Loading...
1993 03-09• A G E N D A MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MARCH 9, 1993 MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING HELD FEBRUARY 9, 1993: (APPROVED) 1: FINDINGS OF FACT ON REQUEST FOR REZONE FROM LO TO R-B BY B&W INC: (APPROVED) 2: CONTINUATION OF ACTION: PRELIMINARY PLAT ON CHERI MEADOWS: TABLED AT LAST MEETING: (PASS ON ~ CITY COUNCIL) 3: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT BY L.B. PROPERTIES: (FINDINGS 'I1~ BE PREPARED) 4: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR REZONE FROM R-4 TO R-B TO ALLOW DUPLEX UNITS HY JIM BANDUCCI RND BEDELCO, INC.: (FINDINGS TO BE PREPAREL 5: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION RND ZONING TO R-4 WITH PRELIMINARY PLAT BY CHERRY LANE DEVELOPMENT AND HAL HRTCH - PORTION OF CHERRY LANE VILLAGE/PRELIMINARY PLAT CHERRY LANE VILLAGE q4: (FINDINGS TO BE PREPARED) 6: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING TO R-B WITH PRELIMINARY PLRT TITLED PHEASANT POINTE SUBDIVISION: (FINDINGS TO BE PREPARED) MERIDIAN PLANNING 8 ZONING MARCH 9 1993 The Regular Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order by Chairman Jim Johnson at 7:30 P. M. . Member Present: Moe Alidjani, Jim Shearer, Charlie Rountree, Tim Hepper: Others Present: Bill 8 Viola Teter, Frank Mason, Leonard Rschenbrenner, Mr. 8 Mrs. C.L. Morgan, Dan Wood, Wayne Thowless, Don Bryon, Paul 8 Ferne Bockmann, Linda 8 Steve Winterfeld, Jim Banducci, Chris Roud, Walt Casey, Wayne Forrey, Gary Lee, David 8 Cherie Aubuchon, Randy Canner, Dave Stephens, Gary Smith, Wayne Crookston: MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING HELD FEBRUARY 9, 1993: The Motion was made by Alidjani and seconded by Rountree to approve the minutes of the previous meeting held February 9, 1993 as written: All Yea: ITEM #1: FINDINGS OF FACT ON REQUEST FOR REZONE FROM LO TO R-B BY B8W INC: 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: R11 Yea: The Motion was made by Rountree and seconded by Shearer that the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council of the City of Meridian that they approve the Rezone requested by the Applicant for the property described in the application with the conditions set forth in the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and that the property be required to meet the water and sewer requirements, the fire and life safety codes, and the Uniform Building Code, and other Ordinances of the City of Meridian, and shall be subject to design review and only single family dwellings shall be constructed. Motion Carried: All Yea: MERIDIAN PLANNING 8 ZONING MARCH 9, 1993 PAGE 2 ITEM ii2: CONTINURTION OF ACTION: MEADDWS: TABLED AT LRST MEETING: PRELIMINARY PLAT ON CHERI Johnson: Is there a representative present? Pat Tealy, 479 Main Street, Boise, representing Mr. Dave Leader the owner of this project. It was our understanding after our last meeting that we were going to get back with Wayne and ask for a definition of whether or not a townhouse qualified as a duplex. In other words we would have single family ownership on each side rather than rental units. Just tonight he provided me with a definition and it was right in the Ordinance. Crookston: It says, dwelling single family, dwelling consisting of a single dwelling unit only separated from other dwelling units by open space, which it would be difficult to have a duplex because there would be no space separating the two. Tealy: Again, we were just asking for the definition between a townhouse and a duplex. We felt that single family ownership would be the same. These aren't rental units. The other issue was the tiling of the ditch and I believe after talking with Wayne tonight, I don't feel that the ditch on the north would qualify as one that would have to be tiled for this development. It is not adjacent or contiguous to the property. It's some 15' to the north of the property line. I believe this Ordinance was created for ditches that either both properties laid within the right of way or there was actually a ditch going right down the property line. This is where there is a ditch some fifteen feet to the north of the property line. We felt this didn't qualify for us to t he this as part of your project. Again that was something that we were going to come back to you tonight with and your going to make that determination. If you can't see your way clear to okaying the town houses, we certainly would wish that you would approve the rest of the development and we would come back in then with a redesign just on that small culdesac where we had the duplexes, townhouses situated. This would result in only approximately three more single families being built on that culdesac. Crookston: Just for the Commission's knowledge, the piping ordinance basically says that if its adjacent or contiguous and that would mean adjacent or contiguous to the right of way of the ditch, if in fact there is a right of way. I don't know what the status of this particular ditch is, that might need to be verified. i • MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MARCH 9, 1993 PAGE 3 Tealy: This is a 12" pipe that supplies irrigation to another land, there isn't an actual right of way similar to like the Ridenbaugh or New York canal or a canal similar to that. This is just a local irrigation ditch. Again we would like to see you proceed with the approval of this subdivision subject to us doing something with that culdesac where those townhouses were located. Rountree: One other concern was access to a diversion box or irrigation facility and I think that was resolved with the property owner in question. Tealy: That's correct, it has been resolved. Johnson: We errored last time, kind of overlooked something. Hepper: All the subdivisions in the area out there are R-8 subdivisions with the stipulation that they not have any duplexes and that the minimum square footage not be less than 1300 sq. ft., that would be for Chateau Meadows and Gem Park and Hunters Pointe, Kearney Place, all those out there and I think that for the sake of consistency that we need to place the same restriction on this development also. That even though it might be an R-8 development, the minimum house size would be restricted to 1300 sq. ft.. Johnson: What we're trying to do is be consistent and we overlooked that. Dave Leader: I would like to have that flexibility to adjust to the market. I have a problem with this restriction. Johnson: When you get to City Council, I'm pretty sure you'll get that restriction. I'm just trying to alert you more less in advance. Rountree: I'd just for discussion indicate that we move the plat on to the City Council with revisions to the plat as presented to us striking note 3 on the plat with respect to designating certain blocks and lots as duplex lots and indicating that when it comes back to City Council that it has to meet our Ordinance requirements for lot sizes. The Motion was made by Rountree and seconded by Shearer to pass this onto the City Council with those changes noted and recommend that the developer bring the plot back so modified. Motion Carried: R11 Yea: s ~ MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MARCH 9, 1993 PRGE 4 ITEM #3: PUBLIC HERRING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONRL USE PERMIT BV L.B. PROPERTIES: Johnson: At this time I will open the public hearing and invite the representative to speak first. Wayne Thowless, Leatham and Krohn Rrchitects, 1735 Federal Way, Boise, was