Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMarch 3, 1998 C/C Minutes , Meridian City Council. March 3, 1998 Page 21 8 Corrie: Thank you, Mrs. Cox. DEAN L. FIFE 324 W. STATE, EAGLE WAS. SWORN BY THE CITY ATTORNEY. D. Fife: Addressing a couple of issues that were brought up on the area for play. I think I submitted a plot map showing the play area on the day care. The house was moved to one side, and there is 2500 square feet of play area on that lot for those children to play, and it's off to the side of the house, so there is plenty of area there. The issue of sleeping is no more important to anybody else than me, because I also have a job starting at Micron here in about ten days, so I know what that's like. But really don't feel that the noise from the day care is going to be a problem. I was at the lot the other day and there were six, seven teenagers riding their bicycles along the vacant lot along Mr. Alverson's property on the dirt that was pile on the lot next to ours where we are building, and these young gentlemen were riding their bicycles and having a good time up and down those hills, and I really believe that the day care that we will have, most children will be under six years of age. That's the age that Jodi and Jennifer Bell will be watching, and I don't believe that most of you that raise children, that age child makes more noise than teenagers on bicycles, so I think if anything the noise may actually drop down. And also in the subdivision the young lady that testified that has a day care of twelve, she's been contacted by people who are looking to buy property in that subdivision so that they can have their children in the day care. 50 some people who have brought up in past testimony that it decreases property value, weill don't believe that that's true. I don't believe that our house there decreases the property value of the subdivision. That has been brought up. It's a 2500 square home, pluss 900 square foot garage. The day care has 915 square feet dediCated to day care. That's twice the square footage per child that the state requires, so we are meeting all kinds of requirements there. The house has been extremely well insulated. Every wall in the house has been insulated to help keep noise at a minimum. My wife is an ex-Idaho school teacher, and very well at handling children and controlling them and keeping the noise level down, and she is aware of the fact that outside is important that they be controlled and be trained properly. She's excellent at that as my five children and my five grandchildren attest to. I think that's all that I wanted to bring up. Is there any questions that I can answer by the Council? Corrie: Thank you. Anyone else to testify from the public? I was going to give you a last crack at anything that you wanted to say and you've taken it already so that's fine. J. Fife: The child care connections I contacted here to see what kind of a - you know, if there was a need in the Meridian area for day care facility, and she sent a letter out. I don't know if all of you were able to see this or not, but she said - I'll just read this one paragraph, it will be easier. "Jodi Fife recently called for information regarding the number of parents needing child care in the City of Meridian who have contacted our agenC\f for referrals in the past several months. According tt' our records, 58 Meridian area residents have called our agencies for referrals since October of 1997. Of those 48 families were needing child care near their homes, and 16 were willing to look for Meridian City Council 8 March 3, 1998 Page 22 8 care near their homes or near a Meridian school, and 55 are looking for a home based child care programs." Out of the 58,55 were requesting more of an in-home rather than a institutional type. And I'll let you see that. Corrie: We have it. J. Fife: I think there is a need for this service, and Mr. Alverson's statement at the first hearing said, "I don't' have a problem with a day care, only the amount of children. The size of the day care is what really has us bothered." I don't know what the benefit would be of resubmitting because we've met all the criteria to this point, and so I don't see a benefit in doing that. Even though we were declined by the planning and zoning commission, they did so I felt kind of reluctantly. Mr. Nelson said, "It's my personal preference to recommend day cares in neighborhoods. And it looks like the day care in question has a good schedule." And why this was a denial, he thinks maybe it was denied just out of the total number of children that we're going to have there. Is that the main problem? And Mr. Borup said, "For me it is." So seems to be just the size that we first asked for. Mr. Nelson says that because that's only real issue I saw, I wouldn~t mind at all having a day care next to my home. And Mr. Borup said, "My initial inclination was to approve it. I think that's something necessary in a residential neighborhood, but I think the concern with most of those who testified was number of children, and my inclination still could probably be towards approval." So they wanted to approve it that night, but then they asked do we have that option of approving it with a maximum of twelve and then the attorney said no, we can't do that because it would be overriding what she had submitted for, and then he told me that I should make a letter of amendment, that it had to be me that amended that. So, I feel that they would have approved it that night had we asked for a smaller number of children, and I really see no benefit in