Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJuly 7, 2005 P&Z Minutes Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 7, 2005 Page 75 of 110 Moe: Ladies and gentlemen, let's have a little bit of smiles now. We are going through this here. All stay with us here. Item 22: Public Hearing: AZ 05-024 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 5 acres to L-O zone for Seventh Day Adventist Church by Hawkins Companies - 1735 North Black Cat Road: Zaremba: We are getting closer to it. Thank you for hanging in with us. Okay. This is AZ 05-024, for the Seventh-Day Adventist Church on North Black Cat Road and we will begin with the staff report. Hood: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, this application is the other half of the Walgreen's site that you looked at earlier tonight. This is the five acres proposed for an L-O zone for a Seventh-Day Adventist Church just south of an existing LDS church on Black Cat Road. It's approximately 650 feet north of Cherry Lane, just to orient you a little bit. There is currently a single-family home on the property, which they will remove if this is approved. To the south and east are single-family -- south and west are single family homes and to the east Milliron Subdivision, has been approved. They haven't started constructing homes in there, but that should be coming very soon. I did want to just briefly touch on the parcel directly to the west. Now, the subject site is in black bold here. Directly behind are a couple of parcels that are land locked. There is an existing easement along the shared property line between these parcels here that provide access to these parcels. There is also a stub street here in Turnberry Subdivision. But this parcel is land locked, so one of the conditions that we have recommended for the development agreement is that a 50-foot wide easement be provided, whether it be at the southern boundary or at the northern boundary -- and I will get to that in a minute -- be provided to that parcel for a future public street. Churches are principally permitted in the L-O zone. This is a concept plan that shows how the site may develop. There are two -- currently two access points. The northern driveway proposed. The southern driveway is where the -- it serves the current home and ACHD has not approved the driveway shown on the site plan as proposed. What the highway district has done is they have approved one driveway to align with Milliron Drive across the street and, then, the applicant has been given the option of either constructing a second driveway at the northern property line and sharing that with the LDS church, provided the LDS church gives up their access point, which is just 20, 30 feet further to the north or if that came up and, then, they construct their second driveway at the southern boundary and provide cross-access with that southern property owner, for them to redevelop and, again, that 50-foot easement would, then, go back to the parcel to the west. I did touch on the cross-access to the west and the other condition, I guess, just with the development agreement, that you actually limit the uses on this sight to church-related uses, similar to what we have done with some of those other resolutions that come in. There is an L-O zone, however, it's shown as residential on the Comprehensive Plan. We don't have a zone that corresponds to churches. So, an office is about as close as you can get for a zone to represent land use of the church. So, just to prohibit this from going to staff office, staff is recommending that you meet there on condition of the DA, Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 7. 2005 Page 76 of 110 whether it be church or church.related activities and a lot of women need those bake sales. Or they have a day sale or some other things that are normal operating procedure for churches. So, with that staff is recommending approval of the annexation request to L-O, that the requirement for a development agreement, as stated in the staff report. And, then, I will stand for any questions. Zaremba: Commissioners, any questions? Thank you. Would the applicant care to come forward. Agulara: Good Evening. I'm Jessica Agulara of Hawkins Companies, 8645 West Franklin Road, Boise, Idaho. I just want to recap the Walgreen's component of this project. This is a land exchange. The existing Seventh-Day Adventist Church site is at Ten Mile and Cherry Lane, they are proposing to do the Walgreen's, and we are in an agreement with them that if we obtain and construct a new facility for them, we will, then, exchange that property for the Walgreen's property. So, that's why they are together. I just want to also just reiterate that we will comply with the current ordinance per the L-O designation. We don't have any issues with DA requirements. We are limiting the uses on this property for church activities. There is a comment in the staff report about the existing residential property, that will be removed or demolished as part of the construction of the church, but I guess I want to throw out there that it may be a possibility in the future that the church may want to do some type of residence on the property, like for the pastor, but we would, obviously, go through some type of CUP process, I presume, to make that happen. I don't think it's likely, but that's the only possible residential opportunity we would even consider. And it's not even on the table. With regards to the easement area, I just want to note that we are currently pursuing a cross-access agreement with the LDS church property to the north. We don't have that in place yet, so it's going to take some time. It will probably take two to three months to go through their approval process, but that is our preferred location of the driveway. At