HomeMy WebLinkAboutApril 1, 2004 P&Z MinutesMeridian Planning & Zoning
April 1, 2004
Page 12 of 89
to include all staff comments of their memo for the hearing date of April 1st, 2004,
received by the city clerk March 26, 2004.
Rohm: Second.
Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 9: Public Hearing: RZ 04-001 Request for a Rezone of .353 acres from
R-4 to O-T zones for NIDAYS Addition by Merlyn and Brandon
Schmeckpeper-230 West Pine Avenue:
Borup: Thank you. Okay. Our next two items are related -- I mean they are on the
same property. Because of the nature of the request on each of them, I'm going to
open them separately, so we'd like to first proceed with Item No. 9, which is a Public
Hearing RZ 04-001. This is strictly a request for a rezone of the property from R-4 to
OT zones for a lot in NINDAYS Addition. After that hearing I think we will go ahead and
-- and, then, the next one will be for the CUP, will be a request for a Conditional Use
Permit for an accounting and dispatch office. But, first of all, we will address just the
rezone application. So, we'd like to open Public Hearing RZ 04-001, request for the
rezone and start with the staff report.
Kirkpatrick: Chairman, Members of the Commission -- and thank you for that note. We
are, this evening, separating out these two applications, the rezone from the Conditional
Use Permit, and I wanted to make sure that you all are addressing them separately,
they have separate issues involved.
Borup: So, that's what you wanted to me to do anyway, it sounds like. Okay.
Kirkpatrick: That's right. That's perfect. So, this application for the rezone is for a piece
of property that's .35 acres in size. -It's located at 230 West Pine Street, so it is just to
the south of Meridian Elementary School. The applicant's requesting a rezone from R-4
residential zoning to OT, Old Town. The Comprehensive Plan designation for this
property is Old Town, so the applicant's request does meet that condition; that currently
there is a 1,450 square foot single-family dwelling and a detached garage on the
property. The applicant was approved for a home occupation in March of 2004 for a
bookkeeping business and use is currently going on, on the property. The property is
immediately surrounded by single-family residential, but because this is the Old Town
area, there are a number of new and changing uses in the vicinity. To the northeast of
the subject property there has recently been a rezone to Old Town that was approved
and there is going to be some multi-family housing. There are also a number of
commercial uses. There is a beauty salon, a chiropractor's office -- there is a number of
changing uses and uses that fit the definition of the Old Town zone in the vicinity, but
not immediately surrounding this property. Staff supports this request for the rezone.
We feel that the rezone to Old Town is appropriate for the location. It's located on Pine
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 1, 2004 '
Page 13 of 89
Street, which has been classified as a collector. So, it's appropriate for the location and
also it meets the Comprehensive Plan and this designation for Old Town. We do -- I do
want to go ahead and make one side note and show you the site plan and I want to
acknowledge that there has been an ongoing property line dispute between the property
owner and the neighbor immediately to the north over where the property line on the
north side of the properly sits. So, rather than requiring -- and we think it would be
difficult to actually require the applicant to come up with a remedy to this problem on the
property line dispute, we are asking that the property owner -- and they have, actually,
agreed to create a buffer between their property and the property owner to the north.
This is actually a requirement of the -- not of the rezone, but if they were to come in with
a Conditional Use Permit, they would be required to provide a buffer between the
commercial use and the existing residential uses. We are asking for the applicant to put
a cedar fence ten feet away from the disputed property line, so that there will be
screening between what potentially could be a commercial use and the existing
residential use and we are asking them to -- kind of as an acknowledgment of the
property line, to demarcate the property line with curbing and the Schmeckpepers, the
owners of the subject property, would, then, maintain this area between the fence and
the curb, which would be a landscaped area. So, that is something unusual that we are
doing -- or are requesting with this rezone and I believe that's the last condition there in
the staff report. So, are there any questions of staff?
Rohm: Yes. I have a couple questions.
Kirkpatrick: Okay.
Rohm: To start off with, why is the north line of this parcel in question? Why is the
property line in dispute, just out of curiosity?
Kirkpatrick: And I don't have the entire history on this. I believe that the
Schmeckpepers -- that the property line is where they are saying it's located, it's really
about a foot from the home of the property owner to the north. There is -- and it's been
surveyed. The survey actually shows that the property line is really about a foot from
the home of the property owner to the north. And the property owner to the north is
saying that the property line is actually -- I think it's six feet south of where the
Schmeckpepers are disputing.
Rohm: So, does there need to be a separate survey?
Kirkpatrick; No. And, actually, I talked to Bill Nichols, our legal counsel, about that and
if we, actually, had a second survey done, according to Bill Nichols -- and we may have
Chris step in here -- it doesn't actually accomplish anything. In order to solve a
boundary dispute, as I understand it, both property owners have to come to a resolution
and it's -- basically, it's a civil issue. But the property owners have to come to a
resolution together. A second survey would not solve that dispute.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 1, 2004
Page 14 of 89
Rohm: It may be a civil issue, but every time this piece of property comes before the
Commission we have got this problem and at some point in time it has to be resolved
and it just seems this would be a great time to get it resolved and so maybe the solution
that the planning staff has come up with will address that issue and I'm sure we will hear
testimony later that will either support or refute that. My second thing that I'd like to ask
of you, Wendy, is could you give us examples of what would be normally accepted as
conditional use permits within the Old Town development, because I think that seems to
be an issue.
Borup: Yeah. I think that's a good question and that will be the next item on the agenda
would be the conditional use. This is strictly the rezone that we are discussing now. Or
was that related to --
Rohm: Well -- and I think that that's --
Borup: You're talking about uses in an OT zone?
Rohm: Well, right, but before we recommend that we move to that zoning, I think it
would be nice to have some understanding of what potential uses are within that zone
before we make the recommendation, just for the public's interest.
Borup: Okay. Good question.
Kirkpatrick: Okay. I'm going to go through some uses -- basically, every use that I'm
going to list here is a conditional use, aside from single family residential. So, these
uses they can come and apply for conditional uses. The first one is apartment house.
Childcare center. Conditional use. Actually, a library is principally permitted in Old
Town. And, again, accounting office is a conditional use. Administrative services is a
conditional use. Automobile service stations is a conditional use. Let's see. Bar,
alcoholic -- actually, I'm just going to go ahead read the entire list, so I'm not editing
anything. Bakery would be a conditional use. Banks and other financial
establishments, conditional use. Bars, alcohol establishments, conditional use.
Borup: It might be easier just to read the permitted uses, because everything else
would be conditional or not allowed at all.
Kirkpatrick: Okay. A church will be principally permitted. Again, a library or a
museum would be principally permitted. A public parking lot would be principally
permitted and that's the end of the principally permitted uses. I'll give you examples of
some uses, which they would not be allowed to come and apply for. That would be a
wholesale facility. A veterinary clinic. Truck stop. Storage facilities. A sales lot. That
would -- again, they could not even come in and request that as a conditional use.
Nursing home. Actually, they could not come in and apply for a conditional use. A
laundry would not be allowed, even as a conditional use. Neither would a greenhouse
or nursery. An outdoor entertainment center would not allowed as a conditional use.
Nor would a dry cleaner. Oran automobile washing facility.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 1, 2004
Page 15 of 69
Rohm: Thank you, Wendy. I just wanted to get a clearer feel for what the Old Town
really was trying to designate and I think that it might help down the road. So, thanks
very much.
Borup: Any intensive use is not allowed and would not be allowed in the Old Town.
Rohm: Right. Basically, it's a commercial nature or something along that line is through
conditional use permit.
Borup: And looking over -- looking over the list I see, it's just -- it's almost like they went
through and listed everything that's currently in Old Town and put that on as a
conditional use.
Kirkpatrick: I think they did.
Borup: It's mainly businesses that are already in Old Town now.
Rohm: Yes. Okay. Thank you, Wendy. I appreciate that.
Borup: Okay. Any other -- someone else had questions?
Zaremba: I would ask one question. If -- and I read some of the notes on the dispute,
but if it's five feet along the property line or six feet along the property line that is being
in dispute, why did we choose ten? That would seem to give the neighbor to the north
effective use of even more property than is in dispute. I agree with the principle, but I
would have put it where the old fence was.
Kirkpatrick: Well -- and part of that is also to create a buffer. They are -- actually, the
applicant is asking for alternative compliance on landscaping. Typically, it would require
a 20-foot buffer, so I guess the compromise is the ten-foot buffer with screening. And
we just wanted to make sure that that went in, that's why we attached that to the rezone.
Zaremba: And where are you starting to measure the ten-foot from?
Kirkpatrick: Let's see. I actually have the description of the conditions. It's from -- from
the south face of the home.
Zaremba: Okay.
Kirkpatrick: Or, actually, from the surveyed property line.
Borup: Okay. Which would be a little bit more than that, I think. Afoot or so, it
sounded like.
Zaremba: It's, essentially, four feet south of where the old fence was, really
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 1, 2004
Page 16 of 89
Kirkpatrick: So, actually, if it is approved, we will need to go in and change that
condition. Currently it states it's from the south face of the home, so we'll want to go in
and change that.
Zaremba: Yeah.
Borup: Any other questions? Okay. Does the applicant have a presentation they'd like
to make? And, again, this would be pertaining to the rezone.
Schmeckpeper: Correct. Thank you. Chairman and Commissioners, my name is
Merlyn Schmeckpeper and I am one of the property owners of this parcel. I'll try to keep
this as short as I can and to the point. As an overview of the property, it is located on a
collector street on the corner of Pine and West 3rd, allowing for two approved accesses
to and from the site, one off of 3rd Street and one off of Pine. The location is close to
the downtown district. Other business properties already exist in the immediate area,
and I will show you the attached map, if I can get Wendy to, please, put it up there.
Borup: And I think we have that in our packets also.
Schmeckpeper: Do you? The one with the flags on it? That shows where the --
Borup: Wendy, he was -- wanted to get the -- there we go.
Schmeckpeper: There we go. You can see the various uses. We have got a beauty
salon, offices back towards Meridian Street, offices just north of the salon. We have a
four-plex right next to us across the alley. We have a new four-plex being built by J.T.
