Feb. 3, 2005Meridian Planning & Zoning
February 3, 2005
Page t8 of SQ
Moe: Would you say those dates again?
Rohm: The transmittal date of January 31st, 2005, for the hearing date of February 3rd,
2005.
Newton-Huckabay: My transmittal date is January 4th.
Moe: I have a 4th date also.
Rohm: I have January -- I may have the wrong one. I do. Excuse me. Excuse me.
For the transmittal date January 4th, 2005, for the hearing date of 2000 -February 3rd,
2005.
Moe: I will second that.
Zaremba: Okay. It's been moved and seconded. All in favor say aye. Any opposed?
That motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Rohm: Good catch, Dave.
Item 7: Public Hearing: RZ 05-001 Request for a Rezone of .249 acres from R-8
to O-T zone for Robert Monson by Robert Monson -829 North Meridian
Road:
Item 8: Public Hearing: CUP 05-001 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for
an office /retail use in an O T zone for Robert Monson by Robert
Monson - 829 North Meridian Road:
Zaremba: Next I will open two related public hearings, Items 7 and 8 on our agenda,
RZ 05-001, request for a rezone of .249 acres from R-8 to OT zone and Public Hearing
CUP 05-001, request a Conditional'Use Permit for an office/retail use in an OT zone.
Both of these are for Robert Monson by Robert Monson, 829 North Meridian Road.
And we will begin with the staff presentation.
Wilson: Thank you, Chairman Zaremba, Members of the Commission, the Robert
Monson rezone and Conditional Use Permit is located at the southwest comer of East
Pine Avenue and North Meridian Road. The applicant is proposing to rezone the
property from R-8 to OT, Old Town. The applicant proposes to convert an existing
residence to 599 square feet of retail and 800 square feet of office space. Some key
considerations for the proposal are parking and Meridian Road right of way. The
parking - I will note that the applicant did submit a revised site plan at the beginning of
the hearing. I will just switch to that now. The applicant has added an additional
parking space to the - to the lot at the west end of the building there adjacent to the
Meridian Planning & Zotrirre
February 3, 2005
Page 17 of 58
handicap spot. The applicants representative did briefly mention to me that their intent
is not to increase the ratio of retail to office space, but in the future the applicant may be
interested in adding a little bit of office space to the rear of the building. I would add the
condition that I would modify a parking condition that any additional office space must
meet the requirements of Meridian City Code in regards to parking, that the -- any
additional space added to the building cannot exceed -- for office space it would be 400
square feet for that additional parking spot. The Meridian City Code does require one
parking space per 400 square feet for office and one parking space for 200 square feet
for retail. So, when there is mixed uses like this, we -- there is a concern to -that that
ratio is limited, that the parking requirements aren't exceeded. If the building was all
retail, it will not meet parking requirements and if ft was all office they would, actually,
have too much parking. So, it's a little bit difficult getting that information this late, but
staff is comfortable that as long as the -any additional building space is constrained to
what can be serviced by that one additional parking space, that the new site plan is
okay. Meridian Road -- ACRD in their report has requested 42 feet of right of way from
centerline to be dedicated for future widening of Meridian Road. With the -- with the
special consideration noted in their report to the City of Meridian that Meridian Road
may, in fact, be wider through that portion and may require 96 foot total right of way,
which would be six feet larger than the 42 they are requesting right now. It would be 48
feet from centerline, which would take an additional six feet of the property. Because
the design of Meridian Road is in flux right now and nobody's really sure what it's going
to take, the City of Meridian would like to protect that right of way and prevent any
development to encroach into that in the event that Meridian Road does become five
lanes and require the 96 feet right of way. And in conference with the city legal staff,
there was a suggestion of slight change of how to do that. Condition of approval
number three requested a temporary right of way easement in favor of the City of
Meridian. City legal staff did suggest that the word temporary be removed and an
easement for that six feet be placed on the property and at such time that -- it's,
actually, if at such time that that is not needed, then, that easement could be vacated.