sworn by the attorney. Thowless: At your last meeting when this case was heard, Findings of Fact was requested on the site plan as proposed at that time. We are in receipt of those Findings of Fact and in further discussions with our client, with some of the adjacent property owners who had concerns about this project, we have since revised the proposed site plan. I believe you have a copy of that in your packet and I'd like to take just a few minutes to explain the rational for the changes made and exactly what those changes are and how they differ from the site plan presented previously. Rountree west had originally intended to develop an auto repair facility and body shop oriented north - south basically along east property line. There were concerns from the neighbors to the east and neighbors to the south that the close proximity of that facility, especially the body shop, would cause nuisances in terms of noise, light, odors and things of that nature to the residential uses in the vicinity. In the Findings of Fact it was stipulated that among other things the facility be oriented east-west as opposed to north-south and be separated from the east, the west and the south property lines by a set back of 150' feet. That would put the building basically right out in the middle of the site, which our client viewed unacceptable in terms of the nature of the use of the site as an automobile sales lot. Our client asked us to look at other ways of handling the facility and also explore the possibility of eliminating the body shop all together as part of the project. Shortly after we were instructed to do that, Rountree found another location for the body shop portion of the project and decided that on this site they wanted to develop now just a repair facility and also add some additional sales space to their dealership. The building has been oriented in an east-west direction but because we have eliminated the body shop, which was the most objectionable aspect of the project to most of the nearby property owners, we have now proposed a 50' setback on the east property line and in that setback would be nothing but vegetation. We would provide a landscape buffer between the MERIDIAN PLRNNING & ZONING MARCH 9, 1993 PAGE 5 building and the neighboring property. Rlso, in reorienting the building we have no openings whatsoever facing east. Per the Findings of Fact the one opening that would occur, the one access door on the south side of the building would only be used in rare occasions and would not be a primary access to and from the service facility. The primary access point would be from the north (shown on drawing presented) and from the west. (Explained location of sales room and repair facility on drawing presented - see tape) The one other change which we have proposed to the previous site plan is we now propose 8' tall ponderosa pines along the south and the east property lines in addition to the 7' wood fence. Those would actually, at maturity grow to a larger size than what was previously proposed. There were several issues directed to us by the developer of Danbury Fair Subdivision, Mr. Dennis Baker. I would like to briefly address those right now. One question that he had is what is the long range plan for the remainder of the property. It is the intention of the Rountree Dealership to over the course of the next three years pave the remainder of that lot as their inventory grows and they need additional room for automobiles for sale. At no time is it their intention that any of the remainder of that lot beyond the bullpen as shown on the site plan, be used for vehicles needing repaired, junk vehicles, etc.. Secondly in terms of future expansion to the facility they don't have any concrete plans at this time. They can't foresee any expansion to the building, either the sales showroom or the repair facility sooner than perhaps a four to six year time frame and if such further addition to the actual structures on the site was to be needed, at this point they would envision only minor additions either attached or very closely contiguous to those buildings. The wood fence would basically meet the criteria set forth in the Findings of Fact, it would be 7' if approved by variance. If not approved it would be 6', the boards would be abutted tightly so that no excess noise or light would penetrate the fence. Finally in terms of spacing of the ponderosa pines and the existing pine trees that are proposed to be relocated, the plan in front of you indicates 8' at time of planting and that is our clients intention, we would like some flexibility in terms of the exact spacing dependant on the exact nature and shape and fullness of the trees when they are planted. I can say that we would not like to see those any closer than 5' on center directly abutting the property line but perhaps in some cases 10' centers would be warranted. I'd be happy to answer any questions. Rountree: You might mention the distance from the new proposed layout to the back of the property line. MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MARCH 9, 1993 PAGE 6 Thowless: The building setback from south property line to south wall of the new repair and service shop would be 360', approximately from the new sales building to the west property line is approximately 275' then again 50' to the east property line. One other concern of Mr. Haker's was the lighting. Our client has indicated a willingness to use pole mounted area lighting in that back sales lot area as it's developed of the cut off aluminair type, otherwise known as shoebox type fixtures. This is to where the lens is just on the bottom of the fixture, the light is cast down and the only way you can actually see the light is looking from a low angle underneath the fixture. Crookston: There was concern over the amount of noise and there was a decibel blank in the previous Findings and Fact, have you done any research or looked into the decibel levels that might come from the facility. Thowless: We have not been able to find that type of data. I think the amount of vegetation and the fact that the building will be insulated should really minimize any noise problems. Crookston: Will there be outside speakers? Thowless: Yes. Speakers however will be oriented westerly because that's the area where the sales lot will be. Again we're not adverse to a decibel limit but we have not ourselves felt comfortable in proposing one. Johnson: Thank you. Anyone else to testify? Rlbert Chastain, 1065 E. Fairview, was sworn by the attorney. Chastain: I adjoin on the east corner and my concern with those trees along that ditch, which has to be tiled, what are the roots going to do to that tile? I also have two outlets right there that has to be tiled in properly and with those trees that close to the ditch why eventually I would say that they are going to have some problems there. Johnson: Thank you. Anyone else to testify? Steve Bradbury, Attorney, 300 N. 6th Street, Boise, was sworn by the attorney. MERIDIAN PLANNING 8 ZONING MRRCH 9, 1993 PAGE 7 Bradbury: I am representing B.W. Inc., Dennis Baker in connection with the Danbury Subdivision. Mr. Baker asked me to appear here tonight primarily in order to obtain some measure of clarification of the applicant's intentions and Mr. Thowless prevented a fairly full explanation of what it is that is intended. I would like to suggest and ask of the commission a couple of things, first of all I would suggest that the same or similar conditions of