1993 02-09
A G E N D A
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING
FEBRUARY 9, 1993
ITEM:
MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEEPING HELD JANUARY 12, 1993: (APPIipVED)
1: FINDINGS OF FACT ON ANNEXATION & ZONING REQUEST W/PRELIMINARY PLAT ON
EL,K RUN SUBDIVISION: (APPR0I/BD)
_. FINDINGS OF FACT ON REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT BY SAM FISHEL:(FII~INC~ APPImVED)
3: FINDINGS OF FACT ON REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT BY L.B. PROPERTIES: (APP[bDtl~)
~: FINDINGS OF FACT CTS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT W/PRELIMINARY PLAT HUNII~LILLER-
WURTZ ENTERPRISLa. (APPI~VED)
5: FINDINGS OF FACT ON REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING BY DAVE LEADER: (APPR01/ID)
,,. FINDINGS OF FACT ON REQUEST FOR ANNEX7TION & ZONING W/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
BY WESTSIDE BIBLE CHURCH & DENNIS HICKS: (APPE:OVID)
7; PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR REZONE FROM LO TO R-8 BY $ & W INC: (FII'IDINGS 7U HE PREPI~R®)
c~. PUBLIC HEARING: PRELIMINARY PLAT dLV CHERI MEADOWS SUBDIVISION: (TABLED)
MERIDIRN PLANNING 8 ZONING FEBRUARY 9 1993
The Regular Meeting of the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
was called to order by Chairman Jim Johnson at 7:30 P. M.:
Members Present: Jim Shearer, Tim Hepper, Moe Rlidjani, Charlie
Rountree:
Others Present: Jerry Finnegan, Don Bryan, Mr. & Mrs. Morgan,
Norm Lacombe, Harrell Thorne, Dave Leader, Dan Wood, Gary Lee,
Pat Tealy, Wayne Crookston, Jack Riddlemoser, Dan Torfin:
MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING HELD JANUARY 12, 1993:
The Motion was made 6y Rountree and seconded by Rlidjani to
approve the minutes of the previous meeting held January 12, 1993
as written:
Motion Carried: R11 Yea:
ITEM ~1: FINDINGS OF FACT ON ANNEXRTION & ZONING REQUEST
W/PRELIMINRRY PLAT ON ELK RUN SUBDIVISION:
The Motion was made by Rountree and seconded by Shearer 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 if the property is
included in the Urban Service Planning Area and the designation
of the Rural Residential Reserve is removed from the
Comprehensive plan where applicants' property is located, that
they approve the annexation but at a zoning of R-4 or less; that
the conditions set forth in the Findings of Fact and Conclusions
of Law and compliance with the Ordinance of the City of Meridian
shall be met; that the owner be requested to allow the
Application to be postponed until the Urban Service Planning Area
and Comprehensive Plan issues of the Rural Residential Reserve
are resolved and if the consent is not given, that the
Application be denied.
Motion Carried: All Yea:
Discussion on plat fsee tape) -
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING
FEBRURRY 9, 1993
PRGE 2
ITEM #2: FINDINGS OF FACT ON REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
BY SAM FISHEL:
Crookston: Needs to be a correction in Paragraph SD in the
fourth line, you need to delete the proposed day care center and
put in the use.
The Motion was made by Rountree and seconded by Shearer that the
Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts and approve these
Findings of Fact and Conclusions.
Roll Call Vote: Hepper - Yea; Rountree - Yea; Shearer - Yea;
Alidjani - Yea;
Motion Carried: All Yea:
The Motion was made by Rountree and seconded by Hepper that the
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends to the
City Council of the City of Meridian that they deny the
application for a conditional use.
Motion Carried: 3 - Yea; 1 - Nea:
ITEM #3: FINDINGS OF FACT ON REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
BY L.B. PROPERTIES:
Alidjani: I have a questions, on the conditions in Paragraph G
there's a blank that is supposed to be filled in, I'd like to
know what that will be.
Crookston: The reason that's blank is because I think it needs
to be discussed. It's intentionally left blank, I personally
have no knowledge of decibel ratings or requirements.
Rountree: There are some standards and guidelines related to
noise standards. The transportation decibel level is 67 rated on
an "R" scale, which would be noise equivalent to normal
conversation.
The Motion was made by Rlidjani and seconded by Shearer that the
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission hereby adopts and approves
these Findings of Fact and Conclusions.