They felt that was a better way to go about that. Another consideration in relation to
that right of way, in the staff report -and the Commission should have received a
memo about the sign proposed for the project. The applicant is actually proposing one
free-standing sign with the project and has brought details of that sign to the hearing
tonight. I would add to the condition of the sign that it be placed outside of that six foot
easement in favor of the City of Meridian for that future right of way development. The
applicant can speak to site constraints. If that works for them -- I don't have a scale
drawing in front of me here to see how that's going to fit in with their plan, but they can
speak to that in their application. Between retail and office use like this, any adjacent
residences, Meridian City Code does require the 20-foot land use buffer. Because of
site constraints, the applicant is able to provide, I believe, approximately four feet along
the southern boundary of the property. Okay. Five. And, then, I believe six feet on the
west portion of the property. There is a dense -- well, there is some large trees and
some healthy shrubs along that property line that do aid in the screening of that property
line and staff does support alternative compliance for that --for that south and west land
use buffers, due to site constraints and the ability of the applicant to provide those 20
foot buffers. We would ask that the applicant is willing to work with city staff on any
Meridian Planning & Zoning
Febnrery 3, 20115
Pape 19 of 56
additional plantings that would be required in there. The applicant. has not shown any
and has represented that any additional plantings would not do well along that property
line, because of the close proximity of the existing vegetation: It actually sits on the
property line, but dty staff would like the opportunity to determine the exact locations of
that vegetation and see if any additional should be required along there. And also along
the west property line where the applicant has proposed the addition of some trees. But
we'd also like to work with them to see if anymore could be added. And all this is to
reduce the impacts on the adjacent residences and that's why that provision is in the
Meridian City Code. Staff is aware that the residence does contain a basement, which
is not induded in the square footage calculations of the office and retail space
proposed. The new development with the added parking space, I would like to - I
would like to leave the restriction on -- or the condition on the application that the
basement should not be used. We have bean provided information regarding the
square footage of the basement and I believe there is some access issues, too. So, we
would like - I would like to retain that condition on there and allow that extra parking
space to serve in any additional square footage added to the building in the rear and
maybe the applicant could speak to what their plans are in that regard. The applicant is
required to install automatic underground irrigation to service all of the landscaped
areas on the property. At last I spoke to them, they did not believe that non-potable
irrigation water was available and I would ask them to speak to what they found out
about that and if it's determined that there is no non-potable irrigation water available to
the property, then, they'd need to submit evidence of that to the Public Works
Department for a hook up to city water for that pressurized irrigation system. And with
that I will end staffs comments and take questions from the Commission.
Zaremba: Okay. Questions?
Newton•Hudcabay: I have none
Zaremba: I have a question about the basement. I understand that it's perfectly logical
that it certainly should not be used for any customer area, but would they still be able to
use it for storage or maybe an employee -would they b® able to use it for storage or
probably an employee lounge or something that didn't involve customers going there?
Wilson: Meridian City Code does have parking requirements for storage and
warehousing areas. When the application originally came through, they were maid out
on parking and without a chance to evaluate, you know, the additional parking spot that
now that they have been able to gain it, you know, it could serve some additional office
space in the rear of the building and maybe could meet the requirements of that storage
- of some storage in the basement. I haven't had time -- haven't had time to analyze
that yet, but that is a possibility, but ff the extra parking space had not been added, no,
they couldn't use that basement for storage, because the parking requirements would
not be able to be met.
Zaremba: Thank you.
Meridian Plannlnp 8 Zoning
February 3, 2005
Page 79 of 58
Rohm: How many square feet is the basement?
>~Ison: I, actually, don't know. That information wasn't provided.
Zaremba: Okay. Would the applicant care to come forward?