Schroeder, which was rezoned Old Town. We have a chiropractor across the street
from us and kind of catty-corner about three lots down. Duplexes, triplexes, six-plexes
to the south on R-8. So, there is an abundance of varied use there. On our property we
have provided for off-street parking. We are meeting the setback requiremehts. The
property -- and I think this is important -- Pine Street is -- no longer can be considered a
residential friendly street. It is a collector street and it has quite a bit of traffic and noise.
This property has become very difficult to rent as a residence and I want to make that
known, because the property is very difficult to rent as a residence. The property
location is 230 Pine, which you already know. Description was given by Wendy.
Access we have talked about. Ingress, egress, we have two approved accesses.
Parking, we are asking for 11 spaces off the street, which we can accommodate. The
existing stop in this area -- there are several existing offices and businesses and multi-
family dwellings, two to six unit apartment, already in the immediate vicinity. These are
good locations for such use, since West Pine is now a major collector street with
substantial traffic and associated noise. West Pine Avenue is no longer residential
friendly, as I mentioned. However, because it is a major collector street, it is ideally
suitable for office and small business use. Exiting the property is along -- existing
property is along Pine -- West Pine that can accommodate small offices and businesses
should and are already being encouraged to do so. The residential use of the
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 1, 2004
Page 17 of 89
properties along West Pine is not desirable at best. Many of the houses are among the
older within our city, consequently, many of these properties are forced to survive as
rentals. As owners of the 230 West Pine properly, we can tell you the difficulties in
renting to a residential sector. Few families want to live on such a busy noisy street and
renting it has become a major problem. Therefore, the investment to sustain and to
maintain these properties as a viable asset to the community is no longer practical or
achievable. Further property deterioration is inevitable. Small offices and small
businesses. By converting to office and small businesses and by utilizing the existing
structures as often as possible, the area still retains its residential appearance and
feeling. In fact, by converting to an office and small businesses -- business use, the
impact of traffic and traffic noise often will decrease. The survivability and functionality
of small offices and small businesses are vital to our community's well being. This type
of usage fills a gap between the large scale commercial and developments and meets
many business's needs at an affordable price. Do you folks have a copy of the
comprehensive zoning area? It, basically, comes over -- can you put that one up for
me, Anna, please?
Powell: Mr. Schmeckpeper, if you want to use the colored one that's right down there;
that might be better. And I will put it upon the -- for you.
Schmeckpeper: Oh, over here? I just want them to see that we are properly positioned
in Old Town. If I can orient myself.
Borup: You need to go ahead and grab that microphone there
Schmeckpeper: Okay. Where am I thinking? You don't see this? Where my finger is
pointing is where the subject property is and there is the school. So, the brown you can
see we are well within the Old Town comprehensive plan, which is what the city fathers
say we want, so -- along with some more thoughts on the Comprehensive Plan, I have
pulled a few excerpts from the plan itself and I will try to quickly quote them. Chapter 5,
Goal 2, Objective A, quote: Support redevelopment of Old Town. Action number two,
subparagraph under the Chapter 5. Adopt policies. This is a quotatioh. That will
promote the downtown district as a prime location for mixed residential and commercial
opportunities. Action number 12 under the same chapter, quote: Develop special plans
for the redevelopment and revitalization of Old Town that will enhance the area and
prevent future deterioration. Chapter 7, Goal 4, Objective B, quote: Plan for a variety of
commercial and retail opportunities. Action five under Chapter 7, quote: Locate new
community and commercial areas on arterials or collectors or near residential areas.
Chapter 7, Goal 4, quote: Encourage compatible use to minimize conflicts and
maximize use of land. Objective B under Chapter 7, quote: Bill services to areas of
opportunity and promote future development of commercial, industrial, retail and
service. Action 2, quote: Provide incentives to attract low impact commercial, industrial,
et cetera, businesses. Now, the Planning and Zoning staff has recommended approval
of this. We are asking you folks this evening to approve it also. I think it's probably
important that I comment a little bit on this property line thing that seems to be so
prevalent. As property owners we don't have a property line dispute. We paid to have
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 1, 2004
Page 18 of 89
the property surveyed, we know where the pins are, and in this area of town -- and if
you want documentation, I can provide it -- there are numerous zero setbacks. There
are numerous encroachments. Now -- and I'm talking about the immediate vicinity and
two blocks to the south, as far as the proof that I would have with me this evening. For
example, the two blocks to the south of us, we kind of -- I think there is 15 zero setbacks
and that's just the ones that we counted. There are others. And I think there were three
encroachments that we counted and there are others. This is Old Town Meridian.
People didn't pay a lot of attention to what they were doing, obviously. But as far as
property owners, we do not have a property line dispute. We are in accord with the staff
recommendations to set off of the existing property line ten feet, build the fence, put the
landscaping on the neighbor's side, so to speak, and we are in concurrence with that.
And we feel like this is a good solution and will let the world go on. So, we ask for your
approval tonight and I would make one assumption, however, in regards to that property
line. If, for some reason, we, as owners, came up with some answer that was more
restrictive than what we have presented tonight, I'm assuming that we would be allowed
to do the more restrictive one, whatever that might be. So, with that --
Borup: You're saying like you could increase the setback distance if you wanted?
Schmeckpeper: Well, that becomes very difficult and Idon't --
Borup: I'm not saying that's what -- I'm just trying to --
Schmeckpeper: Mr. Chairman that would definitely be an example. I don't even have a
real life example, I'm just saying if something should be worked out that's more
restrictive, I don't want to waste you folks' time to come back in and say, hey, guess
what, we have done that's more restrictive, would you pass it, and I'm assuming that
staff can do that.
Borup: That normally would be the situation.
Schmeckpeper: I thought that it probably was. Thank you
Borup: The only question I had on that, when you mentioned the existing property pins,
were those the old original ones or did the surveyor put --
Schmeckpeper: These are brand new pins that the surveyor put in. We paid for the
survey and I'm going to say it's about a year ago now, just prior to when we came in
with the day care center, as some of you probably would remember. It was about that
time when we paid to have it resurveyed and he's registered and he's a local surveyor
and he's done these things in his sleep, I guess. Hopefully he didn't do this one in his
sleep.
Borup: Bad term there.
Schmeckpeper: I'm sorry.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 1, 2004
Page 19 of 89
Borup: Okay. Thank you very much. Any other questions for Mr. Schmeckpeper?
Schmeckpeper: Thank you.
Borup: Thank you. Do we have anyone else that would like to testify on the rezone? If
so, now is the time to come forward.
Rokovitz: My name is Darin Rokovitz. My address is 918 West 3rd. I live in the
residence directly north. This might be a little chopped up, because I wasn't sure if you
were going to combine the two issues, so it kind of flows together a little bit here.
Borup: Yeah. We are not combining them.
Rokovitz: Right. Right. So, I'm going to try to keep it separated. I just kind of wanted
to point out a few facts about kind of where this -- the Old Town is going and what's
been happening in this neighborhood. I don't believe that the intent of the Old Town
was to just come in, switch things over, and totally disrupt where people currently live,
the environment, hinder, or cause a negative effect for the area. I believe its intent is to
take an older neighborhood and, eventually, try to improve it to keep it from
downgrading itself. Ever since these -- the rezoning has been approached and there is
further documents and I think some of it will come into play in the other issue as well,
there has been considerable disruption to our neighborhoods. Part of it is the property
line dispute. I went to great lengths to talk to somebody about this and they said that
back in 1903, correct, they did not keep very accurate records and it's all based upon
landmarks. He used a slightly different phrase for it. Monuments, I believe it was. And
that there is no guarantee that any of those are one hundred percent accurate. The
surveyor did do the best he could based upon the current facts he has and the current
marks, but that is not to say that those did not get shifted or altered over the last -- well,
basically hundred years at this point since this was originally surveyed.
Borup: Have you ever had your property surveyed?
Rokovitz: I have?
Borup: Yes.
Rokovitz: No, I have not.
Borup: Okay.
Rokovitz: Except for back when it was originally built. The builder remembers setting
the offset. They had the home farm where she got the loan from and they had to
approve of it. They made sure that it met all the building codes, the surveys, and
everything that was appropriate to build that house. Part of it was very adamantly
known that they had to have afive-foot easement betweeri the property line and the
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 1, 2004
Page 20 of 89
house. The house dimensions were literally built inside of the dimensions of the
property boundaries.
Borup: So, you're saying there was a survey at that time?
Rokovitz: To my knowledge.
Borup: That should be -- that should be recorded, then.
Rokovitz: We have been trying to track down records from that far back and we have
not been able to find --
Borup: So, it sounds like it wasn't, then.
Rokovitz: So -- but I do not know. We also have other -- well, state laws and that. We
do have laws backing the boundary and things of that issue, it's called property by
agreement. There are precedences built upon that. Mr. Schmeckpeper is aware of this.
He has been --that has been addressed to him.
Rohm: My question is the proposed solution that's been brought before us by the staff,
is that something that you're in agreement with or are you not?
Rokovitz: If I understand that correctly, the proposed solution is, first of all, to put a
cement curb where the current pins are; is that correct? Okay. That will literally put the
curb right -well, technically, it wouldn't even be right against the house, it would be
inside -- a couple inches inside my garage wall. The pins don't have a foot buffer, they
literally -- where they currently stand, are literally right up against my driveway and run
right down the edge of my house. The eaves of the garage would overhang the
boundary the way it sits right now.
Borup: I thought you said they would be inside your garage?
Rokovitz: Well, if you put up a cement curb, sure
Moe: Well, the curb would, obviously, have to --
Rohm: It would be south of --
Borup: It sounds like you'd just as soon not have the curb
Rokovitz: No. And, then, that is no solution and I'm sure -- I mean I'm not the property
owner. I'm sure that would be not agreed upon, because that property line is in dispute.
We do have laws that back on that dispute, the six foot. We would have been more
than willing to have said, you know what, this is my grandmother's property, given to her
-- bought to her in good faith by the original owner. If they would have just deeded over
our property and not tried to steal it or try to use it as leverage to keep us from talking at
Meridian Planning & zoning
April 1, 2004
Page 21 of 89
these hearings, we would have been more than happy to have just -- you know what,
put a buffer, try to keep the quiet down, we don't want to lose our property boundary.
Borup: Well, no, but the process to deed something over would be to have a survey
done.
Rokovitz: Well, they have got five foot in their description is what it was.
Borup: Okay.