resubmitting all of the same paperwork over again, and taking up the council's time With that. I did contact Mr. Alverson, actually I spoke with his wife, apologized to her for not contacting her earlier which I had apologized before. Thatwas an oversight on my part. .Being new at this I didn't realize I went \Yithin three hundred feet in my subdivision, but I didn't think about the subdivision behind me. It seems idiotic. I don't' know. I'm used to working with little children. Da da goo goo, you know. So I did call his wife, and we are very sorry how close came to their fence line is the size of the lot and the way it is situated and couldn't be helped. But we did move our home to one side leaving room at the side for the yard rather than at the back. Their concern is the back. I did some calling and researchiD9 around with local nurseries, asking them what they thought that we could do to make some kind of barrier between us, because it does kind of interfere with the privacy. And the best information I got was that we should plant - I'm looking for the word - ardivita trees. And this has been successfully done in a couple of day cares in Boise. These trees, they grow to about 15 or 20 feet in height, and they say approximately three or four feet in diameter. They can be planted to within one foot of the fence, and they don't overgrow into the fence, but they do fill in, and it would make a total barrier there which would help with the sound, and it would make a nice visual barrier too so they wouldn't be looking into our yard all the time. They would just see the trees, and I think that would help, and we are perfectly willing to do that at Meridian City Council 8 March 3, 1998 Page 23 8 our expense. I also told her my schedule which I've made up was just tentative. I am willing to work with her on that. If she has certain hours that she sleeps until this time, I'm happy to have the children until after she's had her rest. I'll sit down with her and work out this schedule, and also we have rules. There is no yelling and screaming in the playground. If they make that kind of noise, they have to go inside. They can just play reasonably but no loud. And the oldest children that we want to have in our pre- school is four. When they reach the age of five, then we no longer will be taking them. Just because our personal preference is the younger children, and we are planning to do a pre-school as well as a day care, so a lot of their time will be devoted to learning activities and I turned in a schedule. Did you see my schedule? Do you all have it? Would you like me to just pass that down? So it does show that we have our time of well mapped out and scheduled and the children are not just free to run in and out, in and out and do whatever they wish. It's more of a school situation. So - and I am happy to work with my neighbors and I told her on the phone that I really don't want anyone to be unhappy with me. We want to be good neighbors. We want them to enjoy living in their home as well. We realize they have dogs, and she also needs to realize that I have grandchildren. I have five grandchildren. Even if I don't do a day care, it will seem like I am because they come over all the time, and that's one reason why we built such a big house, because our family has had a baby boom lately, and I want to be able to have them over all the time. And so that's kind of people we are. We just love children, and we want to have them around. I'm sorry if that inconveniences them, but we are willing to work with them in any way that we can. Are there any other questions? Bentley: So you are willing to cut it back to how many children now? J. Fife: Our new submittal was up to twelve. That's the - that's called the in-home group day care. Bentley: Also, you heard Mr. Alverson talk about his two dogs, and the fact that they probably would be barking. What's your response going to be if his barking dogs wakes up your sleeping kids? J. Fife: Mr. Alverson is going to find out that I am really an easy person to live with. I don't like anybody to be unhappy with me, and I don't get unhappy with other people. That's just the kind of person I am. So he's not going to find me over there yelling at him about his dogs. I have a little dog too that will probably yap. I mean that's part of community life, and I think if Mr. Alverson really wanted a place, she mentioned to me when they bought their home, that whole subdivision was vacant, and that their house was the last one on the road. But they didn't have foresight enough to see that that was going to be filled up with houses. It's a subdivision, you know. And if they wanted total privacy, they should have bought a piece that was more out in the country. A bigger piece, or m~ybe a piece that's more in with retired people, or somfithing- but he's not going to hear from me about his dogs. Ili.ke dogs. Meridian City Council 8 March 3, 1998 Page 24 8 Bentley: Has everybody in the surrounding areas, have they seen your wurk schedule, the schedule you just passed out to us? . - J. Fife: No, I haven't givenït to the parents you mean. Bentley: No, to the people within three hundred feet. Did you submit this as part of your testimony at P & Z? J. Fife: It was turned in, yeah. They have access to everything I've turned in. Yeah, Mrs. Alverson said that she had seen that, so she did get that. Bentley: Okay, thank you. Corrie: Counselor, on this request that - second request - can we do it this way or is it going to require to go back to planning and zoning or can we do what we want? Crookston: That's