that time, if that happens, we will, then, provide the 50 foot easement to serve the property to the west -- properties to the west. Actually, can you go back -- there is three properties back there that are ideal candidates for a future development, subdivision development, so we would like to make that and we will provide that 50 foot easement, but I just want to make that clear, that if and when those properties -- adjacent properties are developed, that property owner, developer, will have to negotiate, whether it be Hawkins Companies or the Seventh-Day Adventist church, whoever the current owner is at the time, will have to negotiate the acquisition of that 50 foot easement area for dedication to ACHD. It's not our intent to donate that land to ACHD for a future residential road. It's for strictly providing access -- as easement. I wanted to make sure that was clear. Other than that, I don't have any additional comments. Is there any questions from the Commission? Zaremba: Commissioners, any questions? Newton-Huckabay: I have none. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 7, 2005 Page 77 of 110 Zaremba: While you're there, let me ask staff a question. Would it be reasonable, as opposed to an easement, to actually make this a subdivision with two lots and one of the lots is salable as an eventual right of way, like we do with common area lots that are eventually going to be sold as a right of way? Hood: That would be an option and we did speak when Jessica and some of her other coworkers were in for pre-apps, about how to do that or preserve right of way and ACHD won't accept that, unless it's improved. They won't accept a right of way unless it's improved to their standards. You could make it a lot. The problem is you have got to be careful with how you word that on the plat, because John Priester looks at future right of way basically the same as we are dedicating this right of way. So, you could have it be a separate lot, but you would have to be careful with how the language is there -- a buildable lot that never gets built and, then, turn it over to ACHD, but -- Zaremba: Well, a 50 foot wide lot isn't really very buildable. Hood: Yeah. In fact, in the L-O zone it wouldn't be ~- wouldn't meet the minimum frontage or anything like that, but that would be an option. I guess -- Zaremba: It would make it easier to sell later. Or they just come back later for a lot split. How would they do that? Hood: Yeah. You could do a lot split with our current ordinance. This parcel, after annexation, would be eligible for a one-time division. So, it could be split off that way, as long as another parcel is not created on the other side of that right of way and I don't think that would be the case. There is already 25 feet, I believe, of that 50 foot is already encumbered by an access easement. So, the remaining 25 feet is, quote, unquote, buildable, but, you know, that right of way -- there is already an access easement there, so -- Zaremba: Okay. Hood: I guess I'm a little confused, though, on the comments that Jessica just had had about it being the access, but not necessarily a right of way. Agulara: Well, I guess how I interpreted the staff report -- and it might be just strictly an interpretation issue with me -- is that I don't want it presumed by the current property owners to the west or potential developers, that by granting this easement that that gives them -- that that is an outright dedication in the future to ACHD, without some potential compensation to the church, because in their mind it's like a taking if -- the way it's worded. Hood: Yeah. I guess that would have to come down to how the agreement is worded for access today and we don't want that to be -- it's kind of a -- we don't want to be limited to just one single family home or three, but to leave that open for negotiations for the future, but that is the intent that -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 7, 2005 Page 78 of 110 Agulara: Yeah. And I think the way we have discussed it with the church is that we are reserving it -- and I won't use that word in the legal sense, but we have identified a 50 foot swatch, if you will, for a potential ACHD residential road. Not necessarily a driveway that would serve one or potentially three homes. A residential road -- ACHD defined residential is one that it's a minimum of 50 foot section, would meet all their requirements to be a public road, where currently we have the 25 foot easement, which is just, essentially, just a private driveway. So, I just wanted to differentiate that and make it clear that we have no problem reserving the area, we just don't want it implied or inferred that, you know, whether it's next year or ten years from now, that this DA implies that we have to just give it, that it's just taken from the church without compensation, whether it's directly from ACHD at the fair market value at the time or if it's from the adjacent future developer who needs it for access to Black Cat. Does that make sense? Borup: It does. Have you got a preferred wording of that, then? Agulara: 1-- Borup: I assume you're referring to the sentence that says said cross-access agreement shall include a provision that allows the property owner to improve and dedicate the easement for a future public street? Agulara: I don't have specific wording for that. Our counsel hasn't developed that yet, because we are just not in a position, nor have we been approached by anybody yet to pursue that further. But I just wanted to bring it to the table tonight and just make sure that it's clarified. Again, the cross-access, it would be to the benefit of those property owners. I don't know that we really need to get into an agreement with them, per se, because it's going to be benefiting them or we could just state it if and when those properties get developed, then, we would agree to come to an agreement at that time as to how that's acquired, whether it be from ACHD directly or that potential developer. Newton-Huckabay: Could you just strike the second sentence? Borup: That's what I was looking at. I don't know if the sentence needs to be stricken or if there is something that needs to be added that -- that would be -- that allows for the possibility of compensation as agreed upon by both parties or something. I don't know how that should be worded, though. Newton-Huckabay: We need an attorney to -- Borup: Yeah. Zaremba: Do we have an attorney in the house? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 7, 2005 Page 79 of 110 Agulara: What I would like to suggest, in my mind this is the only major issue with regard to this proposal and it's not even a major issue, but prior to -- assuming that you approve it this evening and pass it onto Council, that prior to Council we will come up with a draft -- the draft language and include that with our Council package for that and maybe it's just included in a DA, something to the effect that if and when those properties to the west get developed, then, we can negotiate how that is to work out. But right now, yes, technically those properties are land locked, but there is a 25 foot easement in place -- currently in place that's to the benefit of those three properties right now. So, they won't even -- Zaremba: Could we just tag on a sentence that says this requirement does not imply a free dedication or something like that? Agulara: Or a donation. Zaremba: I'm agreeing with you that it's an issue. Could be an issue. Newton-Huckabay: I would think, since we are only talking about semantics, I would be comfortable with Jessica's suggestion that they work out the wording before City Council and then -- we all know -- we are all saying the same thing, just not the same sentence. I would be comfortable with that. Borup: Discuss that with staff prior to? Newton-Huckabay: Right. Yeah. Zaremba: Legitimate concern. Borup: Does that make sense, Mr. Hood? Agulara: And I would add that not only would we present it to staff, but we would also take it to ACHD and make sure that both ACHD and the city were in concurrence that the language is suitable and it meets the intent of what ACHD's and the city's concerns are. I just want to make it clear it's not a donation. Hood: Mr. Chair, I think we could do both. We could add this sentence to the end of the bullet stating that and, then, also direct the applicant in the next three weeks to meet with staff and have that agreement in hand at the Council meeting and I think that makes the record very clear that -- what the intent is here what a cross-access is meant and what it's for, so -- Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. Any other questions for the applicant? Okay. Newton-Huckabay: That's what she's going to work out with staff. Moe: So, what are we going to do with it at this time? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 7, 2005 Page 80 of 110 Newton-Huckabay: We are just going to state that the applicant and staff are going to work out the semantics of page 11, bullet two. Moe: That will work. Zaremba: Okay. Newton-Huckabay: To make it clear that the property is not a donation. Zaremba: We have Bob Kell signed up to speak. Please come forward. Kell: My name is Bob Kell. I live at 1820 Nash Road, Eagle, Idaho. I sell real estate for Sell-Equity Real Estate and own Kell Land Development and I have under contract the piece of property to the west that we are talking about the easement. And it's -- right now it's -- will make some difference as to buying that piece of property from the owner, since part of my contract is to supply that easement, or at least a letter that says a usable easement and without knowing any terms of what the people in front want to sell that easement for, it's kind of late in their approaching people -- haven't approached anybody to say, okay, we will sell this, but we don't know what for. So, I think we -- I'm not asking for a donation, but I do need to know what that piece of property will cost, because I -- if they improve it on the north side and use it, then, there is nothing there to really buy, because they are using it also. I would probably have to do some improvements on it, I really wasn't expecting to buy it. And the people to the west, Mrs. Carson, she has one more access to the north, but her main access is down that 25 foot easement. Borup: So which parcel are you under contract? Kell: Right there. Borup: This one? Kell: Yes. Five acres there. And it's the only access to that property between the LOS church and the Stafford property to the south. And the five acres there has the only access back to -- back to Black Cat, south of the LDS church property line. Borup: And what was your perception when you contracted for that? Was it anything different than a 25-foot easement? Kell: No. I talked to the staff at the city and they said they would require a 50-foot easement through there and they would require it of the Stafford property to supply that. That that easement would be supplied. Now, again, I'm not asking for a donation, but I guess I need to know what that cost is. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 7, 2005 Page 81 of 110 Borup: Yeah, that was a good statement, but you didn't answer my question. My question was, did you expect anything other than that 25-foot easement -- Kell: Yes. Borup: -- to go with that property? Kell: A 50-foot easement. It's part of my contract. Borup: With the owner of the property? Kell: Yes. Borup: They provided you a 50-foot easement? Kell: Part of my contract states that they will supply me in writing the use of a 50-foot easement. Borup: How can they do that if they only have a 25-foot easement? Kell: Going back to staff, that they would require the applicant property to supply a 25 -- or a 50-foot easement. Borup: Well, it hasn't happened yet, though. Kell: I know. Borup: But you say your people you're contracting with will -- supplied you in writing that they will do something that hasn't even been a requirement from the city yet? Kell: It's part of my contractual -- and we haven't closed on the property. Borup: Okay. I'm just trying to get an understanding, so -- Kell: All I'm asking for is it would be in writing. Newton-Huckabay: So, Mr. Kell, what are you asking of us? We can't tell you how much they want to sell it for. Kell: I know. This is all -- this is all news to me that this would be of a cost. Borup: You expected -- I'd like to do business with you if you just give property away to people. Kell: Well, I know they are going to be using it -- the applicant will be using it if they go to the north side of their property. They have another suggestion that they move it to Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 7, 2005 Page 82 of 110 the south side, which, first of all, guys, it wouldn't -- it wouldn't R- Mrs. Carson, in the back that has the other five and -- two five acres that shares the 25-foot easement, that would -- you would still have her 25-foot easement to the north and it wouldn't benefit me, I don't think, to have a 50-foot easement on the other side. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. So, what is it that you are asking of us? I'm really confused. Kell: Alii really need is to bring it to the attention of the applicants and I would probably need to know what they -- what cost they want for that easement. Zaremba: Maybe I missed it, but if this application were not happening, what easement already goes with that property? Kell: Twenty-five foot. Zaremba: Where? Kell: To the north property line. Newton-Huckabay: On the LOS side. Zaremba: Okay. Kell: It's south of the LOS property, I believe. Borup: Yeah, but it's on the north property line of this property. Kell: Right. Zaremba: So, if they built something on that, they need to trade -- if you -- well, you don't have it yet, but the current property owner has that easement and this applicant ends up trying to move that easement, there is some trade that has to happen there as well. Right? Kell: Correct. Or have two easements. Zaremba: I don't know if that's an important question or not, but you already have something of value to trade. Kell: Possibly. Thank you. Zaremba: All right. Thank you. He was the only one signed up, but this is an opportunity for anybody else. Elliott: My name is Yvette Elliott at 1923 North Black Cat Road and I own the property to the west of the church and so -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 7, 2005 Page 83 of 110 Borup: The same one Mr. Kell is trying to buy? Elliott: Yes. Borup: Okay. Elliott: Yes. And so we have been hit up by developers for the last five years several times and I talked to your staff, I talked to Mr. Hood regarding this 50-foot easement. I have also talked to ACHD regarding a 50-foot easement for a future development on that property. In order to do that, they -- when I talked to Mr. Hood, he said that they would require that, because that is prime future development area, because it is behind the LDS church and it is adjacent to the other subdivision over there. My -- my real concern in coming to this meeting is Mr. Hawker's company had come to our house and basically handed me a contract for less than half of what all the other offers have been and told us it would be in our best interest to sign his contract and that we could not get a 50 foot easement. He did the same thing to Mrs. Carson that lives down at the end of the lane. And I think it's a little bit of a brow beating, then, but I just want to make sure that we do have the right of way to have a 50-foot easement put down there. If they are going to use that easement as well, we are capable and we will help develop that road, but if they are going to be using that easement, we don't feel we need to buy that portion, but we would help develop that access area if -- for plantings or whatever, up to code with the City of Meridian. When it's for -- whether Mr. Kell buys that property or whether we keep it for future use. The other thing I'd like to bring up is that with the LDS church we have a lot of problems with kids coming in and traffic. Within that LDS church you have a lot of police officers that are chasing kids out of there and, you know, stuff thrown through the chain link fence on the LDS church. So, we would also like a fence put up along -- it would be, I guess, the west side of the property, a six foot fence, and I would like maybe either -- it would have to be some solid type of structure. We do have animals, we do have horses, and would not like people being able to throw things through to them. Zaremba: That makes sense. Elliott: So, that's my only thing. I just -- I don't want to be -- same concerns as Bob Kell to buy that property, but as you have seen by the works of -- with them working on the Ten Mile Cherry Lane building, they don't have -- they came to you and they didn't have things in writing that they should have -- with the easement with the gentleman and his trash and whatever and so, you know, they kind of pinned them to a corner and I just want to make that clear with the Council. Zaremba: Okay. We will check with the applicant again, but I sort of understood the question, what if this -- what if your and two or three other properties around you develop into a major R-4 residential area, then, that becomes a roadway-- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 