Loading...
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