totally up tö the council, but we have previously allowed applicants for day cares for other uses to change their application so long as it is a lesser use than they applied for. So it's totally up to the council. Corrie: And my next question about the testimony (inaudible) Crookston: I was not at the initial planning and zoning hearing so I can't tell about that. Bentley: Mr. Mayor, I have a question for counsel. We had someone speak tonight that they are within the three hundred radius but were never notified, and the applicant stated that she didn't realize it was three hundred feet outside of that. Isn't that a legality issue that's got to be addressed? Crookston: It certainly is because then the people within three hundred feet of the proposed use may not have been notified so that is definitely a real legal problem, because not all the appropriate people were notified of the application then. Bentley: So what would be the proper remedy for that? To reapply? Crookston: Well, that would be appropriate because the people that should have been notified did not have an opportunity to attend the planning and zoning meeting or this one. so that would be very appropriate. Corrie: I have a question, was you the one that made that statement? What is your address? . Bell: 433 E. Wakely. Rountree: Mr. Mayor, just a point of clarification. Is the hearing still open? Meridian City Council 8 March 3, 1998 Page 25 8 Corrie: Yes, it is. We áre checking to see on the list here who"":. Berg: What I'm looking at liere is the list of where we sent the certified mailings. The little discrepancy is other people can own the property, and we send it to their mailing address, not necessarily to the property itself. So I don't have her or her address listed, but that didn't mean that - Bell: I am the property owner. (Inaudible) Berg: Okay, that might be another thing - Shari do you know how fast those things are updated? Corrie: Shari, are you going to be very much longer? Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council, I'm not sure if the list was provided by the city or by the applicant. The City's just started providing those lists in the last few months. I don't see the actual list in this application. This is Fife. (Inaudible) Stiles: The list appears to have been provided by the City. This is taken directly from the Ada County Records that we get in our - from our GIS system. They are usually about a month behind when we get the information, but this is the same information that anyone would get if they went down to the county so that is the information that we have to rely on when we send out these notices. Corrie: Is that address within the three hundred foot limit? Stiles: Oh, I,'m sure it would be, yes. Corrie: It looks like it was within the limits, but it wasn't notified. So - Mr. Bentley? Bentley: Are you going to close the public hearing? Corrie: I will if you are ready to - okay, at this point, I'll close the public hearing. Bentley: Mr. Mayor, since there has been some substantial changes in the current findings of facts and in the reduction in the amount of children, and the legal issue on whether everybody was properly notified, I am going to make a motion that we remand this back to P & Z to give the applicant the proper time to make sure that everyone is properly notified within the three hundred feet, and then they can address the new changes. Bird: I'll second that. Meridian City Council 8 March 3, 1998 Page 26 8 Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Bentley and second by Mr. Bird to remand the hearing back to the Planning and Zoning for hearing. Is there any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of ttie motion say aye. MOTION CARRIED: All aye. Corrie: It goes back to Planning and Zoning with the request for the less and make sure we got everybody within that three hundred foot. We made sure that the City gets the right people this time. (Inaudible - off the microphone) Corrie: It still has to be presented to them by mail. It's a state law. It's not our makings. (Inaudible - off the microphone) Corrie: They are still entitled to the three hundred feet. Whoever owns that property. (Inaudible - off the microphone) Corrie: Charlie, you know more about the Planning and Zoning, what they do than I. I was never on the Planning and Zoning. How does that work? Rountree: Well, the notifications have to be resubmitted. I don't know in terms of bearing the cost, if that's the applicant or the city does it the second time. Shari ought to be able to answer that, but I can't - Corrie: Shari, do you know who bears the cost in the second go around. Stiles: Well, I guess it depends on whether it's notice or whether it's a significant changes that are why you are sending it back to P & Z. If it's the significant change that you are remanding back to P & Z. Corrie: No, we are going back to P & Z because not everybody in the three hundred area did not get the letter. Stiles: Well, I don't believe that was the motion that was made by Glenn. Corrie: It was the motion made by him. Stiles: Was it because you also said significant changes in the application? Bentley: The changes and the legal issue. Meridian City Council 8 March 3, 1998 Page 27 8 Rountree: I guess I'd say this, if it's an error on our part, we'll bear the expense. If it's not, then - if sufficient information was provided to the city for the mailings, then the applicant would be the - . Corrie: Yeah, but we didn't give you the right area I would assume it's our responsibility. Shari, you better check it to make sure that