Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDecember 5, 2002 Meridian Planning & Zoning December 5. 2002 Page 28 of 74 Centers: Well, I don't know if this is true or not, but an ex-P&Z Commissioner here in the City of Meridian that had been on the Commission for some time, quoted to me that with a 1,400 square foot home, the City of Meridian broke even after providing services and t he receipt 0 f t he t axes, with a 1 ,400 square foot home at t hatt ime. That was probably 1 0 years a go. I think Mrs. B owcutt makes a good point, tax revenue from residential properties doesn't make the city rich, after they provide services, so -- and I guess the other comment, political, that's a big part of it, too. Anyway-- Borup: I think somebody's City Council is going to have to really hash it out. Zaremba: Well, the two choices would be to forward this to the City Council and I'm inclined to do so, you know -- well, the other option is to continue it until we hear the evidence of the engineering studies. I'm more inclined to move it ahead and at this point I'm in favor of approval. Centers: I thought of that, too. You know, I hate to bring back your study, but then the study really is more applicable to City Council. Zaremba: They are the final word. Centers: So let's move on. Zaremba: Have we closed the Public Hearing? Borup: Yes. Zaremba: Okay. Mr. Chairman, I move that we approve the request to remove certain parcels in -- this is MI 02-011, that we forward to the City Council recommending approval of the request to remove certain parcels in Dunbar Estates Subdivision from City of Meridian's impact area for Packard Estates Development, LLC, by Packard Estates Development, LLC, south of East Ustick Road and west of North Cloverdale Road. Centers: Second. Borup: Motion and second. Any discussion? All in favor? Any opposed? Rohm: Naye. Borup: Okay. Three in favor, one opposed. Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE NAYE. Item 7. Public Hearing: CUP 02-039 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Care Center for up to 30 mildly ill children, ages two to ten years, staffed by nurses and certified nurses a ssistants for S nifties 'n Sneezes Care Meridian Planning & Zoning December 5. 2002 Page 28 of 74 Center by JC Anderson, Co. - 217 East Pine Avenue and portion of 834 East 2nd Street: Borup: Move onto our next item. Public Hearing CUP 02-039, request for Conditional Use Permit for a care center for up to 30 mildly ill children ages two to ten for the Sniffles 'n Sneezes Care Center by JC Anderson Company at 217 East Pine Avenue, and 834 East 2nd Street. Open this Public Hearing and start with the staff report. Siddoway: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. This application is for the Sniffles and Sneezes Care Center, which is a day care for children who are too ill to attend their regular day care and for parents who still need go to work. It is supposed to be staffed by a nurse and primary care givers that are intended to be nursing assistants. They are requesting permission to care for up to 30 children between the ages of two and ten years of age. You should have a staff report, dated November 19th, on the subject property. This is a close-up of the subject property from an aerial photo. There is an existing building apparently in use. Pine Street would be on the north and 2nd Street on the west. Surrounding uses would include existing church United Methodist Church on the east of the property and south is the Masonic lodge. To the north and west across the streets are existing residential uses. These are some photos of that existing building on the site today. These are from the rear of the property where the parking lot exists and this is their site plan. We have five site-specific requirements similar to the ones that you saw for the previous Old Town application and we do recommend approval of this -- of this project with the conditions in staff report. With that, I will stand for any questions. Borup: Questions from any of the Commissioners? Is the applicant here and wish to add anything to the presentation? Anderson: Jared Anderson, 623 East Woodbury Drive, Meridian. Commission, we agree with all the site-specific requirements and I further presentation and would stand for questions. Mr. Chairman, don't have any Borup: Questions from the Commission? Centers: I have one, Mr. Chairman. In the staff report the children in this day care will not require a need for an outdoor play area and there is not one proposed. They never go out? Anderson: These are mildly ill kids. Centers: Yes. I read that. Anderson: They will be having low activity and cared for by nurses and nursing assistants. They won't go outside the building during the time that they are there. Centers: I guess it's totally fenced or will be? Meridian Planning & Zoning December 5. 