Edwards: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, my name is Wes Edwards, I'm
the architect of record. I'm representing the applicant tonight. I reside at 3486 West
Angelica Drive in Meridian. I'm going to answer -- first I'll answer a few of the questions
that have been gone through and, then, I will get to some of my testimony. First of all,
since we are on the basement, the basement is used primarily just for utility. It's a
mechanical room, furnace, water heater, so forth. It will not be used for anything other
than that for this occupancy. And the irrigation -- I have been trying to get ahold of John
Anderson at the irrigation district, trying to - I have got an application from them, they
want to review the projeck. I have surveyed the property with my civil engineer and
trying to see if there is any irrigation water on the property. We have seen none. So,
I'm trying to figure out through the irrigation district if they know otherwise. And so 1 will
provide that as soon as I can get written notification from the irrigation district. As to the
square footage that was talked about in regards to the rear of the building, the applicant
is just -some of the offices that are on the rear of the building, thafs where the office
space is located, are rather small and there is a possibility of adding two to four feet on
the back of the building, which would add maybe 65 square feet to the overall building.
So, we are not talking immense amount of square footage, we are only talking about a
small amount overall, which wouldn't affect our parking ratios whatsoever. And as far
as the landscaping that Josh had spoken about --Josh, could you put that photograph --
that color photograph up? I think that had the neighbor's landscaping. Well, no, it
doesn't. Never mind. I apologize. The neighboring property -the landscaping and the
shrubs are so dense you can barely walk between them and they overhang onto our
property and to plant any additional landscaping on that south boundary would be
impossible and the vegetation, like Josh said, would not live. And to the west we are
indicating some new trees on that side.
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Edwards?
Edwards: Yes.
Newton-Huckabay: I know the property behind is still residential. Is the one on the
south still residential?
Edwards: Yes, it is. And the -that property owner is here tonight as well. As you can
see, the home is a very -- it's a very beautiful home. It's an historic home. It's not on
the historic register yet. It may be. The applicant may choose to do that at some point,
But it was built -what year was that built? 1911. It is in very good condition for its age
and very beautiful home and it has great character and great spirit for this part of town
and it's - a lot of buildings of this nature are being changed into offices and retail shops
in this part of town. As you can tell by our site plan, we were rather restrained in our
Maridlan Planning 8 Zoning
February 3, 2005
Page 20 of 5B
parking, but we were able to squeeze as much on there as we possibly could. We have
attempted to do 45 degree wherever we could, but it just wasn't possible. We have
seen other people in town trying to just squeeze in where -and they just aren't able to
do it. The sign that we have proposed, which is on the sheets that we provided, is -
would be a manufactured sign that would be made to reflect the architecture of the front
porch. So, it would be in context with the building. It wouldn't just be an eye sore out in
the front yard with neon or anything, it would be textured to look like the concrete or the
stucco that was on the building and very well designed. Now, as far as the easement
and the right of ways, that's where we have a lot of concern. The Meridian Road is in
flux right now. There is not a lot of decision -- final -- not a lot of finality as to what is
going to happen when. There is a lot of concept as, yes, this is what we want. This
would be nice. This is when we would like it to happen. But there is no funding in place
to make it happen. There is no plan in plate as to when it's going to happen, We have
been asked to give up 12 feet of the property already by ACHD as a right of way. And
now we are being asked to give up another six feet in an easement, when the decision
hasn't really been finalized yet as to what the future of Meridian Road is. We would
propose that rather than enforang easements or -for future right of ways, until those
right of ways are determined what they are going to be, is since this is an historic home
that isn't going to be -- we are not going to be adding on a conglomerate of additions on
the front of this home, we want to preserve this structure, is just to create a condition
that says that we cannot make any developments in the front of that building -within
that -within that area, prevent us from developing in the front area, with the exception
of the sign that we want to reflect that -that we have shown here. !n addition, we
would also like the Commission to consider that there have been other numerous
buildings along Meridian Road that are currently under construction, new buildings, that
have not had this easement -that have not had this right of way placed upon them that
are right -right out close to where these easements would be, right in their front yard.
And we feel that this home is -needs some consideration and that the -the applicant
should not have to have his property just start being chopped away when things aren't
really decided yet on that road. Any questions?
Rohm: Mr. Edwards, my question is specific to that easement. If, in fact, the Meridian
Road issue is resolved and, in fact, it's not expanded to include that additional six feet, I
believe it was staffs recommendation that the easement be vacated. So, I'm a little bit
curious -
Edwards: Well, I mean the easement puts restrictions on it -- of doing anything and he
has - I can turn the time over to him and, then, he can speak more of what his concerns
are on that easement if you -
Rohm: Well, I'd like to hear that, because from my perspective, the easement is the
lesser of all evils, because it doesn't - it doesn't take it from you, but it gives you an
opportunity to have full use of it, if, in fact, the road's not further developed.
