clerical, stenographic, public service and sirnilar uses. Research uses shall not involve heavy testing operations of any kind or product manufacturing of such a nature to create noise, vibration or emissions of a nature offensive to the overall purpose of this district. The L-0 District is designed to act as a buffer between other more intense non-residential uses and high density residential uses, and is thus a transitional use. Connection to the Municipal Water and Sewer System of the City of Meridian is a requirement in this district. 5. That the property is contained in the WARRIOR AMBROSE, FIRGERALD bCROOKSTON Attorneys antl Counealoro P.O. Box I2] Msrlolen, ItlMo 83M2 TelepKOne BBSJM/ 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'~un orm 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 FINDINGS OF FACE AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PAGE 2 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. That that portion of the property where the church would be located does have frontage on Linder Road; that the portion of the property to be used for the church duplex is presently used as agricultural property. 7. That sewer and water is available to the property. 8. That comments were submitted by the Nampa Meridian Irrigation District, Meridian Police Department, Meridian Fire Department, the City Engineer, and the Meridian Sewer Department and those comments are incorporated herein as if set forth in herein. 9. Ada County Highway District, that comments may be submitted by Ada County Highway District and will be incorporated herein as if set forth in full if received, 10. That both Applicants agreed that if the church was not constructed, that the property be rezoned back to R-4. 11, That there were no comments given at the public hearing objecting to the application, CONCLUSIONS 1. That all the procedural requirements of the Local AMBROSE, PITZGERALO dCROOKSTON Attorneys end CAUnDeion P.O. Boa ~R7 MerlElen,1 Who 838,4 Teleplrone B86ss6/ 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 Applicants' property, 2. That the City has the authority to take judicial notice FINDINGS OF FACE AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PAGE 3 of its own ordinances, other governmental statues and ordinances, and of actual conditions existing within the City and state. 3. That the City of Meridian has authority to place conditions upon granting a zoning amendment. 4. That the City has judged this Application for 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 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. 5. 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: (a1 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 and other uses which support residential needs and a mix of those uses and a rezone of the subject property for the construction of a church facility is in line with that designation. (c) The area around the proposed zoning amendment property is developed in a residential fashion and the FITZGERALD new zoning would not be contrary to the allowed uses in BCROOKSTON the area and would be in line with existing adjacent developments in the area. Attomsye snE Counaelora roeo=~:T (d) There has not been a change in the area or adjacent Manoi.n,ia.no area which may dictate that the property should be eaeKx T`~°0~°~°' FINDINGS OF FACE AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PAGE 4 i • rezoned but the property will be developed in a fashion which comports with the existing development and the planned residential development in the area. (e) That the property must be designed and constructed to be harmonious with the surrounding area. (f) The proposed use 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 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. (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 of major importance. (1) The proposed zoning amendment is in the best interest of City of Meridian. 8. It is further concluded that the comments, AMBROSE, F1T2GERALD B CROOKBTON Attorneys entl Counealore P.O. Box KPT Merltllen,ItleNo exKx TslapMne BBB-N81 recommendations and requirements of the City Engineer, Central District Health Department, Fire Department, and Nampa Meridian Irrigation District, will have to met and complied with. 9. The requirements of the Ada County Highway District if submitted prior to approval, shall have to be complied with. 10. As a condition of rezoning, if the church is not constructed, the property shall be rezoned to R-4 Residential which is the agreement of the Applicants and the City. FINDINGS OF FACE 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 COMMISSIONER HEPPER VOTED~~ COMMISSIONER ROUNTREE VOTED e'~ ' ' -- TED ~ ~ ~-`~l~ COMMISSIONER SHEARER VO t '~~ COMMISSIONER ALIDJANI VOTED CHAIRMAN JOHNSON (TIE BREAKER) VOTED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends AM BROSE, F172GERAlD B CROOKSTON Attamaye and Gouneeloro P.O. Box ~Y7 MMEIen, Itleho B3M2 Telephone BBB~NS1 to the City Council of the City of Meridian that they approve the Rezone requested by the Applicants 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, Fire Department requirements, Sewer Department requirements, the Nampa Meridian Irrigation requirements, the fire and life safety codes, and the Uniform Building Code, and other Ordinances of the City of Meridian; and in the event that the church is not constructed that ~JO the property be rezoned to R-4 and not~,dther uses other than a church will be allowed. /,U.'