Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNovember 2, 2006 P&Z Minutes Meridian Planning & Zoning November 2, 2006 Page 27 of 53 Rohm: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on CUP 06- 031 and VAR 06-021. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Moe: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Moe. Moe: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval of file number CUP 06-031 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of November 2nd, 2006. Borup: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to approve the CUP 06-031, to include the staff report. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. Thanks for coming. Good night. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Zaremba: Does that mean we can go home, too? Item 12: Public Hearing: CUP 06-033 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a 6,300 square foot Daycare Center in a C-G zone for Una Mas Daycare Una Mas, LLC - 3475 E. Ustick Road: Rohm: No, we got to stick around for a little while. Okay. Okay. At this time I'd like to open the Public Hearing on CUP 06-033, related to Una Mas Day Care for the sole purpose of continuing this item to the regularly scheduled meeting of November 16th 2006. Moe: So moved. Rohm: It's been moved and -- Zaremba: Seconded. Rohm: -- seconded to continue Item CUP 06-033 to the regularly scheduled meeting of November 16th, 2006. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 13: Public Hearing: CUP 06-034 Request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow a 200 square foot canvas carport in the 0- T zone for Kelley Carport by Larry and Judy Kelley - 403 East 2nd Street: Meridian Planning & Zoning November 2, 2006 Page 28 of 53 Rohm: All right. At this time I'd like to open the Public Hearing on CUP 06-034 related to the Kelley Carport and begin with the staff report. Lucas: Thank you, Chairman Rohm, Commissioners. I'll start with a brief description of where we are located here. We are in the Old Town District of Meridian. Right here on the corner of East 2nd Street and Ada Street. The exact address is 403 East 2nd Street. The property is approximately .08 acres and the zoning, as you can see on the slide, is Old Town. A quick description of what's surrounding it. Obviously, all the zoning would be Old Town in the surrounding area. To the north you have a single family home, also zoned in Old Town. To the east is Northeast 2nd Street and a single family home. To the south is East Ada Street and some apparently -- it looks like some apartments or possibly a duplex. And to the west is also a single family home. Tonight the application specifically references a Conditional Use Permit to allow a 200 square foot canvas carport basically to remain as it's currently located. Earlier this year the code enforcement division of the police department received a complaint from one of the applicant's neighbors regarding the location of the carport. This neighbor expressed concerns that the carport was located too close to the property line and positioned in such a way that it blocked clear line of sight when exiting the adjacent driveway. The code enforcement officer visited the applicants and recommended that they speak with planning staff to verify if the carport was allowed. And due to the fact that canvas carports are not specifically addressed in the UDC and that the downtown design guidelines, which, basically, set out most of the standards for the Old Town District, weren't necessarily geared towards residential projects and more towards commercial, staff recommended that the applicant apply for a Conditional Use Permit to allow for the Planning and Zoning and Zoning Commission to decide on this issue. It would probably be best to kind of move on from there to get a look at exactly what we are talking about. This is an aerial photograph of the property. This is somewhat helpful. There are quite a few trees and this aerial photograph was taken actually prior to the placement of the carport, but this is the property. The carport is placed right here at the southwest corner of the property and, really, it most directly affects the neighbor to the west, whose driveway is adjacent to the carport. I have some other -- this is a site plan which, actually -- oh, there we go. This isn't oriented quite properly. On this site plan north is, actually, to our right here. West would be up. Here is the carport location. Here is the neighboring property and their driveway would be located approximately right here. Here is some photos just to kind of give us -- put us all on the same page of what we are talking about. This is the neighbor's driveway. This is the carport as it currently exists. This is another view of that just to kind of orient us on how the carport may affect the driveway. This is the distance from the driveway as to the carport. And this photo kind of helps to show how that driveway could be affected when it comes to vision when you're pulling out by that -- by that carport. And this is a -- kind of a long view showing that from down the street a motorist traveling west on Ada Street really can't even see -- that truck is still there, it just is not -- is not in view due to the location of the carport. That really kind of moves me into -- into staffs major concerns with this location and how the carport affects the adjacent property. After careful review, which included a site visit, staff has determined that the subject carport encroaches into the required clear Meridian Planning & Zoning November 2, 2006 Page 29 of 53 vision triangle in this area and the clear vision triangle is described in the Unified Development Code and its purpose is to insure that motorists and pedestrians are able to maintain a clear line of site at the intersection of a street and a driveway. As the photograph I just showed you shows, the carport is located