Edwards: But part of that was saying that the sign couldn't have even been in it. You
know, they were saying the sign can't be in the easement.
Meridian Plann6rg & toning
February 3, 2005
Page 21 of 58
Rohm: So, that was the issue, is the location of the sign?
Edwards: No, not just the sign, you know, the easement puts restrictions on us, too.
So, I'll turn the time over to Mr. Monson and let him speak to -
Rohm: Somebody else might have questions.
Edwards: Other than --okay.
Borup: The right of way that you show on the site plan, is that a -what is that
dimension?
Edwards: That is the 12-foot right of way that ACHD is requiring as per their current
plan that is in place.
Borup: So, an overall right of way of what? The 84?
Edwards: The $4 I think was the -
Moe: Yeah. It was the 84 and, then, they wanted the other --
Edwards: Yeah.
Borup: Okay. So, this was the -- the right of way you're showing is for 84?
Edwards: Yeah.
Borup: All right. And do you know what that distance is from the -from that right of
way to your sidewalk, the new sidewalk?
Edwards: From the right of way to the existing sidewalk there?
Borup: Well, your site plan says new sidewalk.
Edwards: The one where we are replacing --
Borup: Oh. Okay, I see.
Newton-Huckabay: Commissioner Borup, do you have a --
Borup: It's about ten feet.
Edwards: You're talking about this sidewalk?
Borup: Yes. Okay. No. 1 can see it here.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
February 3, 2005
Page 22 0(58
Edwards: It's about eight feet.
Borup: Yeah. Twenty-two -- a little over 22 total. So, if you had taken 12, then, you
have about ten there. Okay. That was all I had.
Edwards: Okay. Just - I mean Mr. Monson just feels like everyone just -- the ACHD, it
takes so much and, then, the City of Meridian wants so much, it just - it just keeps
chopping away and keeps getting Loser and Loser to the building and, you know -
Borup: Well, the City of Meridian is not taking anything.
Edwards: Well, they are requesting it. They are requesting that -
Borup: That would go to ACRD.
Edwards: Yeah.
Zaremba: They are requesting to preserve what RCHD will eventually need for afive-
lane road.
Edwards: Well, something that may or may not --
Zaremba: Well, since we are on the subject, let me say where that is in the progress.
Edwards: I'm familiar with it.
Zaremba: Downtown Meridian Steering Committee meeting has settled on a preferred
scenario for handling traffic on both Main and Meridian and their recommendation is that
Meridian be five lane in this area. That presentation has been made to ACRD and they
agree with it. It's been made to the City Council and they agree with it. The only thing
that remains to be done is to have public hearings on it and, then, make it a part of our
Comprehensive Plan, so -
Edwards: And funding.
Zaremba: -- it's very likely that that's going to eventually be the solution, that there will
be a five-lane road during this -- in this portion of Meridian.
Edwards: Yeah.
Zaremba: And that's not in very much doubt, it just hasn't -it's not etched in stone yet.
Edwards: That's right. I'm aware of that plan.
Meridian Planning 8 Zonirp
February 3, 21108
Pege 23 of S8
Zaremba: Now you mentioned other properties. There is a property probably three to
the south of this that came through six or eight months ago and we had a similar
discussion. The decision was not as far along as it is now and we did allow them to
build into what eventually may be taken back away from them.
Newton-Huckabay: That was my question.
Zaremba: And we were very concern about it, then, but at that point there was not
enough progress made for us to make a decision on that. I personally feel there has
been enough progress made this time that we do need to be leaning towards preserving
that space for ACHD to take, so that you don't have to end up moving the sign and other
stuff again later.
Edwards: Anymore questions?
Zaremba: Thank you. Mr. Edwards was the only one signed up to speak on that issue.
If anybody else would care to, now is the time.