7, 2005 Page 84 of 110 Elliott: It's zoned as low density and there are two -- there is one access area through the other subdivision and we aren't saying that we wouldn't use that 50-foot easement, but they would as well use that 50 feet easement. We have a 25-foot easement and the LDS church usually has cars parked on that easement and -- on Sundays and -- Zaremba: Would that prevent you from getting out? Elliott: If we have to buy new grass and -- but we are good neighbors and we try to be and it will be the same if another church is over there. It happens all the time. And there is nothing, really, you can do about it. Zaremba: Yeah. Elliott: We even put signs up no parking, but, you know, it just causes problems, so -- Zaremba: Well, the easement is yours at the moment, so-- Elliott: Correct. Correct. But if it is -- if it is a 50-foot easement, like we said, we would -- we would help develop that -- we would consider helping develop that landscape, whatever, but -- Borup: Do you understand the church doesn't need the easement? All they need is a driveway -- Elliott: I thought they needed to -- Borup: They just need driveways to their property. Elliott: Right. And two of them; right? Newton-Huckabay: No. Elliott: Don't they have to -- Borup: No. ACHD just had one and that's not even an easement, that's just a -- just a driveway to their property, is the only thing they need, just to be able to get in and out of their property. So, the whole purpose of the whole easement was for your convenience. Elliott: Right. And-- Borup: Not for the church. Zaremba: Well, yes and no. Elliott: Well, I understand that, but it's also for the City of Meridian wanting to develop that for future use and that's what I understood -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 7, 2005 Page 85 of 110 Borup: I don't think Meridian does any developing. Elliott: They don't do any developing, sir -- Borup: It's just for your convenience, so you could develop that property or sell it to somebody that would. Elliott: Right. And, then, that area is prime property and lots of development going over by the golf course and so they would like to develop that property for future use. Or like to -- for somebody to develop that property for future use. Borup: I think what the staff is trying to say, they want to make sure that this development does not prohibit your property from being developed. Elliott: Right. Borup: And that's why the easement would be in place, so there would be some mechanism that it could happen. Elliott: For the 50 foot easement. Borup: Yeah. Zaremba: But we aren't inventing a 50-foot easement, there is already a 25-foot easement -- Borup: Right. So, there is already access there. The access is -- the property is -- has -- is not being denied access right now and that wouldn't change. If your use didn't change. Elliott: Right. But there will be a clause put in there that they would -- they would give us 50-foot, though. Because you can't put a subdivision in a -- Borup: No, I don't believe there will be a clause that they will give you 50 feet, anymore than you would give them the same amount of property. I mean we can't force you to do that either. Elliott: Well, I'm not saying -- okay. If it's not given and we have to buy it, we still -- we could still get that 50-foot right? Moe: Yeah. You have got your access to the 25-foot now. Elliott: Right. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 7, 2005 Page 86 of 110 Moe: If, in fact, you want to do development and you got to go to the 50-foot, you would have the opportunity, we have heard tonight, to purchase that area for that -- for the rest -- for that easement for the 50-foot. Zaremba: Well, do they have to purchase it or does ACHD purchase it? If it's going to be a public road -- Moe: If it's going to be public road, I would assume ACHD would be-- Borup: No. ACHD doesn't purchase any roads in any other subdivision. The developer builds it off and dedicates it to ACHD. Zaremba: That's true. Moe: That's true. Newton-Huckabay: I think what they are saying if you didn't need the easement, then, the two churches would just close it off and have the access, one at the north, one at the south, likely, if you weren't land locked. Elliott: Yeah. So -- but we would, so -- Newton-Huckabay: Right. Right. But that's why the -- that's why they are saying the easement is all your burden -- it's your burden, not theirs. And even if they -- if it became a public road, they may use it. You know, I mean -- I think I know what you're saying. Elliott: So, they can use it. -- Newton-Huckabay: Anybody can use a public road, so-- Elliott: So, if we buy it and we develop it, they can use it? But if they buy it, we can't use it. Newton-Huckabay: No. You get your easement. Moe: No. You have your 25-foot easement. Regardless of when they develop, your 25-foot easement is there. Elliott: Right. Moe: If, in fact, you wanted go ahead and develop your property, at that point you would have to purchase -- you would have to work an agreement with them to purchase the land in order to get you the 50 foot easement for the public roadway to go in and that cost would be on you. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 7, 2005 Page 87 of 110 Elliott: Right. Moe: The purchase of the land, as well as the development of the road. Elliott: Uh-huh. Okay. Moe: Okay? Elliott: So, the other question was the fencing. Moe: I, quite frankly, wouldn't have a problem with the fencing at all. Elliott: So, you would -- okay. Recommend that? Moe: Uh-huh. Newton-Huckabay: Do you have a preference? Elliott: I prefer a solid fence. Put up a six-foot fence. Newton-Huckabay: Cedar? Elliott: Now, I would prefer something more permanent. Cedar tends to fall out over time, so I prefer either -- like the brick fencing or barrier wall or vinyl the fencing, something of that structure. Zaremba: Okay. We will put that to the applicant. Elliott: Thank you. Zaremba: Anybody else care to comment? Hood: Mr. Chair? Oh. Zaremba: I'll call on you next. RElliott: My name is Rick Elliott, I reside at 1923 North Black Cat. Same property as my wife. And I just want to make a few comments. Basically, we are land locked. That's what this is coming down to. And, frankly, I don't think it's fair. I don't think it's good neighbor. I just don't agree with it. I mean -- Borup: How long have you lived there? RElliott: Ten years. Borup: And you have always been land locked? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 7, 2005 Page 88 of 110 RElliott: Yes, sir. Borup: But it's fair ten years ago, but it's not now? RElliott: I didn't say it was ever not fair. But I'm saying is now we are going to be forced to buy that property at who knows what cost. Borup: No. No. No, sir. You have got -- you have got your easement just as you do now. RElliott: For development potential. Borup: Okay. That's a different thing. Zaremba: Would the applicant care to respond? Agulara: With regards to the fence, we will get in touch with that property owner and we will negotiate some resolution as to what kind of fence to put on there. We don't have a problem putting a fence along their boundary there on that property to the west. And I also want to reiterate, yes, there is a 25-foot easement on the church/Stafford property, that's the current owner today, but there is also a 25-foot easement on the LDS church property. That boundary line is the center line, if you will. So, there is actually a total of 50 feet there that serves -- that's to the benefit of those three properties. So, even if they moved the driveway to the south, that 25 feet slash 50-foot easement isn't going to go away and it benefits them, it doesn't benefit the Stafford property, it's not going to go away, but will always have that existing driveway there. But we are just saying that if we decide to develop the north -- on the north side, which is what we want to do, we have no problem granting an easement for access to that property for its current use, but, obviously, if that gets redeveloped to a subdivision, that existing driveway, dirt road, it isn't adequate to serve -- I don't know how many homes you can get in that five to 15 acres, it will have to be constructed as a residential street and ACHD has indicated that they want that to be dedicated and all we are saying is we don't want to be committed at this point in time to donate that land for something that mayor may not happen. But if and when it does, that 50 feet will be reserved, but also we will incorporate that 50 feet or as part of our design, so not only will there be 50 feet, but beyond that 50 feet we will also have the appropriate landscape buffer that the city currently would require. So, we are pre-planning for that and, again, we just don't want to donate it -- or in my mind it's a talking. So, whoever developed it, develops it, will have to work out an agreement with the current property owner at the time, which, like I said, this will be a land exchange in the future and would anticipate at that point in time it will be the Seventh-Day Adventist Church. So, that's who they will need to negotiate with. I will happy to take any other questions. Newton-Huckabay: I think she talked about a vinyl fence. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 7, 2005 Page 89 of 110 Borup: That's right. Just ask for some clarification on the fence. Are you going to do anything they want, I mean as far as -- Agulara: If they put it on -- Borup: Vinyl, wood, or chain link with slats. Agulara: Yeah. We will work them and, you know, assuming that they are very clear that they don't want a cedar fence. That's understood. So, we will just start with vinyl and just verify what their concerns are and put in the appropriate fencing. That's not a problem. And I also want to mention, to the best of my knowledge, my company has not been contacted prior to this evening from any of those landowners or potential developers with regards to any type of coordination for any future development, so -- and if there is people out there, we will gladly meet with them and see if we can coordinate our efforts. But that hasn't happened yet. Thank you. Zaremba: Thank you. Hood: Mr. Chair? Zaremba: Yes. I'm sorry. I was going to call on you earlier and I -- Hood: I wanted to get this out, I guess, before it just came up and -- but just to kind of go back in time a little bit and come into the recommendation, it was tough to make findings to recommend approval of this, if there weren't -- if there was not included a condition that the private lane, the existing 25 foot that's been -- that's currently used and the other 25 feet that the LDS church uses, with a fence and some trees within that easement and things -- if a 50 foot wide easement were not provided to the west, I do not see how this could be in the best interest of the city, because you have got five acres of developable land there that didn't have access. Now, that's not the problem of the subject property, but that was the only way that I could see that it would be in the best interest of the city to annex if that easement were provided, with some compensation. I mean they shouldn't just have to give it up. That being said, that also- - a setback, a building setback, should probably also be included in this DA that requires a new building, to not just go right up them and say thanks for the easement, because, then, you're going to have a sidewalk and I don't think that's the intent of the church, but just to cover the future dedication and acquisition of that fourth street, then, you have a -- you know -- and that's nice in Old Town to have buildings that come on up to the street, but here that probably wouldn't be -- it wouldn't be cut back, so he's just keeping you -- I know where it is in the L-O, have 20-foot front street side setback or whatever to the building and I have checked for their conceptual plan to see that works or not, 15 even, something like that. But there needs to be some setback measured from that -- which would be a 70 foot from your north property line or 65 isn't that only -- I guess they have not included that in the staff report, but should probably be adjusted as such. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 7, 2005 Page 90 of 110 Zaremba: Well, let me ask about -- the existing easement, if I'm understanding, is there is already a 50 foot easement, 25 feet on this property and 25 feet on the LDS property. Is the LDS church not in compliance? If they have built trees and landscaping on a -- what do you call it, a transportation easement -- access easement, do they need to remove that? Hood: I have not read the easement agreement, but if you ask me, I would say that those property owners have a right to drive right over those trees and get out to the road if they needed to. I don't know. Again, not knowing how that easement is worded -- Borup: So, you're saying there already exists a 50-foot easement -- Hood: Yeah. Twenty-five feet on the LOS side and 25 feet on the subject side. Borup: So, 50 feet already exists, then. Hood: Fifty feet there. Somehow the LDS church has made their driveway within that, but, then, there is a -- I think it's a chain link fence, a ditch, and some trees that line that -- within that 25-foot. So, it's basically fenced off and everyone is using this side -- this 25 feet and it's adequate for them. You know, a 25-foot wide easement is adequate for a single family house, but the other side is in some type of violation and the property owners back there just haven't done anything about it, so -- Agulara: May I respond to that or would we want to hear testimony first? Zaremba: Let's have her come first and, then, you will be the last word. Thank you. The hearing is still open. Stafford: I'm Elenore Stafford and I'm the homeowner, along with my husband, at 1735 Black Cat for the proposed church development. We have lived there 31 years and there is a 50-foot easement. When the LDS church built on their property five years ago or whatever it was, they got permission from -- I guess in here, whoever was on the Commission, to infringe 11 feet on that 25 foot easement on their side, which they put their -- the buried irrigation ditch and, then, the Cyclone fence at the edge. But they have definitely infringed 11 feet on their own 25. So, that is what she talked about before about contacting the church and, of course, they can't make that decision locally, it has to go back to Salt Lake now for them to rectify the wrong that they did before. When that was in the process, my husband went over and talked to the contractor on the property, because he knew him, and he said you're infringing, you know. Well, they have gone in and they got permission to do that from somebody. So, it was kind of evidently a little busy right from the beginning on what happened with that easement. Zaremba: The only way to get permission is to vacate an easement, isn't it? There would be a record if they vacated the easement. Borup: That was not -- wasn't that through the county? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 7, 2005 Page 91 of 110 Stafford: Obviously, they incorporated into the city. Hood: Yes. That property is zoned L-O in the city and -- Borup: When it was first built? Hood: I believe so. Borup: Okay. Hood: There was an application received, annexation, zoning and subsequently constructed a church. Zaremba: Yeah. They are L-O in the city. Stafford: So, does that answer your question? Zaremba: There is a process they had to go through. They can't just wave a wand and say the easement is -- Stafford: I know. I know. We were surprised and I guess, you know, we should have come up -- Borup: So, that 11 feet has a fence and a ditch you said? Stafford: Uh-huh. Borup: Is there any parking along there or anything? Stafford: Well, your comment that my husband said they said was, well, it evened out their parking on both sides if they could infringe 11 feet on that. Borup: So, they'd have to remove some parking, too, then. Stafford: Yes. Borup: Was that the existing ditch or a new ditch that was put in? Stafford: No. They put the new buried stuff in. Borup: In a different location? Stafford: On that easement. On part of that easement. Borup: I mean the ditch was in a different location previously? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 7, 2005 Page 92 of 110 Stafford: Previously, yeah. Borup: Okay. Stafford: So, does that answer your question a little bit better? Borup: A little bit. Stafford: And the house on -- that we live in has been sold and will be removed from the property, so -- as part of the process. Thank you. Zaremba: Thank you. Okay. Final word from the applicant. Agulara: That 50 foot easement that's currently in place, I mean I think if we went to the letter of the law, that's where, in theory, the residential road should go. But we recognize that it's going to be difficult and not very timely to try and get that easement vacated or whatever the process we need to follow on the LDS church side to make that happen. So, that's why we are willing to do that 50 feet on our property. So, essentially, we are giving up an additional 25 feet to make that happen. So, again, sounding like a broken record, we just want to make it clear that it's just -- it's not a donation. Thank you. Zaremba: The issue is pretty clearly established. I'm not sure what the answer is, but -- Borup: I don't either. If that infringement was 11 feet out of the 25, you know -- so, there is still 14 feet there that could be used, it seems to me. And she had mentioned they weren't going to try to shift it over, but it wouldn't take the whole 25, it would only take eleven. Zaremba: If they left it at that location. Borup: Yeah. But that's for someone else to work out. Newton-Huckabay: Is that relevant to this? Borup: No. Newton-Huckabay: Can we close this Public Hearing? Zaremba: I believe so. I think there is agreement there can be an easement, the only thing is it doesn't want to be free. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, I recommend we close the Public Hearing on AZ 05-024. Moe: Second. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 7, 2005 Page 93 of 110 Zaremba: There is a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Anyopposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Zaremba: Commission Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, I recommend we forward to the City Council recommending approval of AZ 05-024, for the hearing date July 7th -- and the transmittal date? Moe: Yeah. Just do that. Newton-Huckabay: Transmittal date of June 30th, 2005, with the following changes: On page 11, bullet two, with the understanding that staff and the applicant will work out the wording to make it clear that the 25-foot wide cross-access agreement is not a donation of land and where should we put the vinyl fence? Page ten. Okay. On page ten I will make a point number four that the -- this property will be limited to church uses -- church type uses only. And, then, number five -- was that already in there? Hood: That's already point number four, the first one on page 11. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Strike that last comment. So, I was done when I thought I was done, I think. Moe: No. The fence. Hood: Two things. The fence and, then, additional setback or some way to-- Newton-Huckabay: And where do you want that? Hood: -- insure -- both of those should probably be new bullet points within that same number three. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. A new bullet point in comment number three, that begins on page ten, that there will be a vinyl fence on the west side of -- six foot vinyl fence on the west side of the property and bullet point number six -- what was the setback? Borup: Maybe just the setback should comply the L-O zoning from the 50-foot easement. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. As stated by Commissioner Borup. Borup: 15 that worded right? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 7, 2005 Page 94 of 110 Moe: Second. Zaremba: There is a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 23: Public Hearing: CUP 05-032 Request for Conditional Use Permit approval for the operation of a public charter school in a L-O zone for Compass Public Charter School by Compass Public Charter School - 2511 West Cherry Lane: Zaremba: Okay. I will open the Public Hearing for CUP 05-032, for Compass Public Charter School at 2511 West Cherry Lane and let's begin with staff comments. Hood: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, Compass Public Charter School has requested Conditional Use Permit approval to operate a public charter school out of an existing church located on the south side of Cherry Lane, approximately a half mile west of Linder Road. The property is zoned L-O currently. The site is surrounded by single- family homes and Haven Cove Subdivision to the west and south, Sunnybrook Farms to the north, and The Vineyards Subdivision to the east. Chapter 8 of Title 11, the schedule of use control for Meridian City Code, requires all public schools in the L-O to obtain CUP approval. That's why this application is here tonight. The lease area for the school is approximately 17,096 square feet, and includes classrooms, bathrooms, a gymnasium, and a multi-purpose room on the south end of the site. And that's within two separate buildings. Basically, the south half of what I'm going to call the main building, is the main area for the classrooms. This is a gym and multi-purpose area. I believe a kindergarten and first grade, I think, classroom are in here. Kitchen facilities, bathrooms, in both buildings will be utilized. Just a little bit of background for you. Because the school year starts in August, this application has already been approved -- or this use has already been approved for one year at this location by the City Council. That was done a couple -- few weeks ago by the City Council. The main things that were discussed at that meeting were bringing the current building up to current fire code and meeting all of the building codes for occupancy changes, conditions that require this school or -- yeah, the state department of building safety and the Meridian fire department to approve this use for a public charter school have been included with the subject application. And I guess one of the other things I wanted to just touch on briefly that kind of leaves it up in the air in the staff report is the recess area and the close proximity to the single family homes in the area. Again, there are some -- some single family homes that are pretty close. I spoke with the applicant probably about a month or so now about where recess was going to be, I was curious about where recess was going to be held. My understanding is it's on the southern area of this building here. There is some gates generally in this location, I'm not exactly sure, that can kind of close off that area to vehicular traffic, but there isn't a lot of green play fields, but I think they are going to do -- you know, play with a ball -- bouncing ball and things like that,