directly adjacent to the driveway of the neighboring property to the west and the location of the carport almost completely blocks the driver's line of sight to the east as he or she may exit that -- that neighboring driveway. Staff views -- staff believes that this situation creates a hazard for motorists and pedestrians traveling along this street. That's staffs main concern and main reference to the Unified Development Code. The other two points I'd like to make aren't directly drawn from the code, but they are definitely a point of interest that should be discussed at this hearing. I think this shows best from this photograph here. The right of way in this area also, as you can see, is not finished, there is neither a curb nor a gutter, nor sidewalk that has been constructed along this street. But ACHD does own quite a bit of right of way along this street. And it appears and this -- because I didn't do exact measurements, there was no survey done, I say appears, that this carport significantly encroaches into that right of way. A good example of where that right of way most likely is is about where the edge of the gravel -- gravel kind of side -- side part of the street is there and it appears that this carport encroaches into that right of way and that ACHD, upon review of this application, informed me that they also feel that it encroaches into that right of way and without a license agreement that encroachment isn't viewed by them as lawful. And the final point I'd like to make is it's basically a general -- a general discussion of design and kind of what the city wants to see, not only in the Old Town district, but throughout the city. And staff is concerned about these types of structures being located adjacent to publiC streets on this site or, as I said, in any area of the city. Staff believes the semi-permanent canvas and steel structures, such as these, should be located out of the public view, especially in residential areas. And staff is concerned that allowing for the subject carport to be located as shown, could set an unwanted precedent for such structures in the Old Town district or in any residential district throughout the city. With that said I'll conclude my comments and stand for any questions. Rohm: Thank you. That's a very well presented report. Any questions of staff? Would the applicant like to come forward, please? Kelley: I'm Judy Kelley and this is my husband Larry Kelley. We live at 403 2nd Street. He's giving you a copy of a paper that I drew up that might answer some other questions. We bought our property in 1972 and at that time the neighbor's property was a large open yard and the house was now two over from there. When Jennifer and her first husband wanted to build that house their lot was not wide enough and we had to sign a variance for them to be able to build closer to our property than Planning and Zoning would allow. So, we signed their variance access and they could, then, build there. They also didn't have any equipment -- or any power for their equipment or generator, so they asked us if we would supply power for their saws and their equipment to build their house, so all the time that they were building their house they used our power. When Jennifer and her second husband were painting their house, they left part of the wall unpainted next to our house, which you can see on the second Meridian Planning & Zoning November 2, 2006 Page 30 of 53 page of that in the lower picture, shows a partially painted wall that's just next to our house. We didn't complain about that, even though it's quite odd. The black pickup that you see in the picture for several years had flat tires and was up on blocks. They do not use the front driveway. Can you show us the overhead view with the cars and their driveway in the back, please? The other one. Yeah. As you can see at the top there, their driveways enter from the alley and there is the car just pulling out at the top of that alley right there. Both of the garages enter into that back driveway. They never use the front driveway -- as far as I know they have only been out of it maybe three times in the last four years, since they just had their car fixed. So, almost all of the access is from their alleyway. Country Glass uses that alley. So, it's quite a busy alley and their fence is right on the alleyway. There is no setback for their fence to the alley. It's a blind corner. We have a very small lot and there is no other area to park our car and the canvas garage has been there for three years and it hasn't been a problem and if we were to sell our place and a commercial building was put there with a zero lot setback, a store front would be, as downtown Meridian guidelines said, abutted to the sidewalk and that lot line. If you draw a line on the map you designate Old Town for Meridian, the intent is to recognize the importance of Old Town area and the cultural and history of Meridian. However, in our area of Old Town there are many lower income families and small houses, some of them no bigger than a master suite in some of the new bedrooms -- new houses. As you can see from the other pictures, we have in our area buildings, they have fallen down, houses with open fire pits, houses with tall weeds, stolen no parking signs next to a fence that fell down, and also old discarded oil drums, TV sets in the weeds, refrigerators, washers. They have abandoned cars, junk and weeds as high as mail boxes and, as you can see in the picture, as high as the boat. I know that there is good intentions, but like two car garages -- if you want to build a garage in Meridian right now it has to be a two car garage, two stories high, which is bigger than our house, almost, and I know that codes have to be there for a purpose, but we don't have anywhere else on our lot to park and if you look at our lot and figure out all the easements -- I had it right here -- then, you figure out that -- on the picture this is our lot. As you take the easements out of it, from this side and this side, and you put them together, this is how much we own and this is how much the easements own, so you can tell that the property that we pay taxes on, we own half of it, so we can only do on our -- half of our lot what normally you could do on your whole lot that you own. Our request is that we be allowed to keep carport. We do not have anywhere else to keep the car off of the street. The last time we had it on the street somebody keyed it. It's a '57 Chevy that we just painted red and white and we really would just not like to keep it on the street. Any questions? Rohm: Thank you. Borup: Maybe just one on clarification. What are the easements that you're talking about? Kelley: Caleb told me that it's 15 foot. Meridian Planning & Zoning November 2, 2006 Page 31 of 53 Borup: But that's not -- you don't own that property that has the ACHD easement. You only bought up to your property line, but -- Kelley: Right. But when he's showing you on that picture that he says is probably brown -- theirs is probably brown, our lot line come clear out there. What he said is brown is where the irrigation ditch runs and nobody maintains it on the other side of the irrigation ditch. When we measured the -- you know, when we went to Planning and Zoning and they told us that we didn't need a building permit, because of the code -- that there wasn't a code for it -- Borup: But my question is on the easements, so -- Kelley: Right. He just said that they have a five foot setback for the sidewalks and, then, 15 feet more back for the easements. And, also, on our -- if you measure out with our tax base, it comes into that easement with our tax -- Borup: So, have you had your property surveyed you're saying? Kelley: Well, not exactly, but where the bushes and the trees and everything are and the grass, has been there since we bought it in 1972. Borup: No. I understand, but that doesn't mean that's where your property line goes to. I didn't know if you understood that. Kelley: No, but we maintain a lot of it. That's all I know. Borup: Right. And I think everybody -- everybody's in that same situation. Kelley: Right. Borup: That's the usage you have that you don't own. Kelley: Well, I was just -- property that I measured -- Borup: But you were talking about some other easements and that's what I was confused about. I understand the highway -- Kelley: Caleb, what's that 15 foot easement you told me about? Borup: You're talking the setback? Kelley: Setback. Yes. Borup: Okay. That's a big difference. Kelley: That's where I -- Meridian Planning & Zoning November 2, 2006 Page 32 of 53 Borup: That's just an area you can't put buildings in is all. Kelley: Yeah. Borup: All right. Thank you. Kelley: So, this much I can, this much I can't. Borup: Well, you still own that. You have use of all that. Kelley: Yeah. Borup: Just talking about putting structures in over there I guess. Kelley: Right. Borup: That's the difference. All right. Thank you. Nary: Ma'am, your example that you're showing the Commission, you need to give to the clerk. Kelley: Oh, sure. Nary: They just need it for the record. That's why. Since you were using it for demonstration purposes. Rohm: Thank you, Ma'am. Okay. Larry Kelly, would you like to speak, please? Are you -- you're the applicant also, though, aren't you? Nary: You have got to come up here to the mike, ma'am. Rohm: Larry, go ahead and come forward, but, basically, the applicant gets their opportunity to speak and I think your wife represented your interest fairly well, unless you had something that you wanted to add -- L.Kelley: It would be different that what she had to say. Rohm: Yes. We are going to make this part of the applicant's -- you can split your application discussion between multiple people, so this will just be a continuance of the applicant's presentation. L.Kelley: Okay. My name is Larry Kelley and the-- Rohm: Address. Go ahead and state your address. Meridian Planning & Zoning November 2, 2006 Page 33 of 53 L.Kelley: Oh. 403 East 2nd Street, Meridian, Idaho. The reason that we put this garage up was that we have a 1957 Chevy that we bought in 1980, very similar to the one that we had when we were dating back in the '60s, and we spent about 6,000 dollars having it painted and a little leather work done to it about three and a half years ago and at that point we decided that we didn't want to keep it on the street, so we were trying to figure out some way to keep it covered. We did go down to Meridian city and we asked them, you know, all kinds of questions about can we do this and they said, yes, there is no problem with that and so we came back and we looked into getting the structure and we put it up to protect our '57 Chevy and that's -- it's not just any car, you know, anyway, and so that's why we -- we installed that garage and this is the only place that we have. We don't have an alleyway that borders our property and we, basically, had that particular area to put it in and that was about it. And so, anyway, that's about -- I just wanted to explain why we had the structure and what it was for and the fact that we did go down to Meridian city and ask them for permission to do it. Now, I understand that Ada county was involved, too. We didn't think about Ada county and we didn't ask their permission, so -- or if there are any rules that we had to follow along that line, so I just wanted to bring that point up. Rohm: Thank you, sir. Arthur Campbell. Campbell: Good evening. My name is Arthur Campbell at 415 East 2nd Street. I'm one of the neighbors to the north of Kelleys. Like Mrs. Kelley said, I never have seen that vehicle moved and that family never has used it as a -- as a driveway. They always use their other one and I never have seen -- if it's not there, I never have seen a car parked there when they do have company. So, I don't see where -- you know, there is no problem with me with the Kelley's garage -- canvas garage there, because -- unless you don't drive -- speed down the street, Ada Street, you know, why should you. It's residential. I mean we do have a few people that speed down the street, but I don't think they are the neighbors there. Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Robert Kelley. Oh. Okay. From the audience Larry Kelley indicated that the last two have left. So, with that, is there anybody else that would like to testify to this application? Lucas: Chairman Rohm, Commissioners, I did want to point out that we did receive two written statements specifically regarding this application and I just wanted to get that into the record, that there was some written comments received from the neighbors. Borup: We have got those. Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Before we go really any further, I kind of -- I think that if I could get Mr. Nary to speak to -- if we were to move forward with granting any kind of an application like this where the carport is in the road right of way, I think we would -- in my mind we would be putting the City of Meridian in harm's way. Could you speak to that? Meridian Planning & Zoning November 2, 2006 Page 34 of 53 Nary: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, I mean I think you have hit on part of the problem here is that if there is a right of way, then, ACHD does have a role as well as to where -- how close that could be to the right of way. I think the staff report -- Mr. Lucas will have to remind me -- I thought the staff report you talked about that and the concerns about allowing that and I thought that was part of the basis of their reason for recommending denial. Rohm: I agree. And it just -- it seems to me after taking public testimony, there is nothing that's changed that which was written in the staff report and albeit that everything that was -- all testimony was very compelling, it doesn't change the fact that it's still in the public right of way and I don't personally know any way that we could -- I don't see any way we can grant it and I -- it appears as if that canvas carport is portable and -- from the audience the applicant said that it's been cemented in, so the wind doesn't blow it, but I think that it's probably still -- with a little bit of effort it's still portable. Anyway, those are just my comments on this application and, Commissioner Moe, do you have some thought? Nary: Mr. Chairman, one more thing, maybe, before Commissioner Moe, if you don't mind. I mean I don't -- I think in the testimony, what you have had, and I think what I see in the report is there isn't a response from ACHD on whether or not there is an issue for them. I mean if you want the applicant to file that application and at least see what that is, and since it is a conditional use you can certainly -- if the Commission is of a mind to approve it, they can make a condition upon what ACHD would require. I mean it may require them to remove it further back on their property, if they wanted to do it. If that's physically possible, that's not really something you can address any more than that. But you can certainly set it over for that purpose, if you want to do that. Rohm: Boy, I like that answer. I mean I do. Commissioner Moe. Moe: Well, when I first reviewed this it disturbed me a little bit, because I -- and staff's taken care of it by letting me know that there was a compliant that was brought up. I really have a problem if this has been here for three years and this is now just coming before us and whatnot. Quite frankly, I think the comments from Mr. Nary make a lot more sense to me. I do believe we need to get a ruling from ACHD before we can really act upon this as well. I mean if we are going to do it tonight, unfortunately, because it does encroach onto ACHD, I would probably agree with staff comments, but at the same point I would like to get some comment from ACHD before we go forward with it-- or before I would like to go forward with this. Rohm: So, are you recommending that we continue for the sole purpose of getting weigh-ins from Ada County Highway District? Moe: That's what I would like to do, yes. Rohm: Okay. Commissioner Borup, any comments? Meridian Planning & Zoning November 2, 2006 Page 35 of 53 Borup: Well, I think, you know, a good part of the Old Town area has a lot of things that are probably not in compliance with our present ordinances and some of them have been there a long time and we have -- I think Meridian has had a little bit of a tradition of kind of living and let live, but the issue here to me is -- I do believe it is in the ACHD right of way, but also it's not within setbacks. This is a semi permanent structure. There never would have been a building permit issued or granted. The car can still stay in the location with a car cover, if that's where you want to put it, but my feeling -- I don't see there is anything to continue. It doesn't really matter in my mind whether ACHD approves or disapproves it. It's not within legal setbacks and that applied in all zones. This is a residential zone, but in all -- it may just need to be -- if the structure wants to stay, it may need to be located in another location of the car could still stay there with a car cover is how I feel. Rohm: Thank you, Commissioner Borup. Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: I guess I would question -- the applicant's have stated that before they even put it up they went to the building department and were told there was no need for a permit. I would -- I think it would make a difference how that question was asked at the building department and what they thought was going up. If you're talking about a temporary carport, we have all seen those, they aren't usually cemented into the ground and the difference between a nonpermanent structure and a permanent structure is usually the foundation. If there is a cement foundation or this is cemented into the ground, it isn't the temporary movable structure that the building department three years ago probably thought it was when you say we are going to put in a canvas car cover there. I agree with what Commissioner Borup has said. To me that makes it a permanent structure and it would need to meet the setbacks. So, I don't feel it should be there. Rohm: Okay. And last to weigh in, I agree with what Commissioner Borup was saying about in especially Old Town, that there has been and continues to be a number of issues that probably are not in compliance with ordinances that are on the books today. But the fact of the matter is when something comes before this Commission, we have to take into consideration the laws that are on the books and we could remand this back to Ada County Highway District and they are going to say move it. They are going to say you're going to have to move it out of their right of way. And so I think that if we were to continue it for the sole purpose of somebody else telling you that you can't have it there, then, all we would be doing is continuing your anguish and not change the final outcome and I have -- I have all the empathy in the world for the situation that you folks are in, but I think additionally, like Commissioner Borup mentioned, if you can't be in compliance with the setback, which is the 15 feet from the front lot line, then, it probably won't gain support either. So, I think that what we should probably do is give you the fair answer based upon code that are on the books today and let you folks decide how you want to proceed based upon those -- the laws that we have to use to make these decisions. So, that would be my thoughts on it. So, I think that at this time, probably, the best thing is to close the Public Hearing, if we could get a motion to that effect. Meridian Planning & Zoning November 2, 2006 Page 36 of 53 Zaremba: So moved. Moe: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on CUP 06-034. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: I move to deny file number CUP 06-034 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of November 2 for the following reasons: First, those already stated in the staff report. Second, we believe it doesn't comply with setbacks necessary for a building with a cement foundation or a structure with a cement foundation. And possibility that it may also be within ACHD's right of way or too close to it. For all those reasons. I further move to direct staff to prepare an appropriate Findings document to be considered at the next Planning and Zoning Commission hearing on November 16th, 2006. Borup: Second. Rohm: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to deny CUP 06-034, to include all staff comments for the hearing date of November 2nd, 2006. All those in favor -- Nary: Mr. Chairman, just before you vote on the motion, because this is a Conditional Use Permit, state law requires that you give whatever direction you can to the applicant as to what they could do to be approved. So, if it is simply the reverse of what your reasons are, then, I guess you want to also make sure to direct staff, then, if they were to get a license agreement that would allow -- that ACHD would grant them that ability, then, that condition -- then, that, would satisfy that condition. If you believe it's a permanent structure, you would need a ruling, then, from the building department as to whether the foundation of this being in a permanent cement foundation makes it a permanent structure requiring a permit, which I don't believe it does, but if that does, you want a ruling from the building department. If it isn't a permanent structure, then, what other condition you may have for them to be approved would, then, be -- have to be removed further back, is that -- is that your other -- is that your concern is that it's still too close to the street or if they have a license agreement and it's not a permanent structure and it doesn't require a building permit, is there any other conditions that you would require to be met, because they are entitled to know that when they leave. Rohm: Thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning November 2, 2006 Page 37 of 53 Zaremba: I would add -- I appreciate Mr. Nary's things. I would add to that the sight triangle, even though the current neighbor is apparently not actively using that driveway, it is a driveway and somebody could very soon -- I mean if they sold somebody could very soon say -- Nary: So, it would have to be a visible structure you could see through it to be able to see -- Zaremba: Either see through it or move it back far enough that it doesn't impinge on the sight triangle. Plus everything Mr. Nary said. Rohm: Okay. Is that also seconded? Borup: Yes. Yes. I believe that if it's back to the property line, I don't think the sight triangle is an issue in my mind. Rohm: Okay. Borup: I mean there is shrubbery there now that blocks it also. Rohm: Okay. Borup: The short answer was, yes, I second it. Rohm: Okay. Again, it's been moved and seconded to deny CUP 06-034, request for a Conditional Use Permit for the Kelley Carport, to include all staff comments, with the mentioned alternatives that you have available to you to become in compliance. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Moe: Aye. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE NAY. ONE ABSENT. Rohm: Folks, thank you for coming in and there are things that we can do and things we can't -- okay. Thanks for coming in. Borup: I might also mention that you can -- even though there is not another hearing, this can be appealed to City Council. Rohm: At this time we are going to take a short ten minute break. We will reconvene at it looks like about 9:08. (Recess. )