Monson: Good evening. My name is Robert Monson and I live at 254 North Tuscan
Road in Meridian and my first comment is you see on the back of the property where it's
got the little jog -
Rohm: You have a pointer up there, a laser pointer.
Monson: Okay. Right here. This little area, that little jog, that little jog is -eventually is
what's going to be squared away. So, that's going to be - as long as I'm the owner,
that's going to be the permanent, you know, print foot -footprint of the building, so that
was the addition of that, you know, square footage we were talking about. It's under a
hundred square feet. But as far as the right of way, I #hink, obviously, as an owner, you
know, I don't want to give up any right of way or easement, if 1 can possibly do it. And I
think from your point of view you want to preserve that or have that and I think currently
for any future use or whatever the road requirement may be, there is going to be a lot of
property from Meridian, say from Franklin to Fairview, going to be a lot of property,
probably, going to get involved in this - in these easements and widening the road and
so forth and under all those circumstances, obviously, I think all your -- the city's interest
or the highway's interest or whoever is going to be ownership of this road, that's
certainly protected under current administrative law, you know, to go in and access
eminent domain and take whatever they need. So, if we do not - if you folks lift this
requirement of me at this time and, then, when the project becomes finalized in the
design and there is funding and it actually takes place, you know, there is going to be a
whole group of properties which, you know, when you're drawing out the lines, that it will
all be taken at that time. So, that's what I'm asking, if I can just wait and do it when it
actually, you know, gets funded and built.
Rohm: I think the thing that we are trying to avoid is having something built on that
portion that we know is inevitably going to be a roadway and, then, have to compensate
Meridian Plaming d Zoning
February 3, 2005
Page 24 of 55
for the removal of something we know is not going to be available to you at some point
in time anyway.
Monson: Well, then, you could make a requirement of me, which I certainly agree to,
that the 12 feet and the six feet, that no permanent structures go on, other than my sign,
and that I would pay any expense to relocate my sign at tliat time.
Rohm: And I think that the easement does just that. That's what the easement does.
Monson: Oh, absolutely. Other than I don't want to give up an easement right now for a
zoning change, if ft's possible.
Rohm: I can understand your paint. Thank you.
Monson: So, I'm asking consideration be given to that fact, because, you know, there is
definitely authority based in, you know, governments to -you know, at that time to take
whatever they need. Also down the same side of the street there is -- 1 don't know
about underground utilities, but there is major secondary power lines, there is a lot of
things that will have to be moved out of the way, so there is going to be a lot of people
involved with it at that time. And I have no problems whatsoever, you know, whenever
the project begins, to -- you know, whatever happens at that time, but -- and ff it doesn't
happen on the -actually, 1 have been in the utility business for some years and I have
never seen any right of ways or easements vacated in my life that I'm aware of. I
imagine they have happened, but I'm sure -and also it would be a burden on me. You
know, t'd have to be the person to, you know, bear the expense to try to get something
vacated.
Borup: We vacate them every few months in this Commission.
Monson: Well --and I'm sure they have. I'm just saying, you know, I have never seen
them happen, but -- anyway, final comment, I just request that that requirement be lifted
and maybe replaced by verbiage that, you know, no permanent structures be built, other
than my sign, and, then, I would pay to re -you know, relocate my sign at that time.
And, actually, if you have that one picture, you can sae where it's a pretty small front
yard. I mean there is no room to build anything. And, basically, the edge of the picture
on the lower part is probably pretty close to where the actual property ends. Thank you.
Zaremba: Is there anybody else who cares to speak on the subject?
Wilson: Chairman Zaremba, if I could just add a couple things that I inadvertently
skipped over in my presentation.
Zaremba: Please do.