approval be attached to this proposal as was attached to the last one. Specifically I'm concerned with the potential conflicts of the sound system, lighting and the potential for future use of the property to the south and to the west of the proposed building. Again all of those issues have been dealt with and I think what we really want is just to be certain that the Findings of Fact and conditions of approval address each of those issues and make it clear what it is that you expect. I briefly looked over the conditions that were imposed last time and would suggest that those will probably be sufficient with the addition perhaps of some language that indicates that there would be no further uses of the property to the south or to the west of the proposed building without obtaining further approvals from this body. Other than that, I think that the developers ought to be commended for responding as well as they have to the concerns which were expressed. Any questions. Rountree: Is there any particular time of day that that's a bothersome element? Bradbury: I would expect that the primary concern would be in the evenings and on the weekends especially those early mornings. I think that Mr. Baker would be satisfied with whatever the City Engineer came up with. Johnson: I'm sure Gary can come up with the answer. Thank you. Anyone else to testify? No response. I will close the Public Hearing. The Motion was made by Rountree and seconded by Shearer to have the attorney prepare new Findings of Fact and Conclusions. Motion Carried: All Yea: ITEM q4: PUBLIC HERRING: REQUEST FOR REZONE FROM R-4 TO R-8 TO ALLOW DUPLEX UNITS BY JIM BANDUCCI AND BEDELCO, INC.: Johnson: I will now open the public hearing. Is there a representative present? MERIDIRN PLANNING & ZONING MARCH 9, 1993 PAGE 0 Jim Banducci, 945 Pimlico, Eagle, was sworn by the attorney. Banducci: I'm requesting to change some zoning from R-4 to R-8 in front of the Meridian Manor Subdivision on the north side of Willowbrook Road. I talked with seven of the residents on the phone before making this application and they said that they would come here with an open mind if I had plans to show them. There was one person that was absolutely against it. The reason I feel that property would be good for duplexes, particularly the ones I am proposing is they are two bedroom duplexes, one bathroom, which I can put three of them on that piece of property which would amount to twelve bedrooms. As far as numbers of people I don't see where it would be much different than single family. The City is going to grow and somewhere duplexes are going to be backed up against residential. As I said, I think this is a good one because the main entrance is off of N. Meridian Road and goes back 300' before you get into the residential stuff. As far as traffic I guess I don't see where that's going to be a big problem because there's not that many units I'm requesting. It seems like a pretty good transition from apartments to duplexes to residential. The duplexes I'm proposing are approximately 900 sq. ft.. I don't feel that will be adding that many people to the area. Some people expressed concerns about what might happen down the road with them and as far as who might live there and as with anything I can't guarantee who is going to be living in them. I can say I'm going to have a lot of money invested so I don't want people there that will be tearing it up and making a mess of the neighborhood or anything, but there again I can't guarantee anything. I'd be happy to answer any questions. Rountree: I'd like to see the plans. (Commission viewed plans) Johnson: Thank you. Anyone else to testify? Frank Mason, 400 Cranmere, was sworn by the attorney. Mason: I'm unsure of what the exact square footage is presently for the subdivision. My understanding was closer to 1300 sq. feet per unit for a home. This is only 900 sq. ft. is that fitting in with the neighborhood is my concern. MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MARCH 9, 1993 PAGE 9 Johnson: The zoning ordinances address duplexes differently than single family dwellings and this does fit within those guidelines as far as the square footage requirement. Mason: I would like larger square footages just because the remaining residence around that neighborhood are of at least 1300 or larger square feet. Johnson: Thank you. Anyone else to testify? Randy Conner, 145 Cranmere, was sworn by the attorney. Conner: Would like some clarification on one issue. These are going to be duplexes that will be rented and managed by Mr. Banducci, is that correct? If these were owner occupied duplexes we would have no opposition to this request. Also concern about added traffic. Johnson: Thank you. Banducci: There will be at least one that I would own, it would not be owner occupied. I do take pride in my work. I would probably turn the others over to a property management. Johnson: Thank you. Crookston: Have you seen the Engineer's comments regarding the lot size? Banducci: Yes. Johnson: Rnyone else to testify? Greg Bond, 228 Cranmere, was sworn by the attorney. Bond: These housing projects usually start out nice then end up trashy. I believe the owner has good intentions but concerned about other property values around this area. Johnson: Thank you. Anyone else to testify? No response. I will close the public hearing. The Motion was made by Rountree and seconded by Shearer to have the attorney prepare Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. Motion Carried: R11 Yea: MERIDIAN PLRNNING & ZONING MARCH 9, 1993 PRGE 10 ITEM #5: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR RNNEXATION AND ZONING TD R-4 WITH PRELIMINRRY PLAT BY CHERRY LANE DEVELOPMENT RND HRL HATCH - PORTION OF CHERRY LANE VILLAGE/PRELIMINRRY PLAT CHERRY LANE VILLAGE #4: Johnson: I will open the public hearing. Is there a representative present? Gary Lee, JUB Engineers, 1750 N. Summertree, was sworn by the attorney. Lee: I am representing the applicant for this development. This is an application for annexation on a portion of the property and also a preliminary plat for Cherry Lane Village #4. The annexation portion is a piece of ground that wasn't included in the original Cherry Lane Development project back in the 70's. It is currently owned in common by the Hatch's and also Cherry Lane Development. The sketch that you have in the annexation application identifies that portion. There was some land trades that took place in the last ten to twelve years that caused the odd shaped of parcels that you see there. We are now conforming to the current R-4 standards for 80' minimum lot widths and 8000 square feet. The roadway is basically the same as it was before. We've had to connect the roads in such a way as to go between the golf course fairways and greens. This portion of Cherry Lane Village consists of about 90 single family residences which results in a density of about 3 1/3 over the property excluding the fairways. The project will also include continuations of existing utilities. (Explained - see tape) There is an existing irrigation drain ditch called the Rutledge Drain that traverses across the property at this time. We will be tiling portions of that ditch adjacent to the lots. It is our intent at this time to leave the fairways as is. The streets will all be built to RCHD standards. I'd be happy to answer any questions. Rountree: Will this be done in one phase? Lee: It will probably be done in phases. Rountree: On block 19, lot 2 you have what