Rokovitz: I mean I don't know how all that works, but they basically said they would
quick deed it over, but they weren't willing to even -- they said; well, we'll go ahead and
give you a couple feet, maybe, and then -- it was a --
Borup: But you like the idea of the fence?
Rokovitz: Pardon?
Borup: You like the idea of the fence?
Rokovitz: Not ten feet.
Borup: You want it closer to your house?
Rokovitz: No. That only -- our property line was six feet from the garage, which means
if you go six feet, that means there is only a four foot buffer -- four foot buffer from the
business that potentially they are going to want to put in there to where I live. Right now
I have already had my sleep disrupted.
Borup: So, you're saying the garage is over the property -- over the existing --
Rokovitz: From what their current survey is showing.
Borup: Is four feet over?
Rokovitz: No. The eaves would overlap the property line from what they are showing.
Borup: You just said aten-foot offset would only give you how many feet? Six feet or
four?
Rokovitz: The property line is disputed. They are claiming that. I'm sorry, but that
property for 26 plus years, before they even looked at that, was my grandmother's
property. The fence has been there for 26 plus years.
Borup: Okay.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 7, 2004
Page 22 of 89
Rokovitz: They come in, they tore the fence down, then, surveyed after the fact, and,
then, all of a sudden it's become a property dispute. So, by putting the fence there,
that's putting aten-foot from garage, we are not giving in to the fact that that six foot is
their property. That is disputed.
Rohm: So, then, basically, what you are saying is move the property line to where you
want, even though they have got a survey that says that it's someplace adjacent to your
property -- to your home and, then, take the setback from where you say the property
line is and so, basically, that would move the setback 15 feet from -- or so from your --
from your structure. And that seems -- and I don't mean to be disrespectful here, but
that seems to be all one way. And the rest of it seems like there is a compromise and
it's working with your benefit moving and having some setback from the property line
and giving you some -- a buffer and --
Rokovitz: The compromise would be us just flat out saying, you know what, that six foot
that was my grandma's for 26 plus years, it's now become theirs no matter what, even
thought they are going to put up the fence, it will still be construed as their -- that --
Borup: Could you maybe answer why if this has been such a controversy you haven't
had it surveyed?
Rokovitz: Because my grandmother bought the land, you know, at this point 30 years
ago.
Borup: Oh, I understand. You said that. But is there a reason you haven't had it
surveyed?
Rokovitz: I don't own the land. I rent it. So, I don't have a need to have had it
surveyed.
Borup: Well, it isn't your property that you're all --
Rokovitz: I'm renting. I'm the renter.
Borup: Okay.
Rokovitz: Correct.
Rohm: But it has been surveyed and the survey indicates that the line's north of where
you thought it was.
Rokovitz: And there are laws that back up as well. It's called property by agreement.
There are laws also to back our claim to that land.
Rohm: Well, it doesn't sound like there is agreement.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 1, 2004
Page 23 of 89
Zaremba: I would have to ask our attorney, generally, the agreement thing means that
both parties know that they are making the agreement -- not locally, but in California
generally if a new property owner discovers that the line is wrong, they are able to
reclaim their property. If a --
Rokovitz: And this was said if it -- if a fence is put up and not disputed within five years,
it goes to them and any heirs and passing on, basically, they are agreeing to that as
well.
Zaremba: Five years from when --
Rokovitz: From when the fence was put up.
Zaremba: From when the property owner learns that it was wrong
Rokovitz: From the time the fence was put up is the way it reads and it says basically
consecutively down there, so even if it passed on to family members or they sell it, that
property line has been established.
Gabbert: Chairman, Members of the Commission, I realize that the property dispute is -
- the property line dispute is a major hold up to this application. Obviously, there is a lot
of -- there is a lot of legal background to it. I mean, obviously, in Idaho you have
adverse possession. If you put up a fence for five years or whatnot or whatever the
statute of limitations is on that case and it's open and notorious, you know, you can
establish -- you can change property lines. It doesn't sound like necessarily in this case
-- and I haven't reviewed the entire background of this, nor have we been asked to
make any kind of legal -- legal ruling on this. It doesn't sound like an agreement has
been reached and the Commission, you know, in its rule appears to look at this
application. I feel like these are collateral issues that necessarily detract the
Commission from its decision, at least on the rezone tonight. I think that this is an issue
that the applicant and his neighbors and their attorneys are probably going to have to
come to an agreement on and I would ask the speaker, you know, if he's not in
agreement with what the staff conditions are with the ten foot buffer zone, to consider
that. But, otherwise, this -- you know, whether the property line is established or not or
who surveyed it when -- that gets into a whole myriad of factual issues that I'm not
prepared to say where that property line is.
Borup: I think that's good advice to maybe help us continue on. Anything else you'd
like to add?
Rokovitz: Yeah. I'll just get off that subject. So, basically, as far as the rezoning, the
whole intent is just really not to disrupt the neighborhood. You know, it's been stated
that that's not desirable for residential things and of this nature, that's why they want it
rezoned. I kind of -- of course, they have a different map up now, but even though there
are businesses on that map that they had up there that was showing all the triplexes,
duplexes, four-plexes, those are still residential, those are where people actually live.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 1, 2004
Page 24 of 89
It's not an actual place where they are conducting a business to where people are
coming to do the business and going home at night. You have very few in there. This
is still a prominent residential area. It's nice, it's quiet, it's been a great place to raise
families. As of late it's been very disruptive for families, for my children. The increase
of traffic, they mentioned -- you know, turn it to Old Town will help quiet it down, less
traffic, less noise. How do you go from renting a house that might have say a two car
garage to operating a business that I have already shown proof that they have operated
up to 14 cars out of that place. That doesn't seem like a decrease in noise pollution and
traffic to me. That's an increase. This is a very heavy thoroughfare along Pine Street
for children walking to and from school, a hundred plus children every day coming to
and from. By putting -- rezoning this and throwing a business in there -- we are only
three blocks from the school, you're now adding a big danger factor in there that the
kids are going to have to have an increased traffic coming and going right out of that
specific area. There was just a lot of reasons why even the rezoning is not a good
beneficial for this specific area. I'm a single dad raising two kids. My concern is my
family life, my children's lives, and I certainly care about all the other children in that
area, as well as my peace and quiet where I live and so far this has been anything but
that. Basically, I recommend denial of even the rezone, as you will end up -- it's been
totally disruptive ever since this whole issue has come up and most of the businesses
they can put in there -- I'm not saying that eventually it won't happen, we understand
that, but currently right now this is predominately residential and a business is being
very disruptive, so the rezoning is going to open the door to put some -- you know,
shoehorn something in there and, then, we are going to have even a bigger mess.
That's pretty much all I have to say about the rezone.
Borup: Thank you.
Rokovitz: It's hard to separate them.
Borup: All right. Thank you.
Rokovitr: Anything else?
Borup: Questions from the Commission? All right. Thank you, sir.
Rokovitz: Thank you.
Borup: Do we have anyone else?
C.Rokovitr: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, my name is Charlene Rokovitr and I own
the property at 918 West 3rd and I have come in opposition of the rezone. Last year it
was stated that Old Town is in a transition zone and that this was the Comprehensive
Plan for Meridian. Mr. Centers said -- and I quote: The Comprehensive Plan is not a
law. It is a guide for us. It is totally not a law. In another part of his conversation he
stated: The only reason they are going OT is because it is not approved in an R-4 zone,
which it's presently zoned as. It's not predominate in the neighborhood. The neighbors
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 1, 2004
Page 25 of 89
don't want it. We can't dictate by a comprehensive plan that we want that to go to OT
and have businesses in the neighborhood. And the same thing is happening right now
with this new rezone. I realize that Mr. Centers is no longer with us, but I highly
respected him. He really listened to the people. Rezoning makes no sense at this time.
It's just opening a back door for the neighbor -- for more neighborhood problems. When
it comes to -- maybe I can clear a little bit up. When it comes to having a different
survey, when we talked to the lawyer, he said it is not necessary, because you have the
property by agreement. The property by agreement would take effect for the simple fact
that there was no problem with that fence and our property line until they decided to put
in a business, which he had had the property for five years or so before that. And
because he had never cared about it up until he wanted some -- to move things, then,
there was a problem. You asked about the ten-foot thing. I believe in the laws -- in the
policies that -- your city policies, it's a 20 foot buffer. I didn't have time to hurry and hunt
it up, but it says that there should be a 20-foot buffer.
Borup: Between which zone and which zone?
C.Rokovitz: The 20 foot buffer for -- I'd have to go back and look it up, but it's supposed
to be a 20-foot buffer. We had the same thing last year. In fact, if I can find it here real
quick. Okay. Mr. Centers said at that time a comment to the -- and this was for the
CUP, but he said a comment to the applicant CUP, you apply for the permit and you
want a lot of exceptions, a 20 foot buffer, you want five, you ask for large concessions,
when you're asking for a conditional permit, the city has certain ordinances and they like
them followed and, then, to ask for the exceptions sometimes doesn't get it. I mean he
said right there that it's a 20 foot buffer. And, like I said, I would have to go back and
check the thing of what --
Borup: That was talking about a separate application from this; is that correct?
C.Rokovitz: Last --
Borup: That's pertaining to a separate CUP
C.Rokovitz: Right. This was last year's, but I don't think you have changed the 20-foot
buffer since, then, have you?
Kirkpatrick: Chairman, Members of the Commission --
Borup: Yes.
Kirkpatrick: Just to clarify, the 20 foot buffer is required not between zones, but
between uses, when there is a commercial use that's bordering a residential use, that
the standard is a 20 foot buffer and they are asking -- in this case they are. asking for
alternative compliance for the ten foot buffer.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 1, 2004
Page 26 of 89
Borup: Okay. And at this point the rezone doesn't even address buffers, because there
is nothing to buffer.
C.Rokovitz: Well, there was -- in Wendy's statement she did have a sentence or a
paragraph or something in there about having the ten foot buffer in it, because I couldn't
figure out why it would be in the rezone, instead of, you know, in with the business, but
there was a sentence in there addressing that.
Kirkpatrick: Chairman, Members of the Commission, that's on page four, condition of
approval number seven. And, actually, we want to do -- if we approve this is do a little
bit of word-smithing here, but, basically, if the subject property is used for a conditional
use the development agreement shall be required and that's where we would establish
the ten foot buffer.