~~( MOTION: APPROVED: ~ ~ _ '~/,..L DISAPPROVED: FINDINGS OF FACE AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PAGE 6 s BEFORE THE MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JAMES E. THOMPSON and NORMA J. THOMPSON REZONE APPLICATION 1310 EAST FIRST STREET MERIDIAN, IDAHO AMBROSE, FITZG ERALD BCROOKSTON Attomeye an0 Couneeloro P.O. Bow 12T MMCIen, IANo 83812 Tslsplrons BBBM81 FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS The above entitled matter having come on for public hearing July 14, 1992 at the hour of 7:30 o'clock p.m., the Petitioners 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 Rezone Application 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 available to newspaper, radio and television stations; 2. That this property is located within the City of Meridian and is owned by the Applicants and which property is described in the application which description is incorporated herein; that the property is presently zoned R-15 Residential; the area in which Applicants' property is located is developed as a FINDINGS OF FACE AND CONCLISIONS OF LAW - PAGE 1 residential area but several of the properties have been rezoned to commercial. 3. That the Applicants propose to have the property zoned (C-C) Community Commercial. 4. That the C-C District is described in the Zoning Ordinance, 11-2-408 B. 7 as follows: (C-C) Community Business District: The purposed the (C- D~strictis to permit the establishment of general business uses that are of a larger scale than a neighborhood business, and to encourage the development of modern shopping centers with adequate off-street parking facilities, and associated site amenities to serve area residents and employees; to prohibit strip commercial development and encourage the clustering of commercial enterprises. All such districts shall have direct access to transportation arterial or collectors, be connected to the Municipal Water and Sewer systems of the City of Meridian. 5. That the property has frontage on East First Street. 6. That the uses of the properties surrounding the subject property are for single family dwellings but most of the properties have been rezoned. 7. That there was no testimony at the hearing objecting to the Application; that no specific uses were mentioned far the properties to be rezoned. 8. That sewer and water is available and are connected to AMBROSE, PIT2GERALD 8 CR00 KSTON Attorneys enO Counaslore P.O. Boa 447 MnlAlen, IONo 83814 TelepMne BBB~esbt the property, but the use may require additional charges and fees. 9. That comments may be submitted by the City Engineer, Nampa Meridian Irrigation District, Meridian Police Department, Ada County Highway District, Meridian Fire Department, and the FINDINGS OF FACE AND CONCLUSIONS OF lAW - PAGE 2 Meridian Sewer Department and other agencies and those comments will be incorporated herein as if set forth in herein. 10. That proper notice has been given as required by law and all procedures before the Planning and Zoning Commission have been followed. 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 Applicants' property. 2. 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. 3. That the City of Meridian has authority to place conditions upon granting a zoning amendment. 4. That the City has judged this Application for a zoning AMBROSE, FIT2GERAlD B CROOKSTON 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 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. 5. That 11-2-416 (K? of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances A~~orneya antl Counselors V.O. Bos s2T McRtllen, Itle~o 83862 Telapnone BBBJ.181 of the City of Meridian sets forth standards under which the City FINDINGS OF FACE AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PAGE 3 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 property is in an area where commercial and office uses are likely to desire to locate and most of the properties in the area rezoned to commercial. The new zoning should be harmonious with and in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan and no Comprehensive Plan amendment is required. (b) The area is on the main street of Meridian where substantial commercial property is located. A rezone of the subject property is in line with that use. (c) The area around the proposed zoning amendment is developed in a residential fashion but has had several properties rezoned. The new zoning of C-C Commercial should not be contrary to the other uses in the area. (d) There has been a change in the area or adjacent area which dictates that the property should be rezoned and the area is very likely to be developed in an office or commercial fashion. (e) That the property is designed and constructed to be harmonious with the surrounding area. (f) Commercial 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 required. (h) Commercial uses should 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. AM BROSE, (~) The proposed use should not involve any detrimental PIT2GERALD B CROOKSTON activity to any person's property or the general welfare. A1lornaye entl `°""°°'°" (j) Development should not cause a significant increase R.o.eo..xT in vehicular traffic and should not interfere with MsriCI~ZtlNO surrounding traffic patterns in that the property has T°laplwne 8B8 J~B1 FINDINGS OF FACE AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PAGE 4 AMBROBE, FITZG ERALD S CROOKSTON ALLOmeye end Gounaelon P.O. eoK AZT M.ndi.n, ie.no ex~z Telepnone B88~~81 good street frontage. (k) That this rezone will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of any natural or scenic feature of major importance. (1) The proposed zoning amendment is in the best interest of City of Meridian. 