looks like a much larger driveway access, what is the purpose of that? Lee: That portion is deeded right of way to the Lake at Cherry Lane #2. I would suggest that we approach RCHD for a vacation of that right of way. MERIDIRN PLANNING & ZONING MRRCH 9, 1993 PAGE 11 Rountree: Have you spoken to ACRD about this, we haven't received comments from them to date? The functional class of Oakmont Drive or a road very near that vicinity in the metropolitan plan and ACHD's plan is for a collector which would be a wider facility with limited access. Lee: We have had technical review with them and that wasn't an item of concern. Johnson: Thank you. Anyone else to testify? Cherie Aubuchon, 1955 N. Ten Mile Rd., was sworn by the attorney. Aubuchon: Concerns about impact on schools, two lane roadways, and having more public parks. I don't know what this will do to us as far as we have our own well as opposed to City water and we have our own septic as opposed to City sewage. Johnson: It has been our experience that when the sewer and water becomes available to property owners they jump on it. As subdivisions go, this is a small one. Explained standard letter from the schools - see tape for further explanation on concerns. Thank you. Rnyone else to testify? Bill Teter, 2201 Allumbaugh, Boise, was sworn by the attorney. Teter: We own a piece of property that joins this project on the north and on the west. I am not here to speak against the project but there is a small personal matter may take care of itself but I want to be sure it's addressed. Dn the north side about 100' of the original home that's on this property, there is quite a substantial size of a machine shed and work shop. It was put there by Mr. Barney. The problem is that there's about four feet of that building that extends over my property line. I would assume that the developers would remove that building at the time that they develop the property. What my concern is is that if one of the family members of the Hatch or the Barney family should decide that they wanted that property or a lot in that area and they wanted to retain that building, it would present a problem that I would like to avoid. My reason far being here is to ask this committee if they would take steps to avoid that problem before the permit is given. Mr. Barney and I have had an agreement for years but as long as we own the property there would be no problem with the building. He was • MERIDIAN PLANNING 8 ZONING MARCH 9, 1993 PAGE 12 aware that the building was on our property line, that came about when Mr. Fuller bought the place south and Mr. Barney bought that place and they decided they wanted to subdivide it. I do not know who there surveyors were. I told him as long as we lived there the building was no problem but there may come a time when it might become one. It seems that that time has come. I would ask this committee if they would consider this, that the building at the proper time would be removed or at least the portion that's on my property. Johnson: Mr. Lee do you have a response to this? Lee: I have no personal knowledge of this but I will look into it and call Mr. Teter and make sure it's taken care of. Johnson: Anyone else to testify? No response. I will close the public hearing. The Motion was made by Hepper and seconded by Rountree to have the attorney prepare Findings of Fact and Conclusions. Motion Carried: All Yea: ITEM #6: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR RNNEXATION RND ZONING TO R-8 WITH PRELIMINRRY PLAT TITLES PHEASANT POINTE SUBDIVISION: Johnson; I will open the public hearing. Is there a representative present? Jim Merkle, Hubble Engineering, 9550 Bethel Crt., Boise, was sworn by the attorney. Merkle: This application is for annexing approximately 44 acres at the southwest corner of Ustick Road and Locust Grove on the east and also for the preliminary plat for approximately 27 acres. (Presented drawing to Commission) The proposed subdivision contains 92 single family residential lots on approximately 27 1/2 acres, which gives us a density of approximately 3.3 lots per acre. As you know in an R-8 zone the minimum lot size is 6500 sq. feet, however, the only small lots are approximately 6700 roughly. Most the lots are in the high 7,000's and some down here are in excess of 10,000 sq. ft.. Streets will be built to ACRD specs. Explained water and sewer - see tape. Rny drainage that is generated will be contained on MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MARCH 9, 1993 PAGE 13 site. We concur with everything the Engineer is requiring. The main comment I'd like to address is #7 regarding all of the lots must contain at least 6500 sq. ft. exclusive of irrigation ditch easement. This mainly affects the lots along the southerly part of the project. Your Ordinance specifically states that lot area will be exclusive of irrigation easements. In our case, we are proposing to t he that ditch and realignment it to the southerly boundary of the subdivision. When we realignment that the easement will move along with the realignment, however that still does not solve the issue of 6500. What they will allow us to do is to enter into a license agreement, we'll the the ditch and they will be able to use that for backyard or fence or whatever for the homeowners. So in essence we're meeting the 6500 sq, feet requirement. In reviewing the zoning ordinance, under the definition of lot area it does say exclusive of irrigation, however on the zoning schedule, in coverage controls part of the ordinance there's a little addition to that part of the Ordinance and it states that "minimum lot size shall be determined exclusive of land that is used for streets, highways, alleys, roads, rights of way, irrigation easements, unless the water is conveyed through pipe or t he and included as part of the utility easements that generally run along lot lines". That fits perfectly far what we're doing because we would have that easement along the back lot line and we're tiling that ditch and it would be within that easement. That's the main point I'd like to make about comment #7 from the Engineer. Any questions? Alidjani: Even though you say your going to the that, they cannot put the tiling area into the fencing on the back yard so the fence has to be away from the tile, there can be no building on it, so still - let's say I buy one of those lots and I fence my lot, I cannot put my fence over the tile, is that correct? Merkle: Yes, however square footage would be still 8500 to 9000 square feet. These are all extra deep lots. What we are proposing to do is probably fence the actual boundary and the t he would be inside the lot and you wouldn't be required to put another fence on the north side, so you could grass or do whatever you wanted over the top of that pipe. One issue we haven't nailed down quit yet is the access road along there. Sohnson: An obstruction or repair necessary for one of those lots where they have to go in and it's already been fenced and that sort of thing, what's the requirement? They put that back in the condition it was before they tore it up? MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MARCH 9, 1993 PAGE 14 Eng. Smith: Since Nampa Meridian controls the ditch there will have to be a license agreement written between the property owners or the developer and Nampa Meridian. Typically what we've run into as City improvements over a ditch that's operated by them, if they have to come in and make a repair on the ditch or