2002 Page 30 of 74 Anderson: No. There will be - Centers: So you're not going to provide for a fence, because you're not going to let them outside? Anderson: Yes. That's correct. Centers: Okay. Borup: So any play area would be inside the building? Anderson: Yes. Centers: Okay. Zaremba: I have a question about your hours of operation and I guess my question is whether or not you're being generous enough with yourself, if you're dealing with parents who perhaps work in Boise downtown someplace. Anderson: That's 7:30 to 5:30. Zaremba: 7:30 to 5:30. Are you going to have to be extended for somebody that's on the freeway still at 5:30 and not getting there? Anderson: That is possible. We have already talked with some employers that would want us to open up at 7:00 so it's going to depend on demand. Zaremba: Stay open until like 6:00? Anderson: Yes 7:00 to 6:00. One of the employers in east Boise brought that up. Zaremba: While you're there, let me ask staff a question, if I can. Are the hours of operation, as the applicant has stated them, do they become part of the Conditional Use Permit? Siddoway: They can if it's part of your motion. Zaremba: And they would be restricted to those? Siddoway: We have restricted hours of operation through Conditional Use Permits before. Zaremba: With the surrounding uses, is there any need to do that or should we let them pick whatever hours they need? Meridian Planning & Zoning December 5, 2002 Page 31 of 74 Siddoway: Certainly a 24-hour thing would not be appropriate at the location. I don't think that it would ever turn into that. If it went a little before 7:00 and a little after 6:00, is that a problem? I don't think so. Zaremba: Okay as long as we don't stipulate it in the CUP. Siddoway: Right. If you put a condition for a specific restriction on the hours of operation, they would be limited to that, so you need to make sure there is enough fleXibility in whatever motion you would have or just -- Zaremba: The CUP is actually okay without such a restriction? Siddoway: It is okay without a restriction. Zaremba: Okay. Centers: There is no residential, I didn't see, near it? Siddoway: There is residential. I'll go back to those site photos where I was showing the -- this is the subject property. The property across the street, across 2nd Street, is residential, and the property across Pine Street is residential but the ones that are abutting the parcel that share a lot line with it are not. Centers: Okay. Borup: Okay any other questions? Zaremba: If we did add to the CUP a restriction that your operating hours should be 6:00 A.M. to 8:00 P.M., that doesn't mean you have to be open all those hours, but would that give you a sufficient leeway? Anderson: Yes. 6:00 A.M. to 8:00 P.M. is -- Zaremba: 6:00 A.M. to 8:00 P.M. is-- Anderson: Would be more than we want. Zaremba: Okay. All right. Borup: Thank you. Do we have anyone else to testify on this application? We had no one sign up on the -- no other testimony, Commissioners. Rohm: I move we close the Public Hearing on this issue. Zaremba: Second. Meridian Planning & Zoning December 5, 2002 Page 32 of 74 Borup: Motion and second to close the Public Hearing. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Commissioner. Zaremba: I move we forward to the City Council recommending approval of CUP 02- 039, request for Conditional Use Permit for a care center for up to 30 mildly ill children ages two to ten years. Staffed by nurses and certified nurses assistants for Sniffle 'n Sneezes Care Center by JC Anderson Company, 217 East Pine Avenue, and a portion of 834 East 2nd Street. To include all staff comments, with the additional requirement that their hours of operation be 6:00 A.M. to 8:00 P.M. or less at their choosing. Rohm: I will second that. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Item 9. Public Hearing: RZ 02-006 Request for a Rezone of 0.85 acres from I-L to O-T zones for Meridian Head Start by Friends of Children and Families, Inc. - 321 and 333 West Broadway Avenue: Public Hearing: CUP 02-037 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a two classroom center serving young children and families, and a 400 square foot community meeting room for Meridian Head Start by Friends of Children and Families, Inc. - 321 and 333 West Broadway Avenue Item 8. Borup: The next item -- the next two items, actually, on our agenda, Public Hearing RZ 02-006, request for a rezone of .85 acres from I-L to O-T zones for Head Start by Friends of Children and Families, Incorporated, at 321 and 333 West Broadway. Accompanying that is CUP 02-037, request for Conditional Use Permit for a two- classroom center serving young children, families, and a community meeting room for the Head Start at the same location. At this time I'd like to open both these public hearings and start with the staff report. Siddoway: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The proposed Head Start project is on West Broadway Avenue on the south side, currently zoned I-L, but in an area that the Comprehensive Plan now designates as Old Town. The requested rezone would rezone this parcel from light industrial to Old Town and that would be in compliance with the City's Comprehensive Plan. The west side of this parcel you will see there is 15 feet of unimproved or unopened right of way, I guess, is the correct term. The applicant currently is in negotiations with ACHD to vacate that. ACHD does not see a need to ever develop that right of way, as ita buts the Union