6. It is further concluded that the comments, recommendations and requirements of other governmental agencies will have to be met and complied with. 7. That any signs placed on the property shall meet the Meridian Sign Ordinance and shall not be lighted so as to shine in the eyes of vehicles traveling on East First Street. 8. That since the uses of the properties are not known, any uses and the properties shall be subject to design review. FINDINGS OF FACE 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 COMMISSIONER HE.PPER VOTED ' ~_ _ ~ COMMISSIONER ROUNTREE ~ VOTED~_ COMMISSIONER SHEARER VOTEDiI~GNr COMMISSIONER ALiDJANI VOTED~.~EN~ CHAIRMAN JOHNSON (TIE BREAKER) VOTED Gt_- DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION AMBROSE, FITZG ERAlO 6 CROO KSTON Attorneys antl Couneelore P.O. Box 02] Mrxltllan, ItlNo 8382 TelBPnone BSBN81 The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council of the City of Meridian that they approve the Rezone requested by the Applicant for the properties 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, Fire Department requirements, Sewer Department requirements, the Nampa Meridian Irrigation requirements, the fire and life safety codes, and the Uniform Building Code, and other Ordinances of the City of Meridian, and shall be subject to design review. MOTION: DISAPPROVED: FINDINGS OF FACE AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PAGE 6 -~ ~. BEFORE THE MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION GINGER L. BARKER CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2181 N. SAPPHIRE PLACE MERIDIAN, IDAHO AMeROSE, FITZGERALD 6CROO KSTON Atlomeye end Counaelore P.O. BOK 427 Mer181an, IOeNo 83812 TalepNOne 888-H81 FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS The above entitled matter having come on for public hearing July 14, 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 Use Permit was published for two t2) 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 available to newspaper, radio and television stations; 2. That this property is located within the City of Meridian and the Applicant is the owner of the property; 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 R-8 Residential; that the specific use of a beauty parlor is not specifically addressed in the Zoning Ordinance. 4. That the R-8 Residential District is described in the Zoning Ordinance, 11-2-408 8. 2. as follows: (R-8) MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT: hfi e purpose of the (R- D25trict- iTo 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. 5. That the use proposed by Applicant is not a specific allowed use or allowed conditional use in the Zoning Schedule of Use Control, 11-2-409; however 11-2-407 D. 1. provides as follows: "When a use is not specifically listed as a permitted use, such use shall be hereby expressly prohibited unless by application and authorization (as provided for under Conditional Use) it is determined that said use is similar to an compatible with listed permitted uses. Such uses may then be permitted as Conditional uses.an allowed conditional use in the R-4 district pursuant to 11-2-409 B. 6. That home occupations are permitted accessory uses in the R-8 District. 7. That the property surrounding the Applicant's property AMBROSE, FITZG ERALD d CROOKSTON Atbmeye ens Counselors P.O. sox 12] Msrlelen, lea8o 83812 TalePBOne BBB-4181 is zoned residential and so used. 8. That sewer and water is available to the property. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCi_USIONS OF lAW -- PAGE 2 9. That the City Engineer has submitted comments and they are incorporated herein as if set forth in full herein. 10. That the Ada County Highway District (ACHO) has not submitted comments but they may and they shall be incorporated herein as if set forth in full herein. 11. 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. 12. That there were no people testifying or submitting objections to the Application, CONCLUSIONS AM BROSE, FITZGERALO 6 CROOKSTON 4llomsye ~nE Couneelon P.O. BOY KZT MM01~n, IOSNo BJMZ Telepftona BBBJ181 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 67-5512, Idaho Code, and pursuant to 11-2-418(D) of FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW -- PAGE 3 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 or accessory 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. qM BROSE, FII2G ERALD 6CROOKSTON gltomera and Cooneelon P.O. Box e21 Merltllen, ItlNo 83N2 Telephone BB&HEt 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. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW -- PAGE 4 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. 7. That all ordinances of the City of Meridian must be met, AMBROGE, FITZG ERALD 6 CROOKSTON Attorneys Ntl CounNlora P.O. Box 127 MerlOlAn, IENo B3E12 TslspMns BBBJIBI including but not limited to, the Uniform Building Code, Uniform Fire Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, Uniform Electrical 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 CA! L COMMISSIONER HEPPER VOTED~~~ COMMISSIONER ROUNTREE VOTE D COMMISSIONER SHEARER VOTED `t iS~-u~ I Q ~ ~'-`~'~ VOTED COMMISSIONER ALIDJAN , . CHAIRMAN JOHNSON (TIE BREAKER) VOTED ~,/e-ti~._ DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION AM BROSE, FIT2GERALD 6 CROOKSTON Atlomeye and Counselors P.O. Box s27 Merltllen, IENo 83N2 TelaoNOne BSB-4181 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: ~Y~~~' DISAPPROVED: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW -- PAGE 6 ,- BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN LINDA PADDOCK REZONE AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1131 WEST CHERRY LANE MERIDIAN, IDAHO AMBROSE, FITZOERALD 80ROOKSTON ANOmaye Antl Counselors P.O. Buz IY7 MerltllAn, IWKo ex,x TslpMne BBBJ~E1 FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS The above entitled matter having come on for public hearing July 14, 1992, 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 Application and the Conditional Use Permit 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 available to newspaper, radio and television stations; 2. That this property is located within the City of Meridian and the Applicant is the owner of record of the property which property is described in the application which description is incorporated herein; that the property is now zoned R-4; the area in which Applicant's property is located is developed as a R-4 Residential; that the property to the east is zoned L-0 and is used for dental offices; the property to the north and west is residential property; the residential developments in Whitetail, Deerfield Manor, and field of Dreams subdivisions are new and just being completed; the property to the south is Meridian Middle School. 3. That the Applicant requests that the property be re- zoned from R-4 to L-0 Limited Office; that the Applicant has submitted a Conditional Use application for the operation of a day care center; that a day care center is not a permitted use in the R-4 District; the Limited Office Zone requires 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 if the rezone is granted; that such use requires a conditional use permit in any zone where allowed. 4. That the L-0 District is described in the Zoning Ordinance, 11-2-408 B. 5 as follows: (L-0) LIMITED OFFICE DISTRICT: The purpose of the (L- 0) District is to permit the establishment of groupings of professional, research, executive, administrative, accounting, clerical, stenographic, public service and similar uses. Research uses shall not involve heavy testing operations of any kind or product manufacturing of such a nature to create noise, vibration or emissions of a nature offensive to the overall purpose of this district. The L-0 District is designed to act as a buffer between other more intense non-residential uses and high density residential uses, and is thus a transitional use. Connection to the Municipal Water and Sewer System of the City of Meridian is a requirement in this district. AMBROBE, FIRGERALD BCROOKSTON Attorneys an0 COUneelwe P.O. Bor ll] MsrlElan, IOMo B3M2 Talspftone BBBy181 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: u LI "Definition: The neighborhood is a residential area with un; o'-'~m cFaracteristics 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. That the use proposed by the Applicant, if rezoned, is set forth above, which is to provide a day care center for 35 children between the ages of infant to three years of age. 7. That the subject property has previously been used as a residence; that the structure on the premises is designed as a single-family dwelling; that the property has no irrigation canals but does have an irrigation facility on the property which is a diversion box; that there are no visible hazardous areas on the property. 8. That access to the property is proposed to be from AMBROSE, FIIZGERALO B CROOKSTON Attomsye.na Counselors F.G. BOY eYT MMEISn. IONo ex~s Tslaplgne BBBM61 Cherry Lane and the property abuts Cherry Lane; Cherry Lane is a principal arterial and carries a substantial amount of traffic. 9. That the Applicant, in her drawing of the proposed layout of the facility, proposes to have two access points to Cherry Lane; the eastern access is a very short distance from the 11th street intersection with Cherry Lane; that vehicular access would be a problem and the proposed use, or any use allowed in the L-0 District, requires better access design. 10. That sewer and water is already connected to the property. 11. The City Engineer, Central District Health Department, Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District, Meridian Fire, Sewer, and Police Departments submitted comments which are incorporated herein as if set forth in full herein. 12. That Ada County Highway District submitted comments which are incorporated herein as if set forth in full herein; that the comments indicate that access as proposed by the Applicant is not acceptable and that the parking in the front was insufficiently designed. 13. That the residential subdivision in which the property is located was approved with in the past year and one-half; that there is residential construction occurring at the present time on the lot adjacent to the north of Applicant's property. 14. That other than the dental office on the property east of the subject property there is no Limited Office or commercial property in the area; that there is a church farther to the west of Applicant's property. CONCLUSIONS AMBROSE, FIT2GERALD B CROOKSTON Attorneys entl Counselors P.O. Box X47 MMtllan, IONo aae~z TeleP~otre SS&MSl 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 Applicants' property. 2. 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. 3. That the City of Meridian has authority to place conditions upon granting a zoning amendment, 4. That the City has judged this Application for 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 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. 5. That Section 11-2-416 A, states in part as follows: "When the public necessity, convenience, general welfare or zoning and development practice require, the Council . may amend, supplement, change, or repeal the regulations, restrictions, and boundaries or classification or property as well as the regulations and provisions of this Ordinance." 