pipeline they will remove the improvements that are there but it's the homeowners responsibility to put the improvement back. Rountree: Note ~1 on the preliminary plat indicates that two of the lots would be for landscaping. Should lots 1 in block 2 and lot 1 in block b also be included in that note or are you proposing any type of improvement on those? Merkle: It would include a green frontage area and the two islands right there. It would also include a 20' strip of common area for berming and fencing and landscape. One thing I didn't point out, there is an existing home and it will stay, the outbuildings will be removed. Hepper: On the frontage of the lots, what's the Ordinance say on R-8? Rountree: 65. Hepper: There are numerous lots that are not 65 they are less. Merkle: We will meet the minimum. Hepper: Back to the same thing with consistency with all the other subdivisions in the area. Everything down Locust Grove area if 1300 square feet for minimum house size. Merkle: The Ordinance states in R-8 that a minimum of 50% will be 1300 and we are proposing that 100% of them will be a minimum of 1300 square feet. Johnson: Thank you. Anyone else to testify? No response. I will close the public hearing. The Motion was made by Shearer and seconded by Hepper to have the attorney prepare Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. Motion Carried: All Yea: MERIDIAN PLANNING 8 ZONING MARCH 9, 1993 PAGE IS Johnson: Rnything else? Rountree: I'd like to thank Jack or whoever put the new comment page on these items. Johnson: That was a suggestion that came from Candy. Thank you. The Motion was made by Rountree and seconded by Shearer to adjourn the meeting at 9:00 P. M.: Motion Carried: All Yea: (TRPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) APPROVED: JIM JOHNSON, CHAIRMAN ATTEST: clt BEFORE THE MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION L.B. PROPERTIES CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1005 E. Fairview Avenue MERIDIAN, IDAHO FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS The above entitled matter having come on for public hearing March 9, 1993, at the hour of 7:30 o'clock p.m., the Petitioner appearing throuyh John P. Connolly, the Meridian 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 (2) consecutive weeks prior to the said public hearing scheduled for March 9, 1993, the first publication of which was fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing; that the matter was duly considered at the March 9, 1993, hearing; that this application for conditional use was initially heard on January 12, 1993; that the Applicant changed the application uses some and changed the landscaping that the public was given full opportunity to express comments and submit evidence; 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, L.B. PROPERTIES, and is described FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW PAGE 1 in the application, which description is incorporated herein; that the property is located in what is referred to as the North Curve and is on Fairview Avenue west of Locust Grove Road; that in the findings of fact and conclusions of law that were adopted for the annexation of the property it was found that the property was in the EAST INDUSTRIAL REVIEW AREA as set forth in Policy Diagram in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan; that that finding was in error; that it is difficult to tell where a specific parcel of property is located on the Meridian Policy Diayram because there are no boundaries for the areas referenced on the Diagram and the more current Comprehensive Plans have copied the Policy Diagram such that the colors are faded and often times the area of neighborhoods have faded out completely. 3. That the property is north of Danbury Subdivision; that Fairview Avenue is a principal arterial and carries a significant number of cars daily, 19,469 cars per day; that Fairview Avenue is listed in the Comprehensive Plan of Meridian as a principal arterial. 4. That the property where the proposed use is to be located on is south of the existing automobile sales building; that the property is now vacant land; that the property is zoned Service Commercial and General Retail. 5. That the proposed use is for an auto repair and body shop and new car sales; that the Applicant submitted a new development drawing showing the layout of the proposed facilities and the scheduled landscaping, which by this reference is incorporated FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW PAGE 2 herein as if set forth in full even though not attached hereto. 6. That there was testimony submitted by Steven Bradbury, on behalf of Dennis Baker, the developer and owner of the property that abuts the subject parcel on the south; that Mr. Bradbury requested that similar conditions be placed on this application for conditional use as were placed on the application heard on January 12, 1993, and stated that the major items of concern for Mr. Baker were the sound system, lighting, and the potential for future use of the property to the south arrd west of the proposed building and requested that no uses be permitted of that land south and west of the proposed building witt.out coming back to the City of Meridian for approval of those uses. That Mr. Bradbury commented that the Applicant should receive commendation for the efforts made to solve that objections that Mr. Baker had about the previous application. 7. Albert Chastain testified regarding his irrigation facilities and requested that they not be interfered with and in the previous hearing his wife requested that there be no hazardous waste, and that there be no junk or unsightly vehicles on the premises. 8. That the General Retail and Service Commercial district is defined in the Zoning Ordinance as follows: "(C-G) General Retail and Service Commercial: The purpose of the (C-G) District is Lo provide for commercial uses which are customarily operated entirely or almost entirely within a building; to provide for a review of the impact of proposed commercial uses which are auto and service oriented and are located in close proximity to major highway or arterial streets; to fulfill the need of travel-related services as well as retail sales for the transient and permanent motoring public. All such districts shall be connected to the Municipal Water and Sewer systems of the City of Meridian, and FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF 7~AW PAGE 3 shall not constitu~e strip commercial development and encourage clustering of commercial development. That an automobile repair shop is an allowed conditional use in the General Retail and Service Commercial district. 9. That the use proposed by Applicant of an automobile repair and body shop and new car sales is an allowed conditional use in the C-G district pursuant to 11-2-409 B. 9., but does require a conditional use permit pursuant to 11-2-409 B., Automobile Repair Shop. 10. That there are commercial uses on both sides of Fairview, including a used car lot arrd a insect and pesticide spray business to the west of the subject property; a retail paint store and shop across Fairview Avenue and one west of the subject property; a new fitness center is being constructed on the north side of Fairview; there are restaurants on the north side of Fairview; also on the north side of Fairview Avenue there is a carwash and an emergency medical office; that farther east on Fairview Avenue is an Intermountain Farmer retail store. 