Borup: But the buffer is with -- again, that's another way of saying the buffer goes with
the CUP or a commercial use. So, the buffer was not part of the rezoning, though it
made reference to it, because there was a separate application.
C.Rokovitz: I understood that the buffer would automatically go in if the rezone went
through.
Kirkpatrick: Chairman, Members of the Commission, the buffer would be a part of the
development agreement, which would be condition of the rezone.
Borup: Okay. That's if the commercial use was --
Kirkpatrick: If there is a commercial or nonresidential use.
Borup: Right.
Kirkpatrick: If this continued as a residential property, they would not be required to put
this buffer in. But we -- from what we understand, the applicant is planning to have this
be a commercial use.
Borup: And that's why that was mentioned. Does that make sense? Do you understand
what she's saying there?
C.Rokovitz: I understand what she's saying, but --
Borup: But what?
C.Rokovitz: Well, like he tried to tell you and, you know, it's -- we are not -- it's not that
we are trying to be totally unreasonable, it's the fact that we have as much law on our
side as he does.
Borup: Well, that's not for us to determine, I don't believe.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April t, 2004
Page 27 of 89
C.Rokovitz: Right. But by the same token, when you put in here ten feet from -- from
basically the side of the house and six feet of it is already ours that leaves four foot for a
buffer. I mean that's -- it just does. Thirty years having property -- and it's been 30
years.
Borup: How long has Mr. Schmeckpeper owned that property?
C.Rokovitr: I know of -- I know of one document that said '98, but I think I saw one that
said earlier, but I'm not -- I'm not positive. But I know definitely today when I was
looking through my stuff from last year I saw one that said '98.
Borup: Okay. So, it hasn't been 30 years for him
C.Rokovitz: No.
Borup: Anything else you'd like to add?
C.Rokovitr: I'm not really sure. I've kind of lost my train of thought, because --
Borup: You will have another opportunity here on the next item.
C.Rokovitz: Okay. Well, Ijust -- I am asking for denial of rezohe. I am, because at this
time there really is no need of having a rezone. You may or may not pass the business.
I know it has been -- it has been recommended that you don't, but if it does not go
through, there is no need for the rezone, it's just another way of having something else
slip in the back door and there has been a lot of problems with that -- with that house
this last year, a lot of problems with the activities that has gone on. So, we are asking
that you don't open the door for more activities that should not be there that are not
appropriate to be there. If you have read through your things you will understand the
things from the police chief and everything, so I am asking that you deny the rezone.
Borup: Okay.
C.Rokovitz: Okay. Thank you.
Borup: Questions from any of the Commissioners? Did we have anyone else? Seeing
none, Commissioners? Unless, Mr. Schmeckpeper, do you have final concluding
comments you wanted to make? Okay. He has none.
Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I move that we close the Public Hearing on Item No. 9, RZ 04-
001.
Powell: Chairman Borup, before you close the Public Hearing, I'm sorry, I didn't jump in
there fast enough. I just wanted to say a brief word on alternative compliance in Old
Town. It is standard to see applicants request alternative compliance in Old Town,
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 1, 2004
Page 28 of 89
because they are smaller lots and it was always recognized -- in fact, I think that's one
of the reasons the alternative compliance was put in there was to accommodate
redevelopment of small properties in such areas as Old Town. So, it's not uncommon.
And I just wanted to point out what was uncommon on this one was to have the buffer
on the neighbor's side of the fence. That is usual for those of you who haven't been on
the Planning and Zoning Commission for long. Usually, the buffer is on the commercial
side, not on the residential side. And the fence is -- also it's not a requirement of the
zone, so that's also part of the alternative compliance. Instead of additional area, you're
providing a visual screen with the fence. So, that was part of the alternative compliance
as well. So, I just wanted to point out those two things for those Commissioners that
weren't familiar with the term and particularly the use in Old Town, so --
Borup: Okay. Thank you.
Powell: I'm sorry, Commissioner Rohm.
Borup: Your comments are always welcome. They could have come even after the
motion.
Newton-Huckabay: Can I just ask for a clarification? So we consider this independent
of the property line dispute?
Borup: Yes. Yes.
Newton-Huckabay: We do not have to consider that in our --
Rohm: I wouldn't say so.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Thank you.
Borup: Do we have a second?
Zaremba: I'll second the motion.
Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Borup: Okay. We just closed the hearing is what we just did there. Are we ready for a
motion or do we have some discussion first?
Rohm: Mr. Chairman, maybe a little bit of discussion here. The Pine Street, I believe,
has become a collector street and I understand what the neighbors are saying and I can
see where their concerns are, but the upshot from my perspective is with being border
on a collector street, a commercial use seems to be in order. I don't know what use
would be agreed to within the neighborhood, but by rezoning that doesn't necessarily
Meddian Planning & Zoning
Aprll 1, 2004
Page 29 of 89
grant the right to any specific development and so by at least getting past that point,
then, we can move forward with a Conditional Use Permit that would address a specific
development within that lot. That seems appropriate to me.
Borup: I think that's one of the reasons for the conditional use stipulation is that's to be
determined what would be appropriate and especially in Old Town every location is
going to have different circumstances.
Rohm: Exactly, but I believe that the applicant has made the right move by requesting
the rezone here and, then, once the zoning is available, then, the specific Conditional
Use Permit can be discussed openly and -- and move forward with it on its own agenda
and that would be my thoughts on the rezone application.
Borup: Okay. Anyone else have anything additional? Are we ready for a motion?
Rohm: With that, Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward oh to City Council approval of
RZ 04-001, including all staff comments, dated April 1, received on March 29th, '04. I
believe that's the end of the motion.
Moe: Second.
Zaremba: There is one line that needs to be changed in the staff comments on page
five.
Rohm: Okay. On page five, the second line, we will delete south side of the existing
home located directly north and restate that to the north survey property line. That
would be the only change to the staff comments. End of motioh.
Borup: We have a motion.
Newton-Huckabay: And I will second.
Borup: And a second. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Borup: Okay. Thank you. We have one Commissioner that would like a short break at
this time. I think we can do that. And then -- try to make that short and we will
reconvene with Item No. 10.
(Recess.)
Item 10: Public Hearing: CUP 04-005 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for
an accounting and dispatch office in a proposed O-T zone for NIDAYS
Addition by Seal Co. - 230 West Pine Avenue:
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 1, 2004
Page 30 of 89
Borup: Okay. I think we are ready. We'd like to go ahead and reconvene our meeting
this evening. Next item, No. 10, is CUP 04-005, request for a Cohditional Use Permit
for an accounting and dispatch office in a proposed OT zone by Sealco at 2030 West
Pine. We'd like to open the hearing at this time and start with the staff report.
Kirkpatrick: Chairman, Members of the Commission, this application -- I'll go ahead and
put it here. This application is a conditional -- a request for a Conditional Use Permit for
an accounting and dispatch office. It's located at 230 West Pine Street. This is,
actually, the property, of course, that we were just speaking about earlier. The property
has an existing single-family dwelling and detached garage. I'm going to go through --
basically while -- this proposed office use is -- the applicant's permitted to come in and
request that office use in the Old Town district. Staff found that we could not make all of
the findings required to recommend approval on this application. So, I'm going to go
through the findings where we found that we could not recommend approval and
expound on those. The first of these findings, if you go to page three of your staff
report, Finding C, the finding that we needed to make to recommend approval was that -
- and I'll go ahead and quote this. That the design, construction, operation, and
maintenance will be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood and with
the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and that such use will not
adversely change the essential character of the same area: Staff found that we could
not make this finding, because we thought that the design, construction, operation, and
maintenance of the proposed use would not be compatible with the existing uses and
had the potential to adversely affect the character of the neighborhood based on noise
complaints that have been received from the neighbors associated with the home
occupation.. And I will go ahead and reiterate -- Sealco received permission to have a
home occupation on this property March 4, 2004, and we have received a number of
complaints from neighbors related to noise issues on the property since then. So, we
found that we could not make this finding, Finding C. The next finding we were not --
we could not -- were not able to make is Finding D, which reads that the proposed use,
if it complies with all conditions of the approval imposed, will not adversely affect other
property in the vicinity. And we were not able to make this finding. It was based on the
applicant's past history of not complying with conditions of approval and we are referring
to the conditions of approval for the accessory use permit for the home occupation,
which allowed Sealco's bookkeeper to operate out of that residence. And the last
finding we are not able to make is on page four and it's Item G, which reads that the
proposed use will not involve activities or processes, materials, equipment, and
conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property, or general
welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare, or
odors. And staff found that this proposed Conditional Use Permit had the potential to be
detrimental and this -- to surrounding properties and this was based on the applicant's
past history of noncompliance and noise complaints that we have received on the
property. So, staff is recommending denial of the proposed Conditional Use Permit and,
basically, this was based on the applicant who was requesting this Conditional Use
Permit and their past history with the city. We have also attached to your staff report a
copy of our code enforcement Officer Joe Venneman, he's made several visits to the
property concerning and -- I can go through -- if need be, I can answer questions. And
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 1, 2D04
Page 31 of 89
we also have the police chief here, who has -- if you need for him to answer any
questions concerning this, but we felt that the applicant has basically not been in
compliance with the accessory use permit and we don't expect for them to comply with
the conditions of this Conditional Use Permit if it were approved. Are there any
questions of staff?
Zaremba: The description of what they are proposing sounds to me more like a
contractor's yard than anything else. You previously read to us sections of the schedule
of use control and I don't remember if you mentioned contractor's yard in the Old Town
district.
Kirkpatrick: I don't remember that being there.
Zaremba: I thought you had it handy.
Kirkpatrick: We were assuming this would be an office use. It's an office and dispatch
office.
Zaremba: But that's already been handled with the accessory use permit. I mean they
are already allowed to have a bookkeeping office. What they are trying to add to it is a
considerably different part of the business.
Kirkpatrick: What -- there would be, I think, some materials and equipment stored on
site and employees would be dispatched from this office, so I think it would be
increasing the traffic at the site from what they were permitted with the --
Zaremba: 1 was looking up contractor's yard at the moment.
Borup: My recollection -- and I'm not finding it right off -- there it is. No, that is not even
permitted in Old Town, but 1 was thinking the definition of a contractor's yard is more
outside equipment and storage, not in an enclosed building.
Zaremba: It's very similar, though. People coming and going to pick up stuff and --
Borup: That's right.
