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