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 ~-0 zoning would be harmonious with and in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan since the property is included in the CAIRNS Neighborhood and the Comprehensive Plan describes a neighborhood as a residential area served by an elementary school or a small convenience center or a local park. b) The area is not intended to be rezoned in the future and the specific property and subdivision in which the land is located was developed in an R-4 district as a residential subdivision within the last year or year and one-half. AMBROSE, FITZG ERALD dCROOKSTON Mtomeye end Counselors I P.O. BOr t27 Merlolen, ICelq e7e+z Taleplwne 8884171 (c) The area included in the proposed zoning amendment is not intended to be developed in the fashion that would be allowed under the proposed new zoning as the subdivision in which the Applicant's property is located was just recently approved as a residential subdivision as was the land that is adjacent to the north of the dental office. {d) There has been no changes in the area or adjacent areas which dictate that the property should be rezoned. The area is developed in the R-4 fashion. (e) That any L-0 use would not be harmonious with the surrounding area, which is developed in the R-4 fashion and would change the essential character of the area. (f) Any L-0 use would not be hazardous to the existing or future uses of the neighborhood but could be disturbing to the property owners in the adjacent subdivisions. (g) The property, whether developed in the R-4 or L-0 fashion, would be able to be adequately served with most public facilities. (h) L-0 development 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 L-0 development could involve a use detrimental to the R-4 developed property in the area or the general welfare of the area in that the traffic would be increased more than it would be under R-4 development. (j) Development in the L-O district, and particularly as planned by the Applicant, would cause an increase in vehicular traffic over and above what the traffic increase would be if developed as R-4. (k) That a rezone would not result in the destruction, loss or damage of any natural or scenic feature of major importance. (1) The proposed zoning amendment is not in the best interest of City of Meridian. 7. The zoning and development practice of the City, which is a concern under 11-2-416 A, dictates that the property should not be rezoned at this time; the surrounding areas have just very recently been approved and developed in an R-4 fashion. 8. That the City has judged this Application for a zoning AMBROSE, FITZG ERALO S CROOKSTON Attorneys entl COUneelore I v.o. eo. azT Meritli.n, itleno eze~x TelepNOns BSSiM1 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 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. 9. It is concluded that the rezone is not in the best interest of the City and it is recommended that the rezone be denied; that the use proposed by the Applicant is not an allowed conditional use in the R-4 District, which will be the zoning of the property; that no specific findings or conclusions, except for this conclusion, need be made on the conditional use application as the findings and conclusions would show that such a use is not an allowed use in the R-4 district and therefore would require denial of the conditional use. 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 VOTEDL '~- COMMISSIONER ROUNTREE DOTED COMMISSIONER SHEARER VOTED ~ COMMISSIONER ALIDJANI DOTED cc~1~-~..I~ CHAIRMAN JOHNSON (TIE BREAKER) VOTED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission, based on these AM BROSE, FITZGERALO 6 CROOKSTON Attorneys and Couneeloro R.O. GOY ~R] Merltllen, IGNo &1BeR TeNprrone BBB"~~Bt Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, hereby recommends to the City Council of the City of Meridian that. this request for rezone be denied. MOTION: APPROVED:~~ DISAPPROVED :_ BEFORE THE MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION KALYN HARDING & TAMERA DAM S CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1830 N.MERIDIAN ROAD MERIDIAN, IDAHO AMBROSE, FITZG ERALD d CROOKSTON Attomaye end Counselors P.O. BoK {27 MerlCl~n, IENo B3B/I TaleP~ons B86~M~ I PRELIMINARY FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS The above entitled matter having come on for public hearing July 14, 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 Use Permit Application 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 available to newspaper, radio and television stations; 2. That this property is located within the City of Meridian and the Applicant, Kaylyn Harding's, parents own the parcel which property is described in the application which description is incorporated herein; that the uses of the surrounding property are for residential. bINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 1 3. That the property is zoned R-8 Residential; that the zone requires 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 R-8 District is described in the Zoning Ordinance, i1-2-408 B. 2 as follows: (R-8) MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT: The purpose of the raj Di- s'-trict i- s to perms-~ 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. 5. That the property is between Old Town and the Warrior Neighborhood but substantially closer to Old Town as designated on the Policy Diagram at Page 7 of the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. 6. That the use proposed by the Applicant is set forth above and the Applicant does not state in her application how many children she proposes to care for but did state in her presentation before the Commission that they intended to care for between 13 and 24 children. 