Powell: Chairman Borup, Councilmember or -- sorry. I elevated you there.
Commissioner Zaremba. We have -- it is a tricky line, because in a sense they are
contractors and they are using it a5 an area to store things. But, typically, on the -- on
contractor's that aren't storing large pieces of equipment or large pieces of -- you know,
like vehicles and things like that or large pieces of lumber or spools of cable, things like
that, for the electrical contractors and whatnot, we have just called them an office and a
dispatch center, recognizing that there may be a limited quantity of materials they pick
up and I do believe Sealco in this case just picks up relatively small cans. So, we have
not termed them as a contractor's yard.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 1, 2004
Page 32 of 89
Borup: And the definition of a contractor's yard is a parcel of land that's used for
storage and it goes beyond that. You know, incidental to building and construction, but
it's referred to as the land being used for storage, not an enclosed area. At least it
doesn't mention that here. Okay. Did that -- any other questions?
Zaremba: No. That's it. Thank you.
Borup: Did that conclude everything you had, Wendy?
Kirkpatrick: Correct. Are there any questions of staff?
Rohm: Kind of thinking out loud here just a bit, Wendy. On this Condition C, that the
design, construction, operation, maintenance will be compatible with other uses in the
general neighborhood and with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity.
Okay. Taking that, you could almost say the only thing that would be compatible would
be residential, if, in fact, you wanted to push the envelope that way, or you could go just
the opposite and say that there is commercial development right across the street and,
therefore, it is cdmpatible. So, it seems to me that that specific finding is almost subject
to personal interpretation.
Kirkpatrick: It is. And that's why we have the Planning Commission.
Rohm: Okay. And, thank you, that's -- thank you.
Borup: And a lot of them are subject to personal interpretation, so -- okay. Would the
applicant like to come forward?
Devaney: Good evening, Commissioners. My name is Paula Devaney and I'm the
president and owner of Sealco. Sealco is a caulking and waterproofing company. We
have been established since 1987 and except for office work all of our work is done
away from our office at various construction sites. We store a minimum amount of
materials and equipment on site. Any large quantities of material that we have are
usually delivered directly to job sites. We don't have the equipment to move large
pallets of material or any of that, so those are always delivered directly to job sites. Our
plan for 230 West Pine Street is to operate our office for administrative work, work crew
meetings, such as work explanation, work assignments, and safety meetings. We have
four full-time laborers, one estimator, who is also a co-owner of the company, and me.
If the CUP is approved, we will have afull-time office administrator, Susan Rice, who
currently holds the APU. She will continue to work for the other clients. She is
established in her accounting business, as they are not in conflict with our business. In
the past I have occasionally hosted volunteer groups of various kinds, for meetings of
these groups, including committees for the National Association of Women in
Construction, the Guide Dog Puppy Club, and these meetings are generally small
meetings and short in duration. We have a total of seven trucks. These trucks are
driven by the employees at -- they drive them home at night, so they are not at our
office during the day, on the weekends, or at night, except rarely if two of our guys car
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 1, 2004
Page 33 of 89
pool together to go to a job out of town, then, they may meet there, leave one truck and
take another. With gas prices going up, we expect to see an increase of the meetings
and trying to combine our efforts if we can.
Rohm: Can you define what the truck is? Is it a half-ton truck or is it --
Devaney: They are Ford F-150.
Rohm: Okay. Thank you.
Devaney: All of our trucks are Ford F-150, not that I'm doing a commercial, but --
Rohm: Right. I just didn't know if it was a half ton or if it was ten ton, you know, 18
wheeler.
Devaney: I appreciate that. No, they are just Ford F-150s. Our use is not incompatible
and it's similar to the other businesses in the area. In fact, I think we are going to be
less intrusive than most businesses. We won't have any signage. We won't have retail
customers. We do not have a client base that comes and go on a regular basis. We
will generate minimal traffic. We've ask the landlord specifically to put parking in the
back, so that we are off-street parking and we are seldom there -- seldom, if ever, on
weekends or in the evenings after 6:00 are we even there. The -- we were made aware
of a noise complaint one morning and we specifically spoke to the employee involved
and the other employees. It had to do with putting a ladder rack -- a metal ladder rack
on -- a metal ladder on a metal ladder rack. It was, you know, some short-term noise in
duration. We addressed it with our employees, we specifically told them that that would
not be allowed and to be, you know, very careful with that. When we had to go back to
the accessory use permit, I was completely removed. I removed all of my business
away from there. Susan took over the office, the lease, and was doing her accounting
business. I'm sure you remember the meeting, it wasn't that long ago, that we talked
about that, they wanted the material taken out of there and no more material was to be
brought in. The surveillance notes do show that people arrived and that they did
continue to remove material from there. We strongly suggested and, you know, we
stressed that they do it on a minimal basis, no more material was brought in, it was not
brought in, and the only thing that I can see that they observed were taking things out of
the garage and those were very minimal, because we don't keep anything -- anything
there of any consequence. From the beginning we have tried -- we met with staff; we
tried to respond to their concerns. I believe that we acted with integrity; we were up
front. If we were -- we were in noncompliance or they talked to us, we did try to address
it. We moved any excess vehicles totally off the site to a different storage place, we
moved all of the material offsite that we could to a different storage place; we did not
bring any new material in. I moved my operation completely out of the office. I was not
present on site, except on very rare occasions to sign checks and things like these
applications. The problem as you see it now, with the exception of the fence and the
landscaping, which I found rather generous, a ten feet setback and the landscaping on
the neighbor's side, I understand the people doing the four-plex and are going to pave
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 1, 2004
Page 34 of 89
that alleyway. It's really what that property will continue to look like when we are there.
We are not -- we don't plan on changing anything. Like I said, no signs. We will have
very -- of all the businesses to go in there, I really think that we are probably one of the
least intrusive. Our workers do not even come every single day. You know, they may
at some times come in the day and sometimes they don't. So, If, indeed, really, the only
complaint was the storage of material in the garage. I will have to say that we will store
material in the garage. Not in huge amounts, because we never have, that's not our
operation. All of our material is stored inside. We do not store material, we do not store
equipment outside, so it in no way will resemble of contractor's yard. We also complied
with OSHA and the fire department on the types of material that we store, as far as the
construction chemicals, so we don't have gallons of material around. We are good
members of this community. We are active in the community. We participate in many
community endeavors, and we have really tried to mitigate the ongoing problem that
you -- that'has been going on there. We have counseled our employees strongly that
when they come in to drop off time sheets, that they try to be considerate of the
neighbors. We are aware of the school there. Personally, I think we are an added
bonus to the school there, we are always there, our doors are open after school, if those
children were in trouble, trust me, we would be a very safe harbor for them to come to.
So, I believe that the neighbors would be fortunate to have us in the respect that we are
going to be very intrusive, with no lighting, no signage. I just don't know how we would
be much less intrusive than we are. And I would ask for your consideration in approving
this.
Borup: Okay. Thank you. Questions from the Commission?
Zaremba: If I remember correctly, there was an earlier reference to eleven parking
spaces; is that correct?
Devaney: There is supposed to eight and that's considered as four paved ones that will
6e behind the garage -- is that right, Merlyn, just four back there? And, then, actually, a
double car garage, which would put two cars in and two cars out. So, there would be
the four in the back and the two outside and two inside, conceivably if we needed to
park eight vehicles there.
Borup: I think the site plan is showing nine, isn't it?
Zaremba: Well, my question would be if you have things stored in the garage --
Devaney: Yeah, we wouldn't consider those parking spaces, because -- well, first off,
we don't have that many vehicles we need to park there.
Zaremba: Can you give me an idea of what time of day -- what's the earliest that
somebody might show up, if you're just using it for dispatch and office functions?
Devaney: The earliest that our workers typically show up -- and in the summertime is --
because they try to start early, is that they will start -- they can start showing up around
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 1, 2004
Page 35 of 89
6:l)l) in the morning meeting and, then, leaving. However, given this situation, we have
had them make sure that they met the night before to get any material that they might
need or the material is already at the job site and that their meeting in the morning is
only to park cars and leave together.
Moe: Out of the seven trucks, then, as far as coming in to pick up materials and
whatnot, on an average, like on a per day basis, how many vehicle trips are we seeing
in a --going in and out?
Devaney: I would say on any given day you're probably going to have half of them to
the office, with the exception, probably, of Friday and, then, they all will come in,
because that's when we have safety meetings.
Rohm: So, that's seven? Half of seven on a daily basis and, then, all seven on
Fridays?
Devaney: Right.
Moe: And most of those are coming in the afternoon to pick up supplies for the
following day or --
Devaney: Yes. We try to limit it to that. Now, they were meeting on a regular basis in
the morning, but we would try to eliminate that altogether and have them come in the
afternoon instead.
Zaremba: That's the number of trucks? That would be plus office staff coming and
going; is that correct?
Devaney: Right. And that's at the most. I mean we don't -- generally we don't -- like I
said, the guys drive their trucks home at night. They only come to the office in the
morning if they -- if they really have to and they, usually, do not have time. The times at
the most is in the winter if the weather is bad and they are not sure where we are going
to send them, they have to come in and pick up a different job assignment. But,
typically, we try not to have them come into the office, we want them to go directly from
home to the job site -- from their homes to the job sites.
Borup: Any other questions? Were you familiar with the conditions on the -- a couple
months ago on auxiliary use?
Devaney: Yes, we were familiar with it.
Borup: And one of those conditions that the material would be removed from the
garage storage.
Devaney: Okay. Well, I wasn't here for that hearing, because that was what Susan --
but from what she told me was that no material could be brought in and that it would --
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 1, 2004
Page 36 of 89
that the material would be removed. It was not my impression that it was supposed to
be removed all at once, but I don't think there was much material there to remove.
Borup: Then, it shouldn't take them very long, then.
Devaney: Right. But I'm saying is there wasn't enough there to remove to constitute
remove -- like I say, it sounds like double talk, but I mean I think when they -- on the one
instance they cited, they showed up and it would appear to me that those are things
they had not anticipated they were going to need and, then, ended up, you know,
needing them. One was a small tool.