Wilson: This -- the historic preservation committee did consider this application tonight
in their hearing and I think consistent with what the applicant's proposing, they would
Mer'sdlan Planning & Zoning
February 3, 2005
Page 25 of 5B
like to see no modifications to the facade of this building. So, we would like to just get
that in the record. That is what the applicant is proposing. So, I think that they are
happy with that. In addition, in regards to the new memo about the sign, there was a
proposed change to condition of approval number seven that I would just like to get into
the record. Staff would propose that condition number seven be modified to read: The
proposed sign is approved as presented at public hearing with any modifications
required by the Commission. One freestanding sign will be allowed for the project as
presented during the hearing and shall conform to the limited office standards for
signage in the zoning ordinance. And -end quote. And under any modifications
required by Commission, the matter before you is if that sign should be located in that
city - in that easement, we are requesting and -you know, how it fits on the site there.
I think the applicant has addressed that they would like to place that sign in the
easement. Our intent with the easement is to minimize the burden on ACHD and/or the
City of Meridian when, in fact, that right of way is developed. I'm not -- I'm not familiar if
we can condition that the applicant would pay for the moving of that sign at such time,
but the city's concern, you know, is bearing the cost, or ACRD, of that -- of the moving
of that sign.
Rohm: Don't you think it would be better just to not allow the sign to be put in that six
foot area? As part of the Conditional Use Permit, you can add any conditions of
approval and it seems logical that you just don't allow the sign to be placed there in the
first place.
Wilson: And 1 think staff would support that position.
Newton-Huckabay: See, I disagree. Well, we have all these properties in Old Town
that we want to see developed. This house is, I believe, empty now and here we have
someone coming through that wants to improve it and everybody's concern is to put a
sign out near a street and not against the easement, necessarily, but I think that we
should explore the idea of whether or not we can put that sign as a temporary use in
there. I just don't want to see us discouraging development in Old Town and it seems
like every time an application comes through for property in Old Town -these
properties were not designed to fit into the ordinances as we have them and we are
always faced with these kind of -you know, there is not enough room for parking, there
is not enough room for asign - I mean, personally, I would like to see the property
developed into -into same use and I think accommodating a request for a sign inside,
you know, of an easement that the city requires, I think we should explore whether or
not we can do that with their offer to move the sign later.
Rohm: I'm not opposed to that either. With the - if we can word it such that the
applicant has to cover the cost of relocating the sign, 1 just don't think that it's right to -
in full well knowing that at some paint in time the sign would have to be relocated, that
we would encumber the City of Meridian or Ada County Highway District to relocate a
sign that we know would have to be moved anyway, so --
Meiidian Planning & Zoning
February 3, 2005
Pege 26 of 58
Newton-Huckabay: WeU, that would be - I mean to explore whether or not we have
that option.
Zaremba: I would, actually, turn that question over to our city attorney, but Iwould --
before he speaks express an opinion as well, but, basically, I'm in favor of the whole
idea. I think Old Town is in transition and what were formerly residences are being
changed into businesses and I would like to encourage that for this property, but it
makes sense to me to think of a time line. I'm - because I serve on the steering
committee and other transportation committees, I'm convinced that Meridian is at some
point going to be five lane and that we do need to preserve that. However, even if that
process happened about as quick as anything could happen, the pavement isn't going
to move for five years, seven years, nine years, and I -- if there is a legal way to do it, I
would be in favor of the sign being able to be closer to the existing current street where
it is, where it would be a useful sign, with the understanding that when some year that
change in width occurs, the applicant bears - I think the applicant had an excellent
compromise. The applicant bears the expense of moving the sign to - I'm very definite
in my feeling that we need to preserve the future right of way and I believe the future
right of way will be five lanes, but, in the meantime, the applicant's sign is 20 feet away
from the street. So, having given that opinion let me ask the attorney whether there is a
wording that we can use the applicant's compromise of moving the sign at the
applicant's expense.
Baird: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, in listening to your comments, as well
as the comments of the applicant, I don't think you're that far apart, and if it is your
decision to incude a condition requiring the additional six feet of right of way, you could
include language in that condition, as well as in condition number seven, regarding the
sign, saying that the only structure to be allowed within the right of way would be the
sign as proposed, with the condition that at such time that Ada County Highway District
or its successor organization, would need that for actual right of way purposes, that the
sign would be relocated at the expense of the existing property owner at that time. You
can also include language in the easement itself that at such time that the final
determination is made for the alignment of the Meridian Road right of way under the
current wnsideration, if it doesn't require the six foot right of way, that you're requesting
that that easement could, in fact, be extinguished at that date that that's determined.
