Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes Planning and Zoning Commission May 12, 1998 Page 34 because there was objections. So we need findings of fact and then the decision at that point at Planning and Zoning. It doesn't go on to the City Council. MacCoy: I move that we have the attorney prepare findings of fact and conclusions of law for this project. Smith: Second. Johnson: I should have closed the public hearing which I will do now. We have a motion and a second. All in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. Johnson: Anybody have a question on what happened tonight? Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law will be prepared by our city attorneys and that will be on our agenda for June the 9th at which time we will approve or deny those findings of fact and a decision for the accessory use permit will be made at that time by the Planning and Zoning Commission. So no decision until June 9th at the earliest is what I'm saying. Johnson: Before I get into this, I would like to take a five minute break. (FIVE MINUTE BREAK) Johnson: Okay we will resume the meeting now. We are going to reverse the order between 14 and 15 because they are really out of sync there. There proper order should be that we address the conditional use permit first and then the preliminary plat so we will start with item 15. ITEM NO. 15: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR PLANNED DEVELOPMENT IN PROPOSED MAWS SUBDIVISION NO. 3 BY TEALEY'S LAND SURVEYING -NORTH OF E. PINE AND WEST OF LOCUST GROVE. Johnson: At this time I will open the public hearing and invite the applicant or the applicant's representative to address the commission. RICHARD PAVELEK WAS SWORN BY THE CITY ATTORNEY. Pavelek: Maws Subdivision No. 3 is a development planned for a remnant parcel of the larger development of the two previous phases. It has no direct access to the other portions of Maws Subdivision. It has access the private or the public road along this boundary. It sat vacant for a number of years partially because of servicing issues and Planning and Zoning Commission May 12, 1998 Page 35 road access and other similar types of servicing issues. It's now in the developer's mind appropriate time to look at development of this parcel of land. It's his desire to have a townhouse style unit basically each unit being self owned, and in a configuration that is shown to be quite popular among certain residents of various communities. The units themselves are 1209 square feet, which for a townhouse unit, is a good size unit and likewise the lot which is a 45 foot width is also for this type of unit a good size lot. This could have been proposed I believe as a duplex but it was felt by the owner that having self owned units would be by far a lot more popular and more successful. In making the decision then we do come across a couple of issues as far as the street frontage, widths of these lots. They are less than ordinance. We recognize that. There is also a smaller area within the dwelling and we also recognize that, but what we ask the Planning and Zoning Commission to consider is that when you view this as a townhouse style of project, these are generous in the two categories of both site and dwelling. The density is within the allowed density. And so we're not asking for any consideration other than site related issues that would accommodate these types of units. In my packet I did not get a copy of my response to staffs, but I presume that you would have my letter. There is a couple of items in there that we would like to discuss and that is under site specific comments, item number 5. We have an option of either -let me back up a moment. We submitted this as a CU with a PUD because it's really the only method through your ordinances that we have to approach this. One of the requirements that's available to us is through the PUD. The PUD then requires an open space requirement. And we can meet that requirement by reducing the other two lots and in fact we have seven townhouse units. We would add two more townhouse units and increase the amount of area for open space. Our preference is not to do that. But have a consideration for the application as presented and recognize that we would be deficient in the technical issue of the open space. And item 6 of the site specifics, we will have to do some redesign of the unit to pick up the 5 feet that's required in the setback and our intention is to do that. Item seven, I guess we will have to do some further checking and that's related to the sequencing in the events that lead up to this area being excluded from irrigation rights. We do not have any knowledge of that. This was originally -the earlier phases were originally proposed to be irrigated and then there was a decision to withdraw it. I have no record of that, and I'll talk to the developer further to see what his file would indicate to us. Item eight under site specific, our understanding the definition of townhouse units are single family units, and we would presume that we would meet that standards. That's somewhat of a brief overview of our application. I'd be happy to address particular issues that you might have. Let's see whether I can answer any questions. Johnson: I just have a couple of clarifications. If we go by this drawing that you submitted, which 1 assume is a townhouse. Pavelek: Yes. Planning and Zoning Commission May 12, 1998 Page 36 Johnson: How does that meet the definition of single family dwelling unit when it talks about -the definition