Borup: Okay. But you had indicated you had another storage area and, if, indeed, that
the material, as part of that condition, was to be removed, it shouldn't have taken two
months to have that removed, if it's a small amount you're talking about. I think that's
one of the conditions that staff was talking about and not complying with previous -- or
one of the items of not complying with previous conditions. Okay. Any other questions
from anyone? All right. Thank you. Okay. Do we have anyone else who would like to
come forward?
B.Schmeckpeper: My name is Brandon Schmeckpeper and I'm a part owner in that
property and I just have a couple questions, so that I can be a little more clear in what
was said earlier. Did I hear you correctly when you said that Sealco --
Borup: You need to go ahead and address the Commission.
B.Schmeckpeper: Oh. Okay. So I can ask questions of staff through you?
Borup: Yes.
B.Schmeckpeper: Okay. Then, my question is did I understand staff to say that Sealco
was the one that got the home occupation permit?
Borup: They might have inadvertently said that, but that was not correct, it was -- yeah,
we realize that Sealco did not --
B.Schmeckpeper: That's right. I wanted to clarify that for the record. I would also -- if it
wouldn't inconvenience the Commission too much, I'd like to have those findings read
back one at a time.
Borup: Which findings?
B.Schmeckpeper: The findings of why it was not -- it didn't work with the neighborhood.
Borup: Oh. Sure. Okay. Yeah, we will go ahead and do -- any other questions?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 1, 2004
Page 37 of 89
B.Schmeckpeper: I'd like to know if the staff is required to consult the Comprehensive
Plan when they do their findings.
Borup: Okay. As far as a conditional use?
B.$chmeckpeper: Yeah. In any use. Conditional use specifically, because that's
what's in front of the Commission right now.
Borup: All right.
B.Schmeckpeper: I don't know. That's why I asked the question. It didn't appear that it
was taken into consideration for this CUP and I was just curious as to whether it's
required to be.
Borup: Well, we'll let staff answer, so I don't misquote that.
Kirkpatrick: Chairman, Members of the Commission, actually, if you look on page three
-- this is Finding B -- actually, this is a finding we did make.
Borup: Right. Okay. It is.
Kirkpatrick: It asks if the proposed use and development is harmonious with the
Comprehensive Plan and I, actually, said, yes, it is. As noted earlier, the
Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map designates the property as Old Town and that the
proposed use complies with the requested OT zoning designation. So, actually, I did
make that finding.
B.Schmeckpeper: Okay. And I appreciate that. I have not read that myself. What I
heard is what I heard tonight.
Borup: Right. And all the other findings -- there is items A through I. Or did I miss one
here?
B.Schmeckpeper: Okay. And I should get a copy of it and read it, so I'm not doing it on
what I hear.
Borup: Yeah. There is Findings A through I and out of that many there is only three
that they said it did not comply.
B.Schmeckpeper: Okay. Well, I guess that's a pretty good average. The ones that I
did hear just kind of rang a bell in my head, because to say it's not compatible, I think I
agree with Commissioner Rohm, what is compatible. Are we going to move ahead with
the Comprehensive Plan of Meridian or are we just going to be stagnant? You know,
you know take it to either side that you want. My opinion is that if it's going to be
residential, it's going to be residential. That doesn't work in that neighborhood and I
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April t, 2004
Page 38 of 89
guess that's -- my questions have been answered and that's the only comments I have.
Thank you.
Borup: Okay. Thank you. And as per your request -- and if you have other questions, I
guess we could answer that, but the items that you had ask to review again was C, D,
and G. First was about the design, construction, and operation and that's probably the
key word there -- business would be compatible with other uses in the general
neighborhood. And the staff finding -- and I'm not going to read the whole thing, but I
think the pertinent part here was that if such use will adversely change the essential
character of the same area and that finding was -- this finding was based on the noise
complaints the city has received from the neighbors of the subject property. The next
item was D, that the proposed use, if it complies with all the conditions of the approval
imposed, will not adversely affect other property in the vicinity. Staff finds the proposed
use will adversely impact other property in the vicinity. Applicant has a past history of
not complying with conditions of approval, as evidenced by a violation of the conditions
of approval for the AUP for the bookkeeping business. And staff has concerns that
applicant will not comply with the conditions of approval for the proposed CUP. And the
last one was G. That the proposed use will not involve activities that will cause
excessive traffic, noise, smoke, and other odors. But staff finds the proposed will
involve activities or processes, materials, equipment, other conditions of the operation
that will be detrimental to any person, property, or general welfare in the protection of
traffic noise, smoke, fumes. The proposed use will be detrimental to neighboring
properties due to the applicant's past history of noncompliance and with the resulting
complaints the city has received from the neighbors regarding noise associated with the
approved AUP at the subject property. So, they -- the response was essentially the
same on all three and all three of those things -- there is probably some overlapping on
the question, but --
B.Schmeckpeper: I appreciate you reading that back. It just seems to me that -- how
can you have both things?
Borup: How can you have what?
B.Schmeckpeper: How can you -- and I'm not pointing fingers, I'm just saying in general
how can you say we want to have light office, we want to have mixed use, but our
findings -- and maybe their hands are tied in the way you have to find the findings, I do
not know, but to say does it adversely affect the neighborhood --
Borup: Well, that's the question. Yeah. The question was will it and their termination
was that -- yes.
B.Schmeckpeper: And there will be increased, maybe. Maybe with this use, maybe
not. Maybe with the next use. The thing is -- is to me it sounds like it's contradictory in
the terms of where we are going. You know, if we have a Comprehensive Plan that
says we need to mix this neighborhood up, we need to revitalize this part of the city, but
we have findings that say it is adverse to the neighborhood. Will there be more cars?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 1, 2004 '
Page 39 of 89
Well, there is going to be more cars going down Pine whether we like it or not and I'm
not trying to be aggressive here or argumentary, but it just seems that those don't
always tie together.
Borup: Well, Old Town is a large area and some areas it's going to affect it more than
others and that is why a conditional use is required, so they can be looked at on a case-
by-case basis.
B.Schmeckpeper: That's a very good point and I won't take anymore of your time.
Thanks.
Borup: Thank you. Do we have anyone else who would like to testify?
Rokovitz: My name is Darin Rokovitz, 918 West 3rd Street. So far as the Conditional
Use Permit, I wanted to kind of clarify a few things. I was not available to be at the
bookkeeping one and so, hopefully, I can clear things up on this one. There is a list of
vehicles and just kind of a quick catch daily list of cars that have come and gone from
that property.
Borup: So this was submitted by you, then?
Rokovitz: Correct.
Borup: Okay. Because it didn't have any name or anything on it
Rokovitz: I apologize for that.
Borup: It just was --
Rokovitz: It is not, by any means, all inclusive. It was just .basically my noticing of
vehicles as I come and went from work. So, we are talking about just maybe once or
twice a day; sometimes a little more on my days off. All those vehicles -- it was once
suggested that, well, some of those might belong to the construction that's going on to
the northeast for the duplex. Every one of those vehicles I personally witnessed and the
people getting in and out at times, they access the garage. Now, these also happened
before that construction started going full bore to the northeast. These were ones that
were directly linked to this properly, the house, and the garage. People have accessed
both. It's continued all the way up until roughly just about this last week that they have
had vehicles still coming and going, they have accessed the garage, I sat and
witnessed it is not just materials being taken out of that garage, they have personally
taken material out of the back of the pickups and put back in the garage. I believe that
some of the findings possibly with the police report that I read and with Mr. Venneman,
helped to verify some of this storing of the materials. The night that (finally -- it started -
- (have been very patient with the noise, but when it started waking my kids up at 5:00
in the morning, I pretty much had had enough and that's when I started calling in. I
finally was able to get an officer out there, unfortunately, the people accessing the
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 1, 2004
Page 40 of 89
garage had already left. He did do a quick little search, though, right off the bat that's
how we found out Seal Company and we found out that potentially they are dealing tar
of some nature, because there were buckets of tar -- maybe they were empty or not, but
the fact of the matter is, you know, tar does not just come right of the buckets, it's still --
there is coatings inside of it. They were sitting outside. Very noticeable. So, all the
materials -- and this has been consistent. They have always had buckets -- empty
buckets or otherwise, but they still have that hazmat inside of them. They have been
sitting outside of the back of that garage on a constant basis. Pretty much most of the
things have been said. This has not been something that has not disturbed the
neighborhood, even to the point of -- and, apparently, this is tied to the bookkeeping
business, so I feel it at least should be important to put this on the record. That
bookkeeping business is false. Ms. Rice, as I recall, is blond, she drives a BMW. I
have got a very extensive list there of the vehicles that have come and gone. Not one
night out of all that list has that BMW ever stayed the night there. It's always left. Now,
once the bookkeeping business was disputed, they started having a little silver car
showed up and that was a red headed lady, who most nights that silver car will be
parked there, so I assume that she is actually inside the house. I do not sit and monitor
her and I resent the fact she said that. However, I would be a little negligent, being a
single dad raising kids, and being a good neighbor if I didn't keep an eye on my
neighborhood when you have an unusual amount of activity, let alone an illegal
business that's been run out of there since approximately October. -Seal Company has
been operating out of there out of compliance. We have made the different
departments aware that that was happening and it's just taken time. So, basically, all
the way from the bookkeeping business on down there has been false reports about the
activities. I have given the proof that I could provide. Like I said, even the bookkeeper
has stated -- well, she side-tracked the question do you live and eat there. Somebody
always is at that house. She did not actually lie by saying that she does. She said
somebody. Because she's never lived there. That is not her residence. And, yet, the
condition for the bookkeeping alone was based upon her being a resident and living
there running this business out of her residence. So, from that point forward this has all
been kind of like smoke and mirrors, unfortunately. There have been multiple
disruptions. Like I said, once it started interfering with my kids' sleep, that was enough,
especially when it was at 5:00 in the morning. From 8:00 o'clock on for the last couple
of weeks they have had some dog over there on most days of the week that barks for
several hours. Now, granted, this is not necessarily tied directly to Sealco, I don't know
who owns the dog. Kind of a little background information. I work nights. My sleep, I
have to get it in the mornings, typically until about 10:00 o'clock in the morning, because
I usually come home very late at night. The owner and everything -- everybody is
aware of that, simply for the fact that we did have to fight this issue once before putting
a day care in there. So, they are aware that I do sleep in the mornings and that's what I
have to do to go to my job. Basically, what it comes down to -- you know, I have just
kept an eye on things, just because it is my neighborhood. There have been illegal
activities and that's been proven. There are other reports, not just based upon mine.