Roll Call Vote: Hepper - Yea; Rountree - Yea; Shearer - Yea;
Alidjani - Yea;
Motion Carried: All Yea:
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING
FEBRURRY 9, 1993
PAGE 3
The Motion was made by Alidjani and seconded by Rountree that 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 and met by the Rpplicant, 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 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. Rlso with the condition that the City Engineer
determine the necessary decibel level.
Motion Carried: R11 Yea:
ITEM i14: FINDINGS OF FRCT ON CONDITIDNAL USER PERMIT
W/PRELIMINARY PLAT HUNEMILLER-WURTZ ENTERPRISES:
Crookston: I will be stepping down due to a conflict of
interest. Mr. Riddlemoser will be sitting in.
The Motion was made by Hepper and seconded by Rountree that the
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts and
approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions.
Roll Call Vote: Hepper - Yea; Rountree - Yea; Shearer - yea;
Alidjani - Yea;
Motion Carried: All Yea:
The Motion was made by Hepper and seconded by Rountree that the
Meridian Planning 8 Zoning Commission hereby recommends to the
City Council of the City of Meridian that they approve the
Conditional Use Permit requested by the Rpplicant 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.
MERIDIAN PLANNING 8 ZONING
FEBRUARY 9, 1993
PAGE 4
Motion Carried: All Yea:
Crookston: Returning to position, Riddlemoser stepping down.
ITEM #5: FINDINGS OF FACT ON REQUEST FOR ANNEXRTIDN AND ZONING
BY DAVE LEADER:
The Motion was made by Rountree and seconded by Shearer that the
Meridian Planning 8 Zoning Commission hereby adopts and approves
these Findings of Fact and Conclusions.
Roll Call Vote: Hepper - yea; Rountree - Yea; Shearer - Yea;
Alidjani - Yea;
Motion Carried: All yea:
The Motion was made by Rountree and seconded by Alidjani that the
Meridian Planning 8 Zoning Commission hereby recommends to the
City Council of the City of Meridian that they approve the
annexation and zoning as stated above in the Conclusions of Law
for the property described in the application with the conditions
set forth in the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and that
the Applicants be specifically required to the all ditches,
canals and waterways as a condition of annexation and that the
Applicant meet all of the Ordinances of the City of Meridian,
specifically including the development time requirements and the
conditions of these Finds and Conclusions and that if the
conditions are not met that the property be de-annexed.
Motion Carried: R11 Yea:
ITEM #6: FINDINGS OF FACT ON REQUEST FOR ANNEXRTIDN AND ZONING
W/CONDITIONRL USE PERMIT BY WESTSIDE BIBLE CHURCH 8 DENNIS HICKS:
The Motion was made 6y Alidjani and seconded by Rountree that the
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adapts and
approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions.
Roll Call Vote: Hepper - Yea;
Alidjani - yea;
Rountree - Yea; Shearer - Yea;
Motion Carried: All Yea:
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING
FEBRUARY 9, 1993
PAGE 5
The Motion was made by Alidjani and seconded by Rountree that the
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends to the
City Council of the City of Meridian that they deny or table the
application until a Comprehensive Plan amendment is approve which
would allow the zoning requested by the applicant.
Motion Carried: All Yea:
ITEM i17: PUBLIC HERRING: REQUEST FOR REZONE FROM LO TO R-8 BY B
& W INC.:
Johnson: I will now open the Public Hearing and invite a
representative to speak first.
Dan Torfin, 9550 Bethel Court, Boise, was sworn by the attorney.
Torfin: This request is to rezone a portion of the Danbury Fair
Subdivision from LO to R-B. It's the southerly 110 feet of Lots
1 8 2 of Block 1 & 2 of the Danbury Fair Subdivision. That final
plat has been recorded. I think it was an oversight that we did
not have that rezoned at the time of approval of the preliminary
and final plat so we are seeking to clean that up at this time.
Rountree: Did I understand you correctly that that is the way it
was platted when submitted and your just requesting for the
rezone to accommodate that.
Torfin: Yes.
Rountree: You've seen the comments from RCHD?
Torfin: Yes I have. I believe that we've already stipulated
those conditions on the final plat.
Johnson: Thank you. Anyone else to testify? No response. I
will close the Public Hearing.
The Motion was made by Shearer and seconded by Rountree to have
the attorney prepare Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
indicating approval.
Motion Carried: All Yea:
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING
FEBRUARY 9 1993
PAGE 6
ITEM #8: PUBLIC HERRING:
SUBDIVISION:
PRELIMINARY PLAT ON CHERI MEADOWS
Johnson: I will now open the Public Hearing. I have two letters
to enter into the record regarding this. One from Norman R.