refers to detached? Pavelek: I guess I'm used to when it's -the definition related to single ownership of each of the units as opposed to a duplex which in fact has a single owner for both units. Your - Johnson: How would that differ from a condominium by that definition? Pavelek: Usually they are in fact ground orientated, have their own garage units. Basically are a complete owner occupied unit. I assume what you are referring to is a condominium as in an apartment building. Johnson: Oh, I think I know what a condominium is, but by your definition, I could have applied that to a condominium and come up with the same thing until you expanded on your definition. In my mind it's not a single family dwelling, and I think that's what I wanted to clarify why you thought it was. Pavelek: Where I guess I'm more familiar is how the city of Boise classifies it in all townhouse units are in fact designated as single family, and I had presumed when I looked back through the Meridian, there was a similar definition, and if I'm in error, it's basically where -the presumption in terms of how they are financed and how they are looked at both in the market and in the financial community, these would be defined as single family dwellings. Johnson: But you have more than one family living within the same confined area. Pavelek: They have basically a common wall, but they are totally separate. One family in each of the units, and that's why we have basically a division, a property line runs through that building. Johnson: Okay. I had another question, not a question just a comment. On item eight, I think it's eight where we're talking about irrigation. Irrigation rights, that might have been seven. Pavelek: That's number seven. Johnson: Are you not getting any billings from Nampa Meridian Irrigation District at all? Pavelek: That's my understanding. • • Planning and Zoning Commission May 12, 1998 Page 37 Johnson: Totally excluded from that. Pavelek: All of Maws Subdivision which was one and two, were excluded as well as this vacant piece of property. Johnson: That was probably done by application, right? Pavelek: I would presume so. Johnson: That's all I have. I'm sure the commissioners have some questions. MacCoy: I have several questions. Fortunately you started to address a number of them at the beginning of yours. I would like to go back to number eight of the staff report, which is detached - it has bothered me the whole time I have read your material here. From where I've come from other states and other areas, detached w.as just what it said. It was a single family dwelling, and there was space between the two buildings, and then (inaudible) I know I read that. That's what I'm saying, I have a hard time with this because I look at the square footage of the building and the square footage of the property, and I have a little difficulty trying to rationalize all of this in a community where we are trying to very much look to quality homes and so on, and I don't like to see a (inaudible) that thing down and making it a - and I realize you said these will be personal owned, not rented, but I always heard and I've seen unfortunately where somebody will say it's a good buy and will go in and buy some of those and then rent them out. I don't know what kind of restrictions you are going to put on this so you don't have rentals and you have owners. I don't see how you can stop it, but I just think by reducing the square footage of both the property and the construction, we're asking for ourselves for a low income situation. I know the location where it's going to be and I've had problems with some of that out there too, but (just -unless you can give me something to offset what I have got as a problem, I don't know how you are going to do, but I'm just throwing that on the table for you. I sit here as a commissioner and look towards quality homes in our area. I'd like to think that we're putting down regulations for good solid families and quality community type of thing. I don't want to end of having to be faced with a problem that we didn't (inaudible). Pavelek: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner MacCoy, I think there's two issues that you brought out. The first issue is whether or not there's an opportunity for a person to come along and buy these and rent them out. I think the same is true of any house you can construct, and so there is no differienation between the potential of somebody coming in at a later date and in fact renting out and having rentals and having that cycle go through. So I don't see that what we're proposing would inherently create that situation. The other side of it is in my experience in terms of looking at these types of units, the buyer that generally will look at these things, and I can't say that this and this • Planning and Zoning Commission May 12, 1998 Page 38 is will occur here, but generally speaking as a single individual or basically a couple that no longer have children or a young professional or basically a person that simply just chooses not to have a sizable yard would prefer to have some sort of common upkeep in the unit. And they - I think you can go through any number of areas and find that they've turned out well. They don't necessarily inherently end of being low income. They provide an alternative to an apartment situation where in fact they do have garages. They do have defined ownership and they do have a front door. All of those are qualities that as a segment of the community 1 think there is a need and there