11. That sewer and water is available to the property. 12. That the use proposed by Applicant is an allowed conditional use in the CG district pursuant to 11-2-409 B., but does require a conditional use permit pursuant to 11-2-409 B. 13. That the comments of the Meridian City Engineer are noted and incorporated herein by this reference; that the comments of the Ada County Highway District, Central District Health Department, Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District and the Meridian Fire Department are noted and incorporated herein by this reference. 14. That section 11-2-416 d. states as follows: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW PAGE 4 "In approving any Conditional Use, the Commission and Council may prescribe appropriate conditions, bonds, and safeguards in conformity with .his Ordinance. Violations of such conditions, bonds or safeguards, when made a part of the terms under which the Conditional Use is granted, shall be deemed a violation of the Ordinance and grounds to revoke the Conditional Use. The Commission and Council may prescribe a set time period for which a Conditional Use may be in existence." 15. That the comments from the City Engineer, Ada County Highway District, Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District, and other governmental agencies for the hearing held January 12, 1993, are incorporated herein as if set forth in full. 16. That proper notice has been given as required by law and all procedures before the Planning and Zoning Commission have been given and 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 Applicant's property. 2. That the City of Meridian has authority to grant conditional uses pursuant to 67-6512, Idaho Code, and, pursuant to 11-2-418 of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian. 3. That the City of Meridian has authority to place conditions on a conditional use permit and the use of the property pursuant to 67-6512, Idaho Code, and pursuant to 11-2-418(D) of FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW PAGE 5 • 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 Planning and Zoning Commission shall review applications for Conditional Use Permits; that upon a review of those requirements and a review of the facts presented and the conditions of the area, the Planning and Zoning Commission concludes as follows: a. The use, would in fact, constitute a conditional use and a conditional use permit :is required by ordinance. b. The use is in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan but the Zoning Ordinance requires a conditional use permit to allow the use; that the use should be harmonious with the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance and the surrounding area, including the residential area, if the conditions required herein are met and maintained. c. If the use meets the requirements herein, the use apparently would be designed and constructed, to be harmonious in appearance with the intended character of the general vicinity. d. If the use meets the requirements stated herein the proposed use the use would not necessarily be disturbing to existing or future neighboring uses; that the proposed use should be continuously reviewed. e. The property has sewer and water service available and will be adequately served by essential public facilities. f. If the requirements stated herein are met the proposed use should not create excessive additional requirements at public cost for public facilities and services unless the traffic problem must be resolved at the public expense, and the use would not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. g. If the requirements stated herein are met the use should 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, noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW PAGE 6 h. That there should be sufficient vehicular approaches to the property so as not to create an interference with traffic on surrounding public streets. 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, Fire Department and the Ada County Highway District, Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District and other governmental agencies must be met and complied with. 6. That it is concluded I:hat: L'airvi_ew Avenue has had commercial businesses located thereon f-or a long time, and for a long time prior to adoption of the current Meridian Zoning Ordinance; that it could have easily been suspected and foreseen, by a developer of property, that areas along Fairview Avenue would be developed in a commercial fashion; what is harder to say is that it would be, or could be, known, or suspected, how deep development would occur either south or north of Fairview Avenue. It is further specifically concluded that it is the purpose of the Zoning Ordinance to try to promote and to protect the public health, safety, comfort, convenience, prosperity and general welfare. 7. That it is concluded that the location and layout of the proposed use on the property could pose problems with regard to noise, glare, fumes or odors for the adjacent residential properties to the south and east; that it is concluded that it is one of the purposes of the Zoning Ordinance to protect residential, commercial, industrial and civic areas from the intrusion of incompatible uses and to provide opportunities for establishments FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLCSIONS OF LAW PAGE 7 to concentrate for efficient operation in mutually beneficial relationships to each other and to shared services (11-2-401 5.), but it is also the purpose of the Zoning Ordinance to encourage the proper distribution and compatible integration of neighborhood commercial uses into all residential areas of the City (11-2-401 11.). 8. That it is concluded that to make the proposed use harmonious and compatible to neighboring residential uses to the south and east the following requirements must be met, and continuously met; and these conditions should be reviewed by the City Council, amended, added to, changed or deleted as the City Council deems appropriate: a. The proposed building shall run east and west as shown on the development drawing submitted with the current application rather than north and south as depicted in the application which was heard January 12, 1993. b. That the development drawing shall be adhered to in all respects unless it conflicts with the below stated requirements and then the most restrictive requirements of the city or planned uses of the Applicant shall control. c. That the Applicant shall apply for a variance from the fence ordinance, if the City Council or fence committee denies the variance the fence shall be six feet in height, to meet City Ordinances. d. That the vegetation shall not be allowed to grow more than twenty feet tall, but shall be watered and fertilized to encourage as much growth as soon as possible. e. That the building shall be so designed that the overhead doors for the entrance and exit of vehicles shall face north; that there may be two overhead doors that face south or east but they shall be in the nature of emergency exits and not used on a daily basis. f. That any and all lighting shall directed away from adjacent residential uses and shall be constructed such that it does not glare, or shine, on any surrounding residential FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW PAGE 6 property. g. That the use of external loudspeakers shall be limited to business hours, only on Monday through Friday, and shall be limited to decibels; that this decibel level should be determined by the City Council; that the building shall be constructed to be as soundproof as reasonably possible. h. That there shall be no wrecked, demolished, or junk cars kept or stored on the property, unless they are totally screen from view. i. That there shall be no offensive fumes, smoke or odor emitted from the property; that normal motorvehicle exhaust from passenger or pickup trucks shall not be deemed to be offensive; that all hazardous wastes shall be properly disposed of and shall not be maintained on the property. j. That all construction, including remodeling, fence construction, and plantings shall be subject to Design Review by the City of Meridian. 