We have been accused of being spiteful just because we are fighting this. I don't know
anybody up on that panel or anybody that lives in their own neighborhood that wouldn't
enjoy coming in and shaking up their neighborhood, if they have children, seeing their
Meddian Planning & Zoning
April 1, 2004
Page 41 of 89
children woke up and I know this seems a little bit minor, but it seems pretty petty to me
that the current people that are even in that house, they do nothing but glare and, you
know, just dirty looks at my children and my sitter. They have nothing to do with this.
You know, Ihave athree-year-old daughter and she gets glared at and you know how
that makes them feel, they are sitting there thinking what did I do wrong. And it's all
over this whole dispute that's going on. This is not a peaceful business ongoing there
that's compatible with our neighborhood. So, you know, I would hope that we can
recommend, based upon all the evidence that's been provided about the noncompliance
-- it's all well and good to sit there and say that, well, here is what we are going to do for
the future, but look at the past history of what they have already proven that they were
going to do. They have already -- they have already proven that, you know -- there is a
statement there that even Mr. Venneman approached them and says you're not -- you
know you're not supposed to be operating this. Yeah. We know. That seems a little
disdainful towards the process and what's happening here. It's kind of like we are going
to do whatever we please and whatever is necessary for us and I don't feel that's
appropriate in our neighborhood. You know, maybe some day they will put a business
in there that will be a good fit. I do not believe that this one will be, due to the nature of
everything, the past, and currently what's going on.
Borup: Okay. Thank you.
Rokovitz: Any questions? Thank you.
Borup: Do we have anyone else?
C.Rokovitz: Charlene Rokovitz, property owner of 918 West 3rd. And you will be very
happy to know I don't have much to say, because I said most of it last time. On March
4th you approved an accessory use permit for an in-home bookkeeping business in
connection with the Sealco business. You have evidence from the code enforcement
officer and the chief of police that that was, as the police chief stated, a fraud and they
said he was here tonight, I really would like to hear him talk to you guys and give his
opinions. In the report by Wendy it said it was recommended -- and I will quote: It's
apparent that most likely a business is being run illegally out of this home. So, a
condition of this home occupation should be that if there is actually an illegal business
or an un-permitted business being run on the property, the home occupation permit
should be revoked. It should be a condition of approval that no illegal uses are allowed
on the property. If you want to go ahead and approve the bookkeeping business, be
just very clear that Sealco cannot be run out of that garage in the meantime. As you
have before you from the Joe Venneman's report and the police surveillance, it
continued. They have slowed it down this last week to make it look like they are
complying. The police chief stated in his report -- and I will quote again: The application
for a residential home business is not accurate and could be construed as being
misleading. The new applications confirm intent to seek rezoning of a residential for
commercial purposes and applied for in the CUP. However, it is my impression that if
Susan Rice is affiliated with or contacted by Sealco, the application, as submitted, may
be fraudulent in nature. You have been given numerous reports from on -- on the cars
Meridian Planning 8 Zoning
April 1, 2004
Page 42 of 69
of the coming and going. The next-door neighbor Bob Chrispel, he sent in a log as to
what was going on. He has called in this last time -- he has called in on the dog. There
have been so much going on that -- basically,. I guess if this -- if this does go through,
where they have been running an illegal business and they knew they were running an
illegal business all this time, they knew what was going on, they can't -- they can't claim
that they didn't. There was enough people contacting them. They knew what was
going on. You will basically be saying to others, you know, come to Meridian, you can
break the law and we will give you a reward for it. We'll let you do what you please.
Someplace along the line people that do things illegally have got to be said no to.
There was supposed to have been citations given, there was supposed to have been a
summons given, and it's just been -- they have been kind of putting it off waiting to see
what happens here, because they don't want to spend the money if you guys don't pass
the business. But there is a lot of people out there that know this is not a business that
should be going in there, because of all their -- their noncompliance of what they have
been doing. And just to clear up one thing, I know this was on the last subject, but
when I get nervous I tend to forget things really easily. Mr. Borup, I believe you asked
about had there ever been a survey on the house. Yes, there has. I talked to the
contractor yesterday. He is in the process of trying to find the surveyor that did the
survey at that time. He said that there had been numerous inspectors out there, there
had been city, there had been government, there had been surveyors, because
everything had to be just so. There is a good possibility that the way that they
surveyed, they took it from the north corner instead of from the south and -- because
when he was talking to us, he was talking to us about a certain spot on the north, which
would throw everything off because of --
Borup: Was that survey recorded?
C.Rokovitz: As near as we know it was. We have just got to figure out --
Borup: Well, then, if it was, it would be a simple matter to get a copy of it.
C.Rokovitz: Well, we have been trying to find -- everybody that I call on these things,
they say the house has been paid for we throw stuff away. We don't keep everything.
Borup: Well, no, that's not true on a recorded survey. It would be public record.
C.Rokovitz: Well, we are -- we are trying to find it.
Borup: Okay.
C.Rokovitz: The contractor is in the process right now of doing some digging to help us
out, because we keep running up against nothing but a simple plat and we know that
this stuff was done. We know it had to be done --
Borup: Well, there is a difference between taking a tape out there and doing some
measuring and an actual legal survey.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 1, 2004
Page 43 of 89
C.Rokovitz: I realize that, but he said -- he told me that there was a survey done by a
surveyor and it had to be done because of it being a Farm Home loan for the
government. Not just a loan from the bank, it had to be done because it was a
government loan is what I was told by him.
Borup: Okay. That may be. Normally they just need a legal lot.
C.Rokovitz: Yeah. Well --
Borup: Either way, that's not an issue that we are really going to be able to solve or
deal with tohight.
C.Rokovitz: No, but I just wanted to clear that up, so that you would understand.
Borup: Thank you.
C.Rokovitz: And I believe that's about all. I sincerely hope that you invoke this
business, because it has been fraudulent from the very beginning. It has gone on
illegally from the beginning, there is not too many people here that doesn't know it,
whether they will admit it or not, I -- scuttlebutt is a wonderful thing and most of the time
it's correct and there is a lot of people talking about this, because of the stuff that's been
going on.
Borup: But it appears he don't have any other neighbors here tonight; is that correct?
C.Rokovitz: I don't -- I talked to Bob's sister earlier today and there was a problem and
she said they had just taken off, because there had been a problem and he -- that they
were going to try and be here. I don't know.
Borup: Okay.
C.Rokovitz: And I talked to Mr. Schroeder and he said he had meetings, so I mean it
was --
Borup: Okay. Thank you.
C.Rokovitz: And those are the immediate. Those are just the ones around the house
Borup: Uh-huh. All right. Thank you. Do we have anyone else to testify on this?
Okay. Paula, did you have -- did you have -- we are going to maybe ask some staff
questions and, then, give you a chance to conclude, Mrs. Devaney.
Newton-Huckabay: The only report I have is the one from Joe Venneman. I was just
wondering if I might be missing the one from the police chief. I don't remember reading
that one. Was it a written report in the packet?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 1, 2004
Page 44 of 89
Kirkpatrick: It should have been an attachment and it was -- it's actually a duplicate of
the report that was written for the AUP by Chief Musser.
Borup: So, that was back in the first part of February, I believe. Was that -- I don't know
that I saw that, because that really wasn't --
Zaremba: I didn't see it in this packet, but I do remember from that --
Newton-Huckabay: Yeah. I remember reading it for the --
Kirkpatrick: And, actually, I have a copy that I can run copies if you --
Borup: I think Wendy would like a copy.
Kirkpatrick: You would like a copy?
Newton-Huckabay: No, that's okay. I did read that one. I do remember reading it. I
thought -- I didn't know if there was additional information.
Borup: She thought there was maybe a new report.
Kirkpatrick: No. There is a new report from the code enforcement officer, but I just
attached the old copy from the --
Borup: Okay.
Zaremba: Now, that one we do have.
Borup: Okay. Thank you. Paula.
Devaney: Gosh, all the surveillance and illegal business, I'd like to -- to clarify, I'm not a
drug dealer and it's almost making me feel that way. When we first moved into the
building and we got our first notice from the code enforcement violation, we met with
Anna and we talked about what we could do and she said you cannot operate a
business out of there, there is no way you can do it. The only thing that we possibly can
do is to have an accessory use permit and someone would have to live in the house --
to actually be living there. When we start to get into hair color and stuff, I can just
guarantee you right now -- I know the two girls that live there and their hair changes
color every week. That's what they do. So, we have some red heads -- you know, I
mean it's silly, but they are living there. Susan has --and I'm not going to go into it -- a
very pressing and serious personal matter in her family and she has -- is oftentimes
gone on personal business and I believe that is her personal business. The other girl
that lives there, she lives there, she, again, has apersonal -- a personal life. That's her
personal life. I have read that one report with all of those cars listed, I cannot begin to
tell you who all those cars belong to. I -- you know, we have been watched 24 hours a
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 1, 2004
Page 45 of 89
day, seven days a week. I really -- there were several cars in there that I absolutely
have -- and I will swear to you under oath absolutely no idea who they belong to. Pine
is a busy street, people park there. I cannot be responsible for all of those vehicles.
They are ones that are specifically identified to us and, yes, we are responsible for
them. After the chiefs report and after the first initial ones, we moved all of our vehicles
off site, except for the ones that are owned by Susan or PJ is the other girl that lives
there and, you know, sometimes they come and go. They are single women. As for the
traffic, I would like to note that ACRD has approved the traffic that we are within what
they deem appropriate for that traffic area and as to the last, the comment .when he
spoke and said you're running an illegal business and the comment was, yes, we know,
we were getting -- you know, Susan has asked us to move that time out, which was
about two and a half weeks since that hearing. He said I promise you that we will --
there will be absolutely nothing else out after this week and there has not been since
that date.
Newton-Huckabay: And what date was that?
Devaney: It was like the 26th of March.
Newton-Huckabay: Of March. So, the last week
Devaney: Right. He gave that date, so -- because the hearing was the 4th and, then,
they -- you know, they said, well, we will give you some time that -- they told Susan --
again, Iwasn't at that hearing -- to get the stuff out, so it was like approximately two and
a half to three weeks, but there was some minimal material taken out of the garage and,
then, when it was finished up he called the code enforcement officer back and said by
this date there absolutely will be no more and there was no more. The noise -- like I
said, with the ten-foot fence, they would totally block the view of the neighbor behind us.