is a desire and that's really what we are trying to aim for. I think basically the quality of the thing is something that 1 would accept critique on. The comment that these would inherently be rentals, I don't think is fair. The comment that these are inherently low income, I don't is necessarily fair either. If we haven't done it well, I can understand that. We would entertain your comments with a great amount of seriousness. The City of Meridian, frankly, does not have a viable means currently of doing small scale infill projects of this type. And so they come to you with special need of consideration and that's why we are here to try and see whether or not this might be possible. It's my understanding that you are considering some sort of form of townhouse type of a unit that will come up in your ordinance and we would hope that this would go in the same direction. Going back to my earlier point, having a property line down the middle of the unit to me defines a single family. I failed to note that your definition includes detached along with the other definitions. So I'm in error in not noting that, but regardless of that, I think there still is an opportunity to do these types of units. And meeting basically a need within the community and it does not necessarily have to mean all of the other things that were inferred. MacCoy: Okay let me step on to that point which I though you were heading down which I was hoping you would, but I'll bring it back up again, and that's quality. I would tike to hear what kind of quality out of an architectural office, I look at renderings and they can make things look real pretty and nice and everything and homey, but what is your building's in the field of construction made of? What would make me want to say I'm in the market, that is really a nice place. I want to buy it and move into it. Pavelek: I think there was - we went through a couple of versions. I was not directly involved in the design of this, but I asked the owner to specifically look at what he could do with the elevations in terms of creating a viable entrance way to these units, clearly you can see the front door, get to them. Since it's separation and privacy between the two. The entrance in terms of trying to scale the garage down and get a good appearance to have a landscaped plan that provides a reasonable amount of landscaping on the front, and I guess the other thing is as I said a 1200 square foot townhouse unit is above a lot of people's expectations. So I think we have the size and we have looked at some of the detail, and we will be looking further at the specific material and color selections here. • Planning and Zoning Commission May 12, 1998 Page 39 MacCoy: Do you know at this point what type of construction is it going to be? Is it going to be aluminum siding? Is it going to be wood or composition or what? Have you gotten that far with it yet? Pavelek: I'm just not familiar. I think that's something we would be prepared to come back and if this concept is something that we could proceed with, I would encourage the owner to come back and answer all of those questions that it is confirmed to be a high quality building and that the finish and materials are in fact in place for this. MacCoy: I would appreciate that. I'm sure the other commissioners would too as well as the council, because I think that will be a giant step in the right direction for your business. So I'm just giving a suggestion. Pavelek: No, I would appreciate that. To be perfectly frank I was not happy with the first rendition of this unit, and it was redesigned, and I think that there's probably still some opportunity to do some other things further. MacCoy: Okay, thank you very much. Borup: Back to your opening comments on -this is a remnant portion that was left over from developing the first, was this portion under the ownership of the developer at that time? Pavelek: Yes, it was. Borup: Is there a reason it wasn't incorporated into the original subdivision? Pavelek: It is my understanding that because it ended up not having any direct access from the internal streets, there was a question of - Borup: Just by extending the streets that are already would give an access to it. That's my question. Pavelek: I can't honestly tell you why it was excluded, all I know that it was a portion of the property. It was all under the same ownership. And for whatever reason, it was desired to have these lots fronting on the adjacent public streets there. Borup: That was the decision of the developer at the time? Pavelek: It may have also come from either the municipality or from the highway district, and I cannot tell you where it came from. • Planning and Zoning Commission May 12, 1998 Page 40 Borup: I'd be surprised if that's where it came from. Question on -you had quite a bit discussion with Commissioner MacCoy on definitions, and I think the referral was to staff memo, item number eight, and I certainly agree with your definiton of single family. A townhouse, I definitely agree with that, but I think staffs comment was that the ordinance states that it needed to be detached. So I think that is the only conflict, and we don't have a copy of that ordinance other than what was stated here. Pavelek: I apologize, I think when we had a technical review of this development, we covered a lot of other issues. We did not cover that definition. Borup: I assume going with the townhouse as part of the application, the conditional use application and the planned development. You mentioned and I don't