9. That the conditions stated herein, or as ultimately set by the City Council, shall be agreed to by the Applicant, in writing; that if they are not so agreed to the Application should be denied. 10 That it is stated, and concluded, for the benefit of the Applicant, those appearing at the hearing, and of all interested persons, that a conditional use under the Meridian Zoning Ordinance, in reality, is a use that is permitted in zoning districts where it is listed as a conditional use; the City may set reasonable requirements and conditions that must be met by the applicant to enable operation of the use; it is concluded that the conditions and requirements listed above are reasonable under the circumstances. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLU6ION8 OF LAW pAGS 9 APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts and approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONER HEPPER COMMISSIONER ROUNTREE COMMISSIONER SHEARER COMMISSIONER ALIDJANI CHAIRMAN JOHNSON (TIE BREAKER) VOTED VOTED VOTED/ VOTED L~ VOTED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council of the City of Meridian that the City Council review these findings and, if desired by the City Council, change, alter or amend the conditions stated herein, and that if the conditions are agreed to ~~nd met by the Applicant, the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council of the City of Meridian that the City Council approve the conditional use permit; that the Commission further recommends that all construction, new and remodel, including buildings and vegetation planting, be subject to Design Review; that the conditional use permit be reviewed annually for compliance with the FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW PAGE 10 • conditions stated herein, and if there is not compliance, that the conditional use permit be revoked. That as an additional condition all irrigation facilities must be maintained such they continue to deliver water as it was delivered prior to development and if there are irrigation canals, drainages or other means of conveying water, located on the property that they be tiled. MOTION: APPROVED:- ~'~ DISAPPROVED: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PAGE 11 ~ ORIGINAL BEFORE THE MERIDIAN PLANNING AD ZONING COMMISSION DORADO DEVELOPMENT & MICHAEL AND CYNTHIA SCISCOE REZONE APPLICATION 2210 N. MERIDIAN ROAD MERIDIAN, IDAHO FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The above entitled matter having come on for public hearing March 9, 1993, at the hour of 7:30 o'clock p.m., the Petitioners, Michael Sciscoe and Bob Angel, for Dorado Development, appearing, 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 November 9, 1993, the first publication of which was fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing; that the matter was duly considered at the November 9, 1993, hearing; that the matter was again considered at the December 14, 1993, and January 11, 1994, meeting, that the public was given full opportunity to express comments and submit evidence; and that copies of all notices were available to the newspaper, radio and television stations. 2. That this property is located within the City of Meridian FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 1 and is owned by the Applicant, Dorado Development Company, and which property is described in the application which description is incorporated herein; that the property is presently zoned R-40 Residential but is now vacant land; the area in which Applicants' property is located has a house located thereon and the remainder of the property is vacant land; that there is an apartment complex to the south; there is a residential subdivision to the east across Meridian Road; that there is a single family residence to the north; that there is substantial commercial development farther to the south; that it was stated in the public hearing that the property being purchased by the Sciscoe's is .41 of an acre and the remaining property to be used by Dorado Development is 7.21 acres. 3. As stated above, the property is presently zoned R-40, Residential; the Applicants have requested that the property zoned General Retail and Service Commercial (C-G) and the Sciscoe's propose to use the home as a home, operate a book store on the property, operate a small custom cabinetry and furniture business at the far end of the bookstore, and Dorado Development proposes to use the remainder of the property for a single level office building which would provide tenancy for professional uses such as doctors, dentist, attorneys, real estate and/or insurance agencies but the C-G zoning is requested. 4. That the C-G District is described in the Zoning Ordinance, 11-2-408 B. 11 follows: (C-Gl General Retail and Service Commercial: The purpose of the (C-G) District is to provide for commercial uses which are customarily operated entirely or almost entirely within a FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 2 building; to provide for a review of the impact of proposed commercial uses which are auto and service oriented and are located in close proximity to major highway or arterial streets; to fulfill the need of travel-related services as well as retail sales for the transient and permanent motoring public. All such districts shall be connected to the Municipal Water and Sewer systems of the City of Meridian, and shall not constitute strip commercial development and encourage clustering of commercial development. 5. That the property is contained in a Mixed /Planned Use Development area as shown on the Generalized Land Use Map of the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. 6. That the property has frontage on Meridian Road; that Meridian Road is designated as an Entryway in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan; that the Entryway Corridors Goal Statement includes the following statement: "4.4U Encourage 35-foot landscaped setbacks for new development on entrance corridors. The City shall require, as a condition of development approval, landscaping along all entrance corridors. ." 7. That sewer and water is available to the property. 8. That comments were submitted by the City Engineer and are incorporated herein as are the comments of the Meridian Fire Department, the Central District Health Department, Meridian School District, Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District, and Meridian Planning Director. Those comments are incorporated herein as if set forth in herein. 