So, rather than being a temporary easement, it would be more of a conditional
easement, that it's reserved until such time that that determination is made.
Newton-Huckabay: And that requires that the applicant wouldn't have to go through
the --
Baird: It would still require that documents be made and it would be a process very
similar to the vacation process that you go through now, but at least language would be
in there that would indicate that the uncertainty that you're looking at right now and
acknowledging the fact that you're only asking for it, because everything is in flux, if it's
determined that it's not needed, then, it could, indeed, go away, that future Planning and
Zoning Commissions and future City Councils would be bound by that language, that it
MerWian Planning & Zoning
February 3, 2003
Page 27 of 58
wouldn't just be an easement forever that would never be needed once that right of way
is determined how wide it's going to be. Is that making sense? It's sort of giving --
telegraphing what you're thinking and getting it permanently on the record. And
certainly our legal staff would be willing to work with Planning and Zoning to get the
exact language to fulfill whatever intent that you want to put on the record tonight.
Zaremba: Thank you. I believe I asked if there is any other public that care to make
commerrt. We had some discussion. And Mr. Edwards may care to add more or
discuss with us what we have been discussing, give you an opportunity to respond.
Edwards: I did have one further comment on the sign. ff it were to be -- I mean it
sounds like we are getting -- making progress onto the location and Ithink Ijust -- if it
were not allowed in the easement, it would be forced up against the building, which
would be unattractive at this time and unusable, really, and we'd just like that to be
considered. We are still not in favor of the easement, but we don't -we'd like that to be
considered still, but other than that, appreciate your time.
Zaremba: Thank you. Commissioners?
Newton-HuGcabay: Mr. Chair?
Zaremba: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay.
Newton-Huckabay: I recommend that we close the Public Hearing on RZ Or001 and
for the Public Hearing on CUP 05-001.
Rohm: I'll second that motion.
Zaremba: We have a motion and a second to close the two public hearings. All in favor
say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Rohm: Ithink this is your deal
Zaremba: Further discussion? Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, we await your
pleasure.
Newton-Huckabay: I made my comments and I think everyone knows how I feel about
that. Ithink that we would allow the sign near the road, give the business an
opportunity to succeed. If I were putting a business in that property, I would want my
sign as close to the road as k could be.
Rohm: And I think that's a good comment
Meridian Planning & Zoning
February 3, 2005
Page 2B of 5B
Zaremba: I agree with that and am seeking a way to have it moved at no cost to the
city.
Newton-Huckabay: Right. And I agree.
Freckleton has a comment.
think what the attorney. -- I think Mr.
Zaremba: Mr. Freckleton.
Freckleton: Is it that obvious? Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, just a thought
and that is with what Chairman said about the length of time that it possibly could be out
in the future and the concern I have got is tracking a condition or -- in the future seven
years from now, whenever that this happens, trying to find that condition that says that
the applicant is -- this sign gets moved a# his expense. I think the best way to handle
that is if it is written into the easement language. So, as you were talking it kind of
sounded to us like maybe you were for the easement, maybe not -you know, not going
to go for the easement. The concern I have got is that the condition would get lost if it
was not in an easement that is actually recorded. Seven years from now when the
easement is brought backup, that language is right there, it's a recorded document, and
it's not going to get lost in an archive file someplace. So, just for your consideration.
Zaremba: That's a good point of discussing method. I would feel that I am in favor of
the easement, but I think what we are saying is we are in favor of allowing the sign to
currently be in -within the easement. We are deleting the temporary from the
easement, but I would allow the sign on a temporary basis, to be moved at the owner's
expense if the easement is needed. But I do agree with Mr. Freckleton, that the
easement should exist and that would be the proper place to put the wording for future
movement of the sign.
Moe: I would concur the same. So, who is going to make that motion?
Zaremba: We are awaiting a motion.
Borup; Well, the first motion is a little easier on the rezone. We don't have anything
that's affecting the rezone. I mean -and the main discussion we had would be on the
CUP.