You know, he shouldn't, I guess, be able -- his children should not be able to see into
the yard of the business and the yard of the business should not be able to see to him,
because it's a ten foot fence with landscaping. I would assume that would mitigate the
noise and watching back and forth if that really does exist.
Borup: And you mean asix-foot fence with ten foot of buffer?
Devaney: Six-foot fence with ten foot of buffer.
Borup: Questions --any other questions from the Commission?
Newton-Huckabay: I'm not really clear on the time line here. The business has been
there since October and they were told it was illegal in October?
Devaney: No, it wasn't October. I don't have the exact dates of when it was -- when
we were told that we needed to -- you know, we couldn't run the business and so that
was when we went and started meeting with staff and it was over like Christmas and
New Year's, so there was a lot of time that, you know, we weren't there and nothing was
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 1, 2004
Page 46 of 89
really going on, so by the time -- and, then, we had to move the business out -- the
property was re-leased to Susan and she filed the AUP and, then, that hearing, you
know, was -- but leading up to that hearing, we -- you know, tried as best we could to
like remove all of our stuff and let her run just her bookkeeping out of there with -- you
know, we were doing -- still doing some, because our guys dropped their time sheets off
to her, because part of her -- she does our payroll. So, that's why the guys were really
continuing to show up there.
Borup: So, you're saying at this point all material is out of the garage, but in the future
you had planned on still using that if this would be approved?
Devaney: Yeah. If it were a principal business to store material there; but it is not huge
quantities.
Borup: So, where are you storing the rest of your material?
Devaney: On job sites. You mean right this minute?
Borup: Well, you had mentioned earlier you had another storage --
Devaney: Well, that's just because the landlord has let us use his temporarily.
Borup: Okay.
Devaney: We can't really operate this business and, then, have to go out and have a
whole other place for our vehicles, a whole other place for our equipment -- or not
equipment, but our material. You know, that wouldn't be -- certainly wouldn't be
economical.
Borup: It's just a temporary storage that you have now?
Devaney: Yeah. We are just temporary right now, but there just isn't that involved in
the material that we do have.
Borup: Okay. Thank you. Okay. Commissioners? Any other comments from staff?
Okay.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move the Public Hearing on CUP 04-005 be closed.
Rohm: I'll second that.
Borup: Motion and second to close the Public Hearing. All in favor? Any opposed?
Thank you.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 1, 2004
Page 47 of B9
Borup: Do we want a little bit of discussion here or is someone ready to make a
motion?
Zaremba: Well, I would chime in with my opinion, I think. Part of the reason that the
Old Town requires businesses to come before us with a CUP is to have the opportunity
to hear from the neighbors and determine whether it would be disturbing. Having a
business in the Old Town is not automatic. We have denied many other attempts in
other locations around Old Town to have businesses. I was comfortable voting for the
accessory use permit for what I would consider to be a quiet business, the bookkeeping
business. I -- it has been reiterated that it is not Sealco that has that permit; it is Susan
Rice alone, who must be a resident there. So, there may be some question about
whether that permit is even valid. If it is valid, I am comfortable with that happening. I
am not comfortable with expanding that to a dispatch office that means a lot of traffic.
And the question of whether this would be disturbing to the neighbors, the neighbors --
we don't have to imagine that, the neighbors have already told us that it's disturbing to
them and would continue to be and their evidence is backed up by our code
enforcement officer and our police officers. So, my feeling is that while a quiet office
type thing would be appropriate here, a dispatch office or a thing that involves storage
of what may or may not be hazardous materials and vehicles coming and going, is not
appropriate in this location and I would not support it. I would support staffs request for
denial.
Borup: Anyone else?
Rohm: Well, I'd like to expand on that just a little bit, Commissioner Zaremba. I think
that the only way that this piece of property is ever going to be conditional use permitted
is to establish some parameters which state you can't come in before 8:00 and you got
to be done with your business by normal close of business and as the applicant had
stated, I think that this business comes as close to that as you're going to get, short of
leaving it residential. What may be the best alternative is to place limitations on what
they can do from a coming and going, you can't come in and load trucks up at 5:00
o'clock in the morning, you have got to do it during -- like a normal business would run
from 8:00 to 5:00, if you can -- if we can put limitations such as that, so that it doesn't
provide -- or cause a disturbance, maybe that's the compromise that's needed. That's
just food for thought. I don't know that I'm ready to formulate that in a motion or not, but
what do you think about that, Dave?
Zaremba: Well -- and, again, that's part of the CUP process, the conditional uses, and
time restrictions area legitimate condition and we have placed those on other
businesses that were near residences and my feeling on this one is the properties are
too small and they are too close together to have as much traffic as a dispatch office is
going to generate, even if we restricted the time, and Ijust -- I sympathize with the
business, I want businesses to be successful, but I just feel this is the wrong location
and, as the applicant stated, having part of their business one place and parts of their
business someplace else is not conducive to economic operation and my feeling is that
they should have all their business in one place and this is not it.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 1, 2004
Page 48 of 89
Moe: Now may I chime in?
Zaremba: Yes, please.
Moe: Based upon Commissioner Rohm's points, I have a concern of putting time
frames into a CUP such as this, based upon what we have seen in reports with the
auxiliary use permit, as well as what the code enforcement has given us here, all we are
doing is, in fact, we are putting time frames into the CUP, is, then, code enforcement is
going to stay involved in this piece of property forever and I don't know that that's
something that we want to see happen as well. I have a concern that, you know, with
auxiliary use permit there were -- the decision was made to approve that as a
bookkeeping business. We noted at that time that that's what that use was for,
realizing, you know, there is a time frame involved, but my concern is that code
enforcement -- there were violations beyond that point of our last hearing and I see, you
know, concerns from the neighbor, I can understand why, and so I'm not sure that I can
support this application either.
Borup: Okay. And the only thought I just had while you are talking, if -- and maybe if
this would have come before us before the business went in, it might have been a whole
different -- a whole different attitude on the thing or outcome or; you know, maybe might
be looking at it in a different light, but that's not the case, we need to look at it on what
we know and what's happened and what's transpired today.
Zaremba: At that time we would have had to have been guessing whether it would
disturb the neighbors.
Borup: Right.
Zaremba: Now, we know.
Borup: Yeah. It's already been demonstrated by doing it backwards. Okay. Are we
ready for a motion, then?
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I'll make a motion. I move we forward to the City Council
recommending denial of CUP 04-005 request for a Conditional Use Permit for an
accounting and dispatch office in a proposed OT zone for NIDAYS Addition by Sealco,
230 West Pine Avenue. End of motion.
Newton-Huckabay: I'll second that motion.
Borup: Motion and second.
Powell: Chairman Borup?
Borup: Yes.
Meridian Planning 8 Zoning
April 1, 2004
Page 49 of 89
Powell: As with all finding for denial, the Planning Commission should give the applicant
some idea as to how they might get approval at some later date.
Borup: Okay.
Zaremba: Propose a business with lower impact. An accounting business or
something like that would be fine to me.
Borup: Are you saying something without material storage and employees going there
and accessing that -- is that the main thing that's --
Zaremba: To me that's the deal breaker, yes. I think it's the vision of Old Town that
there should be businesses, it's a transition area that is caoinq to chanoe in character.
but --
Borup: Well, it's got to start somewhere.
Zaremba: -- you can't irritate the current residents and I -- in this location, in particular, I
think it needs to be a low impact business. Accounting office, to me, suits that. There
may be others that would suit that, but a dispatch office and contractor storage, doesn't.
Even if it's indoors.
Borup: Okay. Anything else anyone feels they'd like to add to reasons? Did you note
in this case it still seems to be -- it doesn't really seem to be neighbors or neighborhood,
it appears to be one neighbor? I don't think we've had any testimony from the
neighborhood. Is that adequate? Anything else?
Zaremba: But that neighbor has contacted police and contacted a code enforcement
officer and verified the problem.
Kirkpatrick: Chairman, Members of the Commission, I also had a suggestion from the
police chief that in the future that the applicant makes sure that they are permitted of the
use before they have the use take place on the property.
Borup: Yes.
Kirkpatrick: That they go through the proper channels to have the use permitted.
Because that really is what -- the most significant concerning this application.
Borup: And that's what we were talking about earlier. It may have had a different result
if it would have been handled properly. As the Commissiorier mentioned, then, we
would have been guessing, now we know.
Zaremba: Now we know.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 1, 2004
Page 50 of 69
Borup: Okay. Did you conclude your --
Zaremba: To be honest, the illegality doesn't really enter into my decisions -- my
decision. I'm not thinking of the denial as punitive or -- what happens is we have
experience with this project and the experience isn't good, so --
Newton-Huckabay: Well, I think it's important to point out that it was an illegal business
operating out of -- I mean a business operating illegally out of the home and I think that,
you know, that is important.
Borup: I think it is. I don't know that that's all that unusual. There is probably
businesses all over town and they just -- maybe alittle -- a little more under the radar
and nothing's been said.
Powell: Chairman Borup, for the benefit of the record, since I had interrupted
Commissioner Zaremba before, can you restate your motion and then -- thank you.
Zaremba: I will restate the motion. Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to the City
Council recommending denial of CUP 04-005, request for a Conditional Use Permit for
an accounting and dispatch office in a proposed Old Town zone for NIDAYS Addition by
Sealco, 230 West Pine Avenue.
Borup: And, then, did you want to include --
Zaremba: That's the end of the motion.
Borup: Well, previously you had added reasons for -- I mean the conditions that --
Zaremba: For the benefit of the applicant I did discuss reasons. I did not intend to
include those in the motion.
Borup: Okay. You included all staff comments in there, didn't you? From the staff
report? That's assumed. Okay. We have a motion. Do we have a second?
Newton-Huckabay: I second.
Borup: And a second. All in favor? Any opposed? Three ayes. One nay.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE NAY.
Item 11: Public Hearing: RZ 04-003 Request for a Rezone for .17 acre from I-L
to O-T zones for Brandon Wright by Brandon Wright - 631 West 1sc
Street:
Borup: Thank you. That concludes this item. The next item is Public Hearing RZ 04-
003, request for a rezone of 1.7 acres from I-L to OT zones for Brandon Wright by