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