Barker expressing concern about Dixie Lane and access. Second
letter is from W & H Pacific Inc., project engineer pointing out
that his client Mr. Allan owns the westerly ten feet of the 20
foot private access right of way referred to as Dixie Lane. He
is suggesting that one of the conditions of the approval would
require one of two things, a different secondary access to Cheri
Meadows Subdivision or written permission from Mr. Allan, his
client, for use of his land as impacted by the subdivision.
Pat Tealy, 479 Main St., Boise, was sworn by the attorney.
Tealy: I am representing the applicant Mr. Dave Leader. This is
the application for preliminary plat far Cheri Meadows. It is
comprised of 32 1/2 acres in and R-B density that would allow
approximately 260 units. We are proposing 113 lots, 12 of which
would be duplexes for a total density of 125 dwelling units. We
have read the comments from the City Engineer and from the
various agencies and would wish to comment on some of these
conditions. The first being from the Fire Department, the
requirement that East Grapewood Drive and East Grapewood Courts
be run together and not have townhouse apartments on a culdesac;
do you have something before you that would explain that
situation? We wish to keep those townhouses and separate that
portion of the development from the single family and that's our
reason for not wanting to connect E. Grapewood Court with E.
Grapewood Drive. Are there any questions on that? The second
would be to address the right of way widths on the culdesacs. We
have talked with RCHD and do agree with the right of way widths
as shown on this preliminary plat. The City Engineer and the
City of Meridian wish to have 50' on the culdesacs that would
apply specifically to the two culdesacs to the east of the
Collector Road. We are proposing 42' right of ways. The reason
we want to do this is there are only 10 lots on one culdesac and
12 on the other. We don't feel that the traffic generated by
these two culdesacs would warrant the larger street. The third
one is lot frontages - Gary indicated that there are seven lots
in Block 2 that do not meet the new ordinance, we have tried to
get this new ordinance from the City and haven't been able to
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING
FEBRUARY 9, 1993
PAGE 7
read it and that's why these frontages appear on the plat as less
than 40 feet. We are going to be able to correct this. We can
comply with that condition but I would like to point out though
that by using that 40 foot standard it cuts down the flexibility
of the subdivision. (Explained to Commission - see tape) The
last thing we would like to address is Dixie Lane and I guess
this is going to be a topic tonight. It's not going to be
intended for our secondary access, only as an emergency access
and it's going to be used as it is used right now for emergency
vehicle access and utility access. At the northwest corner here
we have seen a plat at RCHD that would cure that problem with
Dixie Lane. It shows the connections from Mirage Meadows
straight through that 20 acres to the east that will then connect
to our Collector Street which is Hickory Road as you see it
there. (Explanation further - see tape) I'd be happy to answer
any other questions.
Discussion about Dixie Lane - See tape:
Hepper: What size of homes are you proposing?
Tealy: Possibly Mr. Leader, the owner of the project would like
to address that.
Johnson: Thank you. Anyone else to testify?
Dave Leader, 110 Parkway Drive, Boise, was sworn by the
attorney.
Leader: House size will be 1100 sq. ft. minimum in that westerly
portion and it would go up from there, we would meet the zoning
ordinance and the most easterly portion we had planned for 1500
square foot minimum so we would eliminate the lowest square
footage. The 1000 to the 1100 would be moved over on the duplex
townhouses where we would allow the 1000 sq. ft. minimum in
there, but it would go from 11 to 12 and then over 13.
Hepper: Are you aware that the other subdivisions in the
neighborhood have all had a minimum of 1300 sq. feet or more?
Leader: I guess that's probably the reason that I would suggest
that we would kind of segment and do it a little different from
them.
Johnson: Thank you. Anyone else to testify?
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING
FEBRUARY 9, 1993
PAGE 8
Dan Wood, 2119 E. Chateau, was sworn by the attorney.
Wood: Basically I'm in support of this project but there's a
couple of concerns that I have as my parents live at the end of
Dixie Lane. One of the things I know, my parents are out of town
right now, with using Dixie Lane having some of the lots backing
up to Dixie Lane, one of the things I've seen in the past is a
lot of people will start using that as an alley way if not fenced
out. If there's something we can do to prevent that until we
decide exactly what's going to happen to Dixie Lane. The other
thing I would like to recommend would be concerning the access to
the property to the north coming in off of I think it's the
northwest corner. It barely clips that twenty acre piece there
and then its headed towards that forty acres behind where the
church owns right now. My understanding is that that 40 acres
can't be sewered unless it comes in off the south slough so I
really can't see that that's going to be developed in the real
real near future so I'd like to see them straighten that up more
in line with the property to the north.
