Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApril 1, 2004 P&Z MinutesMeridian Planning & Zoning April 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 on 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 motion. 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 Conditional 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 vvas 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, 2004 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: I was looking up contractor's yard at the momenta Borup: My recollection -- and I'm not finding it right off -- there it is. No, that is not even permitted in Old Town, but I 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 as 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 8 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 compatible. 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 admiriistrator, 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 t, 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 be 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 8 Zoning April 1, 2004 Page 35 of 89 6:00 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.Schmeckpeper: 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 a5 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 1, 2004 Paga 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 hot 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 property, 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 Meridian Planning 8 Zoning April 1, 2004 Page 41 of 8g 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 & Zoning April 1, 2004 Page 42 of 89 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 tonight. 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 69 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 ACHD 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 lalidscaping. 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 Apol 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 arid, 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 89 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 Coriditional 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 & 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 going to change 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 Commissioner mentioned, then, we would have been guessing, now we know. Zaremba: Now we know. Meridian Planning & Zoning April 1, 2004 Page 50 of 89 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 1ef 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