we didn't give them the whole picture that we needed to check it out. Stiles: I would like to know who the previous owner of the property was. Bell: Scott Reece. Stiles: Scott - how do you spell that? (Inaudible - off the microphone) Rountree: I guess in the interim one aspect of day care is that if you wanted to start with five or less, there is no permit required. I assume you are aware of that. Crookston: There is a permit required. It's just an accessory use. Rountree: You don't go through the hearing process. It's an accessory use. Stiles: I guess I would need to verify from Ada County when this record was posted. Scott Reece does appear as being notified on the list. Corrie: Okay, in the meantime would you check on that and get with these folks and make sure we.got that squared off before they go. (Inaudible - .off the microphone) Corrie: If who was notified? J. Fife: The owner of the property at that time. Doesn't that cover the - Corrie: Who was the owner of the property at that time? J. Fife: Mr. Reece, and he was notified. It's not really our fault the property sold in the meantime, you see. It shows he was notified. . Corrie: Was Mr. Reece, the owner of the property notified? He was notified. (Inaudible) The owner of the property at the time of the application was- Stiles: I would need to verify when Ada County posted that warranty deed. It could very well be that it wasn't posted yet as particularly at year end, we would have had the new Meridian City Council 8 March 3, 1998 Page 28 8 information. I believe the Fifes submitted the application in December, and it probably would not have been posted by Ada County at that time. If it just. occurred in November. (End of Tape) Crookston: - I believe that it would, yes. And when they purchased it, the previous owner should have notified whoever bought their property. Because all we can be bound by is the owner of record at the time that we gave them the notice. Corrie: So does the council wish to keep the motion active or do you want to - Bird: We can enact upon it tonight then? We haven't done - it's nothing - everything is clean? Corrie: If everything is clean, you can act upon it tonight if you want. We have to have another motion to bring it back to the floor. Bird: Do we have to withdraw the other one, Mayor. Corrie: You would yes. I would - it would depend upon the two people that made the motion and second. Bird: I withdraw my second. Bentley: I withdraw the motion. Corrie: Okay, the motion's been withdrawn. Discussion? Rountree: The findings of facts we have before us are for the original application. The original application -was for up to 24 children. The recommendation to. the City Council by Planning and Zoning after the hearing was to deny this request. That's what we have officially before us. We have a letter of amendment from the applicant, indicating that they would like to amend it to handle a permit for group day care for six to twelve children. There was an issue of notification. In the past that's been a pretty significant issue. We have remanded things back to hearing because of that issue. Apparently it's not an issue here according to the Council. If we have an address on record of the official property owner at the time, at least by county records, that address was notified, then that's not an issue. Crookston: That would be correct. Rountree: The other issue is the findings that we have for the conditional use are very specific to the testimony that was given, very specific to the number in the application, and I don't think that it would be readily amended this evening. At a minimum if we took action on this to approve it, the findings of facts would have to be amended and then consideration for approval. Meridian City Council 8 March 3, 1998 Page 29 8 Crookston: You have two options. You can have new findings drawn or you could approve the findings that were proposed. It's not up to me to decide. which way you go. But those are the two options that you do have. . Rountree: The findings as proposed is a denial, and my inclination would be to go forth with the recommendation of Planning and Zoning on that. I don't have major difficulties with the group day care in this instance, but I don't see that the findings address that. At a minimum we .would have to have new findings. Corrie: Any further discussion? Rountree: I guess my question again would be for counsel that we have had the precedence of accepting amendments to these and other conditional uses when the actual request is less than what was originally proposed. Crookston: That's correct. Rountree: Knowing that I would make a motion that we have new Findings of Facts and Conclusions of law prepared based upon the testimony received this evening. Bentley: Second. Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Rountree and second by Mr. Bentley that new Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law of the public hearing be addressed. Any further discussion? Not being address, but drawn up. Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion, say aye. MOTION CARRIED: All aye. Corrie: The new Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law will be brought up March 17th. . Bentley: Mr. Mayor, I move we take a five minute break. Bird: Second. Crookston: Mr. Mayor, before we adjourn, I have to step down on this next thing, because I am a property owner within 300 feet of this development so I would like to step down. And I'd like to have John Prior step in. I got the letter. (FIVE MINUTES RECESS) Corrie: I'll reconvene the council from the their break.