7. That the day care use proposed by Applicant is an AM BROSE, FIT2G ERALO 6CROOKSTON Mlorneys end Counselors P.O. Boa IR7 Merlolan, loello 838e2 TsIePNOne BBB~MEF I r allowed conditional use in the R-8 Residential District. 8. That the subject property is presently residential and used as a rental; that the structure on the premises is designed as a single-family dwelling; that the property is not fenced but DINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 2 gMBROSE, FITZGER/ LD 6CROOKSTON Attomsye antl COUnNlenl P.O. Boa t2] MarMlen,ltlello eauz F I Teleptlone 88&4181 the Applicant has shown a fenced area in the Application; that the property may contain irrigation canals or facilities on the property. Inquiry will have to be made regarding hazardous areas or facilities; that the structure is an older home and in disrepair and may need updating to meet the building, electrical, fire and life safety codes. 9. That the property has immediate direct access to a residential street; an area for parking of visitors and as a drop- off/pick-up area for children is shown on the Applicant's drawing but it is shown as gravel; that vehicular access should not be a problem and the proposed use does not require greater acce5's but plans and areas for pick-up and parking and paving of such areas will have to be addressed. 10. That sewer and water is already connected to the property, but the use may require additional charges or fees. Also, the City Engineer may submit comments which will be incorporated herein as if set forth in full herein; that the comments may specifically address, in addition to the possible increase in water and sewer fees, the need for off-street parking and screening of the facility from the adjacent developments. 11. It was not stated in the Application or at the hearing whether the Applicants hold licenses from the State of Idaho to operate a day care center but this will have to be established and no conditional use shall be granted without such licenses. 12. That there was testimony at the hearing objecting to the Conditional use; that a petition signed by 23 residents in the JDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 3 AMBROSE, FITZGERALD 6 CROOKSTON Anomsye en0 CAUnselare P.O. Box X21 MsrlElen, lONo exAZ F TelapMne BBB~161 area was submitted to the Commission; that there was one person who testified in favor of the application and stated that the use would be better than the current 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. 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 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 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. 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 Planning and Zoning Commission shall review applications for Conditional Use Permits; that upon a review of those requirements and a review of the facts NDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 4 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 appears to be capable of being 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. h. That sufficient parking for the property and the proposed use will be required and the parking layout will have to be approved by the City Engineer and all parking and vehicle access must be paved. 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 although it is mentioned below that the Applicant AMBROSE, F1T2GERALD 6 CROOKSTON Attomaya and COUnaelora R.O. BOY X27 Menalan, leano exaz TeISONOne eBB-,M1 F I shall be required to meet all of the Ordinances of the City of Meridian, it is specifically concluded that the Applicant will be required, as a condition of issuance of the conditional use JDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 5 permit, to bring the house up to fire, life safety, electrical, plumbing and building code requirements due to the change of use; it is suggested, but not required, that the house be aesthetically and cosmetically improved. 7. That the City has judged this Application for a conditional use upon the basis of the guidelines and standards above mentioned 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. 8. It is further concluded that any comments, recommendations and requirements of the City Engineer and Ada County Highway District will have to be met and complied with. 9. The Applicant shall furnish proof of holding a license from the State of Idaho as a Day Care Operator as a condition of the conditional use permit. 10. Due to the many objections, it is specifically concluded AMBROSE, F1T2G ERALO d CROONSTON Allomeye end Counselors P.O. BOa 127 MMGW, ICMo 83812 TelepNOne BB81M1 F I and pointed out that a conditional use, if allowed in the district in which the property is located, is an allowed use but it may have conditions placed on the use but it cannot be denied unless there are indications or evidence that the use would imperil life, safety or general welfare; the objections put before the Commission did not constitute such a situation. 11. As an additional condition, if there are any irrigation or drainage facilities included on the property those facilities shall have to be tiled. NDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page - 6 u APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS The 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) VOTED ~ ~_~~_ VOTED ~` ~ VOTED~~~tYjiS'"""~ VOTE D Ct ~' f~-^--1 ~ VOTED_Z DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends AMBROSE, FIRGERALD B CROOKSTON Attorneys ano CAUnNOre P.O. Boz a27 Merlolen, IAMo 83M2 Telapnone BBS~az81 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 Applicant be specifically required 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: APPROVED:~~~~/, DISAPPROVED: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PAGE 7