Johnson: Thank you. Anyone else to testify?
Dan Bryan, 2070 N. Locust Grove, was sworn by the attorney.
Bryan: (Exhibited drawing on chalk board - see tape for
explanation) It is my interpretation that they are required to
t he this side of the ditch. What is going to happen with future
access for me to get to that headgate? Is there going to be a
road or right of way or walk way of some sort?
Hepper: Don is that ditch right on the property line or which
side of the property line is it on?
Bryan: It is on the north side, it's off of their property as
far as I know.
Clerk Niemann: If it's adjacent to then it has to be tiled.
Bryan: What's the definition of "adjacent to?"
Crookston: I don't have the Ordinance here so I'd have to read
that again to make sure before the City did adopt. There are
provisions if the ditch is, for lack of a better term, adjacent
or contiguous (TAPE ENDED)
Discussion on ditch - see tape.
MERIDIAN PLANNING 8 ZONING
FEBRUARY 9, 1993
PAGE 9
Pat Tealy: Part of the concern on the irrigation, we also need
to get a definition of "adjacent to". At the northeast corner
it's some 12-15 feet away from it and at the northwest corner
it's eight feet away from it, so it's not on our property at all.
It's certainly not contiguous. Rgain we did see a preliminary
plat prepare by JUB Engineers for that 20 acres. I don't know
whether we ought to share that piping of that ditch or whether
they ought to be required to pipe it because its all on their
property. There's no any of the ditch that's on our property.
Johnson: Thank you. Anyone else to testify? No response. I
will now close the public hearing.
Crookston: If the duplex lots don't meet the annexation
requirements -
Johnson: It's in your Finding and Facts that there are not to be
any duplexes.
Niemann: Your probably going to have to table it and have them
submit a revised plat.
Crookston: You can't approve a plat that doesn't meet the
conditions of the annexation. We would need a revised plat.
The Motion was made by Rountree and seconded by Rlidjani to
table the preliminary plat on Cheri Meadows Subdivision until the
next meeting for revisions to the plat.
Motion Carried: R11 Yea:
Johnson: You need to inform the applicant that we need to
receive a new preliminary plat.
The Motion was made by Rountree and seconded by Shearer to
adjourn the meeting at 8:25 P. M.:
Motion Carried: All Yea:
MERIDIRN PLRNNING & ZONING
FEBRURRY 9, 1993
PgGE 10
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
gPPROVED:
gTTEST:
IM OH SON, CHgIRMgN
JACK/NIEMgNN/ CITY CLERK
BEFORE THE MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
B & W, INC.
REZONE APPLICATION
LOT 1, BLOCK 1 AND LOT 1, BLOCK 2 AND THE SOUTHERLY 35.00 FEET OF
LOT 2, BLOCK 1 AND THE SOUTHERLY 30.00 FEET OF LOT 2, BLOCK 2 OF DANBURY FAIR
SUBDIVISION NO. 1
MERIDIAN, IDAHO
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
The above entitled matter having come on for public hearing
February 9, 1993, at the hour of 7:30 o'clock p.m., the Petitioners
appearing in person, the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City
of Meridian having duly considered the evidence and the matter,
makes the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. That a notice of a public hearing on the Rezone
Application was published for two (2) consecutive weeks prior to
the said public hearing scheduled for February 9, 1993, the first
publication of which was fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing;
that the matter was duly considered at the February 9, 1993,
hearing; that the public was given full opportunity to express
comments and submit evidence; and that copies of all notices were
available to newspaper, radio and television stations;
2. That this property is located within the City of Meridian
and is owned by the Applicants and which property is described in
the application which description is incorporated herein; that the
property is presently zoned LO Limited Office; the area in which
Applicants' property is located is developed mostly as a
FINDINGS OF FACE AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PAGE 1
residential area; that property south and east on Pine Street is
zoned industrial.
3. That the Applicants propose to have the property zoned
(R-8) Residential; that the Applicant is developing property
adjacent on the north and west as R-8 Residential.
4. That the R-8 Residential District is described in the
Zoning Ordinance, 11-2-408 B. 2 as follows:
1R-81 Medium Density Residential District: The purpose of
the (R-8) District is to permit the establishment of single
and two family dwellings at a density not exceeding eight (B)
dwelling units per acre. This district delineates those areas
where such development has or is likely to occur in accord
with the Comprehensive Plan of the City and is also designed
to permit the conversion of large homes into two-family
dwellings in well-established neighborhoods of comparable land
use. Connection to the Municipal Water and Sewer systems of
the City of Meridian is required.