Rohm: Correct.
Borup: Okay. Mr. Chairman, I'd move that we recommend to City Council approval of
RZ 05-001, request for a rezone of 2.49 acres from R-8 to OT -Old Town Zone for
documents from hearing date of February 3rd, 2005.
Moe: Second.
Zaremba: Moved and seconded to recommend approval of RZ 05-001. All in favor say
aye. Any opposed? Motion carries.
Mer4ilan Planning 8 Zoning
February 3, 2005
Page 29 of 58
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Rohm: Now the tough one.
Zaremba: Commissioner Borup?
Borup: W®II, let me run through this and see if this maybe sounds adequate. And that's
on -well, we have got condition number three and five, that both talk about -- no, five
was --
Zaremba: You're on page eight?
Borup: Yeah. On page eight. Actually, number three is what we want to look at. So,
does this make sense? Prior to issuance, et cetera, the applicant shall provide a six
foot right of way easement along Meridian Road in favor of ACND or the City of
Meridian, just as stated, removing the word temporary and, then, so on to say at such
time as ACRD is in need of the right of way, that the relocation of the sign will be at the
expense of the property owner or at such time if it was determined that the right of way
is not needed, that the easement may be vacated.
Rohm: That would be added to item three, then?
Borup: Yeah. Unless we want to add the sign in there, too.
Rohm: I would think that you would want to just leave the vacation of the easement as
part of item three and, then, add the discussion of the other sign -
Borup: In number seven?
Rohm: -- in number seven
Borup: Okay.
Moe: That's going --
Zaremba: I like the way that's stated and I think it doesn't hurt 'rf we repeat a section of
it again in seven. I see the city attorney nodding his head. I liked the way you put it and
we can mention the sign again in seven.
Baird: That way if you can leave it -pardon me for interrupting, Members of the
Commission. If you leave it in number three, that makes sure it -the language actually
gets into the easement and, then, by repeating it again in number seven, it shows what
condition the sign is being approved under. So, you're on the right track there.
Zaremba: Thank you.
Meridian Plaiming & Zoning
February 3, ZOgB
Page 30 of 58
Borup: Okay. So, want me to try again?
Zaremba: Continuing with the motion.
Borup: Well, I was just asking if that wording sounded appropriate, so -well, let me try
a motion, then.
Zaremba: Oh, I thought that was.
Borup: No. I was just seeing if that wording sounded -just for discussion. So, Mr.
Chairman, I move that we forward to City Council recommending approval of CUP 05-
001, request for a Conditional Use Permit for an office retail use in an Old Town zone
for Robert Monson at 829 North Meridian Road, to include all staff comments, the
memo for the hearing date of February 3rd, with the following changes: That on page
eight, under conditions of approval number three, that the word temporary be deleted
and at the end of that paragraph be added -and as such time as ACHD -well, wait a
minute. Let's see. No. Right. As is stated, which states, and, then, add at such time
as ACHD may need the additional right of way, that the - if, indeed, there is a sign in
the right of way, that it be relocated at the expanse of the property owner and at such
time it was determined that -and the next sentence - if at such - at such time if it is
determined that a right of way is not needed, the easement may be vacated. And in
item number seven, one freestanding sign is approved on this project and, then, go on
to say at such time as -- as per item number thr~, if the right of way is required and the
sign needs to be relocated, it will be done so at the expense of the property owner. And
that's all I have. Is there is anything else that needs to be added?
Moe: I'll second that.
Zaremba: We have a motion and a second on CUP 05-001. All in favor say aye. Any
opposed? That motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Zaremba: We are not quite at 9:00 o'Gock yet, but traditionally this is about where we
take a break, so we will recess for about ten minutes and, then, reconvene.
{Recess.)
Item 9: Public Hearing: A2 04-035 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 5.01
acres from RUT to R-4 zone for Klamath. Basin Subdivision by Randy
Worden -4625 West Ustick Road:
Item 70: Public Hearing: PP 04-045 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 12
single-family residential building lots and 3 other lots on 4.56 acres in a