9. That Planning Director submitted two comment sheets, one date November 5, 1993 and one dated January 6, 1994; that in the November comments he stated the zone change to C-G complied with the Comprehensive Plan, that the Comprehensive Plan indicates a FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 3 i need for service commercial in this area, and that as site development plans are prepared and submitted, the City staff will review any site designs to achieve a high quality project as called for the Comprehensive Plan; that in his January comments he stated that he had met with the Sciscoe, at the request of the Planning and Zoning Commission to discuss the C-G zoning, and it was agreed by the Sciscoe's that a C-N zone would allow them to do what they desired but would blend in better with what was already adjacent to the land; that similar discussions were not held with Dorado Development. 10. That the abutting neighbor to the north, Doris Baret, indicating that she was not sure what type of business was proposed on the property and that she desired that a fence be constructed between he property and this development. 11. That the property was recently annexed and zoned; that the requested zone was R-40. 12. T\hat the Limited Office District allows for professional offices; that Limited Office District, is set forth in 11-2-408 B 7. as follows: (L-O1 Limited Office District: The purpose of the (L-O) 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-O 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. FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 4 • 13. That the allowed uses in the C-G and L-O Districts are listed in 11-2-409, and such are incorporated herein as if set forth in full. 14. 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, testimony that has been previously presented, 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. FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 5 5. That the uses allowed in the C-G district are substantially more intensive than those allowed in the L-O district; that the Meridian zoning Ordinance allows only the listed allowed uses to be conducted in that zone. 6. That since there are various proposed uses on the land requested to be rezoned, including residential, retail, cabinetry, and offices, which are not allowed uses in all zones. i.e., residential uses are not allowed in the General Retail and Service Commercial district, it makes logical sense to zone for each proposed use rather than establish one zone that allows many intensive land uses, which may not be able to be controlled by the City; the concern of the City is that there is potential problem in zoning the property General Retail and Service Commercial and allow the proposed uses under that zone, but then have those uses change or fail and be replaced by more intensive uses allowed under that C--G zoning. 7. .That it is concluded that measures need to be taken to allow the proposed uses, but limit the possibility of more intensive uses later. 8. That it is therefore concluded that the property should be rezoned to allow the uses set forth in the representations of the Applicants, but to deny the request to zone the entire parcel of property as General Retail and Service Commercial; that it is concluded that the .41 of an acres property to be used as a home and book store and cabinetry business should be divided and the parcel to^used as a residence zoned R-8, Residential, with the lot be FINDINGS OF FACT b CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 6 meeting the lot requirements of that zone; that the remaining portion of the .41 of an acre to be used by the Sciscoe's as a book store and cabinetry business should be zoned C-C, Community Business District; that the 7.21 acres to be used for professional offices shall be zoned L-O, Limited Office. 9. That 11-2-416 (K) of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian sets forth standards under which the City shall review applications for zoning amendments; that upon a review of those requirements and a review of the facts presented and conditions of the area, the Planning and Zoning Commission specifically concludes as follows: (a) The new zoning would be harmonious with and in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan and no Comprehensive Plan amendment is required; that the house has been on the property for a substantial length of time and can be allowed to continue even though the remainder of tY.e property is zoned to commercial and limited office uses. (b) The area included in the application is not intended to be rezoned in the future, but is included in the Comprehensive Plan as a mixed and planned use area. (c) The area around the proposed zoning amendment is developed in a single family residential, multi-family residential, vacant land fashion, and substantial commercial farther to the south and the new zoning would not be contrary to the existing uses. The land is shown in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan as a Mixed/Planned Use Development area. (d) There has been a change in the area which may dictate that the land should be rezoned, that change being its designation in the Comprehensive Plan. (e) No specific information was submitted by the Applicant regarding design, construction, operation, and overall plan for the land; that such information will have to be submitted and development controlled under a FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 7 design review process. (f) The proposed use should not be hazardous or disturbing to the existing or future uses of the neighborhood, if the conditions set forth herein are complied with. (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 uses 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 uses should not involve any detrimental activity to any person's property or the general welfare. (j) Development may cause an increase in vehicular traffic and this problem would have to be addressed in the design of the area. (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 should be in the best interest of City of Meridian and the area if conditions were placed on the land and the applicant. 10. That if the property to be zoned C-N is adjacent to the property owned by Doris Baret and there will be paved parking adjacent or near her property, the design standards for off-street parking in 11-2 414 must be met, specifically including the fencing; that such design standards shall have to be met where ever the parking is located; if the Baret property will be adjacent to the home of the Sciscoe's fencing will be up to the parties involved. 11. That the Applicants, as a condition of the rezone, shall be required to meet the requirements of the 35 foot landscaped set FINDINGS OF FACT S CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 8 back along Meridian Road. 12. That the Applicants must meet all of the Ordinances of the City of Meridian and all of the requirements of the Ada County Highway District. APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby -ccas~s- a~proves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONER HEPPER VOTED COMMISSIONER ROUNTREE VOTED COMMISSIONER SAEARER VOTED~~~ p COMMISSIONER ALIDJANI VOTED J"~- CHAIRMAN JOHNSON (TIE BREAKER) VOTED DECISION AND RECOaO~NDATION The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council of the City of Meridian that the rezone Application be approved as modified above. It is further recommended that if the Applicants do not agree with these Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law that the Application be denied. MOTION: APPROVED :11J`~~ DISAPPROVED FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 9