5. That the property is located at East Pine and Stonehenge
Way.
6. That the uses of the properties surrounding the subject
property are mostly for single family dwellings.
7. That there was no testimony at the hearing objecting to
the Application.
8. That sewer and water is available and are connected to
the property, but the use may require additional charges and fees.
9. That comments were submitted by the Central District
Health Department, Meridian School District, Meridian Police
Department, Ada County Highway District, and the Meridian Fire
Department, those comments are incorporated herein as if set forth
in full herein.
10. That the Planning and Zoning Commission made and adopted
FINDINGS OF FACE AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PAGE 2
findings of fact and conclusions of law when the property in which
the subject is included was annexed to the City of Meridian; that
those findings of fact and conclusions of law are noticed and
incorporated herein; that in those findings and conclusions it
stated that the property would be zoned R-8 Residential but only
single family dwellings shall be constructed.
11. That proper notice has been given as required by law and
all procedures before the Planning and Zoning Commission have been
followed.
CONCLUSIONS
1. That all the procedural requirements of the Local
Planning Act and of the Ordinances of the City of Meridian have
been met including the mailing of notice to owners of property
within 300 feet of the external boundaries of the Applicants'
property.
2. That the City has the authority to take judicial notice
of its own ordinances, other governmental statues and ordinances,
and of actual conditions existing within the City and state.
3. That the City of Meridian has authority to place
conditions upon granting a zoning amendment.
4. That the City has judged this Application for a zoning
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
FINDINGS OF FACE AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PAGE 3
Meridian, and the record submitted to it and the things of which
it can take judicial notice.
5. That 11-2-416 (K) of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances
of the City of Meridian sets forth standards under which the City
shall review applications for zoning amendments; that upon a review
of those requirements and a review of the facts presented and
conditions of the area, the Planning and Zoning Commission
specifically concludes as follows:
(a) The property is in an area that is generally
residential and where residences have already been
established. The new zoning should be harmonious with
and in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan and no
Comprehensive Plan amendment is required.
(b) The area is on Pine Street and Stonehenge Street
of Meridian where substantial residential property is
planned. A rezone of the subject property is in line
with that use.
(c) The area around the proposed zoning amendment is
developed mostly in a residential fashion. The new
zoning of R-8 Residential should not be contrary to the
other uses in the area.
(d) There has been a change in the area or adjacent
area which dictates that the property should be rezoned
and the area is very likely to be developed in a
residential fashion.
(e) That the property is designed and constructed to
be harmonious with the surrounding area.
(f) The Residential uses would not be hazardous or
disturbing to the existing or future uses of the
neighborhood.
(g) The property will be able to be adequately served
with public facilities, and connection to municipal
sewer and water is required and available.
(h) Residential uses should not create excessive
additional requirements at public cost for public
facilities and services and would not be detrimental to
the economic welfare of the community.
FINDINGS OF FACE AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PAGE 4
(i) The proposed use should not involve any detrimental
activity to any person's property or the general
welfare.
(j) Development should not cause a significant increase
in vehicular traffic and should not interfere with
surrounding traffic patterns.
(k) That this rezone will not result in the
destruction, loss or damage of any natural or scenic
feature of major importance.
(1) The proposed zoning amendment is in the best
interest of City of Meridian.
6. It is further concluded that the comments,
recommendations and requirements of other governmental agencies
will have to be met and complied with.
7. That it is concluded that the Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law which pertained to the annexation of the
property shall be met, specifically including that only single
family dwellings shall be constructed even though the R-8
Residential zoning allows duplexes.
8. That the requirements of the Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law on the annexation of the property continues to
apply.
APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
FINDINGS OF FACE AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PAGE 5
...
The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts
and approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions.
ROLL CALL
COMMISSIONER HEPPER VOTED ~,~.
COMMISSIONER ROUNTREE VOTED ((~-Q~
COMMISSIONER SHEARER VOTED U.QQ,
~-
COMMISSIONER ALIDJANI VOTED ~Tp QT
CHAIRMAN JOHNSON (TIE BREAKER) VOTED
DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION
The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends
to the City Council of the City of Meridian that they approve the
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:
APPROVED:
DISAPPROVED:
FINDINGS OF FACE AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - PAGE 6
d