know if I caught it completely, but I don't have - do we have ACRD report in here, because I didn't see that. That's why I couldn't find it. You mentioned something about the street size. Pavelek: Basically what the highway district has found is that there is capacity to handle the traffic generated by this number of homes. They are looking at a 24 foot wide lane of pavement. We would provide our sidewalks, curb and gutter on our side. There is a ditch that's on the opposite side of the street that allows for really the 24 feet and nothing beyond that. We talked to our neighbor, and they seem to be kind of excited about finally having a paved street. Borup: You are talking a 24 foot right-of--way or 24 foot of - Pavelek: No, basically it's 24 feet of pavement, and the right-of--way we would provide our share of the right-of--way and pave the 24 feet. Borup: And what's your understanding of the right-of-way size then? Pavelek: I believe that in the end it will be a full 50 foot right-of-way. But the balance will come off the adjoining property. Borup: Right and that's the normal procedure I think. And it's your understanding that alignment will line up with the existing street to the north, existing curb cut or sidewalk. Pavelek: I believe it does on our side of the street. ~3orup: It appears that your plat that you would not be extending the improvements to Pine; is that correct? ~ i Planning and Zoning Commission May 12, 1998 Page 41 Pavelek: That's correct. On the adjoining property there's in fact a garage that sits in the right-of-way and behind - Borup: The sidewalk goes right through the middle of it. Pavelek: I'm afraid it does. Borup: I mean if the sidewalk goes straight. Pavelek: So the highway district is going to look into that to make that level of improvement to dedicate I believe there's some additional dedication we're doing on our side of the road. Borup: That's just what I was going to ask if the right-of--way is already a 50 foot right- of-way are you dedicating - Pavelek: I think we're dedicating the order of like 5 feet on our side. Borup: Even in the existing right-of-way, that building is - Pavelek: That's correct. So it's not the best of situations there. Borup: Looking back on your comments -addressing them on item number five on the common area - Pavelek: Basically my comments say that if it's the desire to meet the PUD standard, then we will do so and the method would be to basically reduce the two single family lots with down to a point where in fact it would be townhouse units, but we would end up with aspace - Borup: And I think my concern is more with the spirit of what it's trying to accomplish rather than the letter of the taw, which brings my question, what would the design and use of this common area be, is it, we know it's for the storm drainage lot, and I've seen a lot of different varieties of storm drainage lots. If it's just going to be a pond with the dirt at the bottom and weeds around, it really has no use as common area. Has there been a design discussed or - Pavelek: I think your point is a good one, and there is no specific design yet, but obviously the area that would be occupied by the detention pond for this will limit the active use for at least portions. The intention would be to try and make it as usable as possible, and see whether a design that would incorporate (inaudible) in this would be Planning and Zoning Commission May 12, 1998 Page 42 viable or not. There are methods of doing this and we will look at that, but yes, that is a negative for what we have proposed. Borup: That would be something that I would be looking at is how much usable common area there is and maybe a reduction would not be out of line, but what's really left. Pavelek: I think again we would have to come back with the specific of that item. Borup: This is maybe more of a comment. Item number six and the setback, unless I figured something wrong other than maybe just scaling on the big plat, the house size, I had to get a magnifying glass to look at the dimensions, but it looked to me like you had a few inches to spare on your 15 foot setback if I read that right. I show a house it looked like 64 3 with 35 foot total setbacks which gives you 99 3 on the 99 9 lot. Pavelek: I think we basically had to go back - I noted that the position of the unit on the lot as shown on the preliminary plat is a ten foot setback, and - Borup: The house plan you submitted does appear to me that - I think this started to be addressed on the irrigation's - I think maybe for us we need to look at the original application of whether pressurized irrigation was applied for, but beyond that, you've answered the question about the irrigation water. Other than the question about whether there is a well development fee ever paid, which would have been in lieu of the irrigation system, I believe, even at that - Pavelek: I think that probably would be the more pertinent question, and again that's something that I think the burden on us would be to find a confirmation that in fact has been paid. I presume that it has because there's was multiple phases and I can't imagine that we could do phase one, not pay the fee, come back and do a second phase. So my assumption is that it has been paid, but we could find record of that. Borup: I don't think it would be unreasonable to think that that could have got overlooked. Both by the city - Pavelek: Both times? Borup: This is still a small town. We're working on it. I have no other comments at this. time or questions. Smith: Mr. Chairman, I drove through all the neighborhoods surrounding this site, and I couldn't find one attached. A dwelling unit in any of the neighborhoods that I drove through and I drove Maws Subdivision and excuse me Danbury Fair and so forth. My • • Planning and Zoning Commission May 12, 1998 Page 43 understanding is that this is all single family residential in this whole area. Single family detached dwellings. And this is kind of this last little chunk in here would be filled in and I've yet to hear any testimony or comments made as far as why we should deviate from that for these few remaining parcels that are left kind of right in the middle of all this. Pavelek: My client is not here this evening, but he had mentioned to me that in fact there were some attached units generally in this area, within the mile of this property. The other thing that he's noting in that the area being in the location that it is, where it does not feed back through any of the adjacent subdivisions per say, it's an area that could and possibly should be considered for this type of development. I don't see this as necessarily being a negative type of unit to place in single family areas. I can think of many areas in northwest sections of Boise where in fact you get this sort of mixture of units. And there frankly is no conflict between this type of unit and any type of single family unit. Smith: I would agree that these type of uses are compatible in certain situations. I don't know that I agree that this would be one of them though. I think there's quite an extensive area that is single family detached homes, and I think all my other questions or comments have basically been addressed or brought up already. Pavelek: Mr. Chairman, I guess the only other thing that I would mention is that we do have a large parcel of land that is going to be developed directly across at some point in time, and it's unclear as to whether or not this will be -staff might be able to help, but my recollection is that there is some opportunity that this may be anon-residential use. And that was I guess another consideration of terms of this being at the edge of some residential that another type of unit might be in fact be appropriate here. That's our opinion. Johnson: Okay, thank you very much. Anyone else would like to come forward and address the commission on this application? ROBIN SHAY 1458 E. BUCHMAN CT. WAS SWORN BY THE CITY ATTORNEY. Shay: I'm at lot 13 block 1, in Maw No. 1. It's a corner lot, and the way I understand that this is going to be developed, it looks like there would be about four home sites that back up to my backyard. And I know that where we are in our street and the other people on our street, it's all young families with young kids. Johnson: I don't think any of them back up to your backyard. In fact, if I'm reading the map right - (Inaudible) • Planning and Zoning Commission May 12, 1998 Page 44 Shay: And I'm just concerned about the privacy that's going to happen with all these homes so close together, and also the fact that if you have a townhouse, generally speaking you have someone that doesn't have children, or that's older and once again doesn't have children, and there are kids all over that subdivision. And I know a lot of times when you have people who don't want to have kids around, they get a little grumpy with the noise and the toys and the balls, and so with that in mind I just wanted you guys to know that there is opposition. I know my neighbors aren't here tonight, but we'd rather have it be homes that matched everything else that's around there. That's all. Johnson: I have one question. We do have a letter signed by a couple of the neighbors, but it's hard to tell exactly where they are. Are you familiar with the Farmington's at all? And I think the other name Vibes. Shay: I think they are probably on the other streets, because I heard that they were in opposition. Johnson: Okay, thank you. I was just trying to locate them in relation to where you are. Anybody else have any questions? Anyone else would like to address the commission? Any further comments? Borup: I do have a question because I was curious in what may develop across the street. The applicant said staff may have an idea, is there been any preliminary? Johnson: Well, until it's developed we don't know what it's going to be. Borup: I know that. t just wanted to know whether there's been any preliminary inquiries and at this point it looks like it's zoned R-1. So, it's not even annexed, is it? Stiles: To the west is not annexed into the city yet. Borup: Right, so there's been no decision of anything planned for that area as far as you know. Stiles: No, and I believe you have a letter from the woman that lives across the street there to the west. Johnson: It's really to the south, isn't it? Stiles: Are you talking about the south or the west? Planning and Zoning Commission May 12, 1998 Page 45 Borup: I was talking about the property to the west. There is a house there on the corner, but there's an open field directly to the west of this project right now. Stiles: Yes, that's where Mrs. Opal Farrington lives. Borup: I guess that answers my question. The answer is nobody knows. Johnson: Anything else? If nothing I will close the public hearing at this time. This is a conditional use permit so this will require findings of fact and conclusions of law. Smith: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a motion that we direct the city attorney to prepare findings of fact and conclusions of law on this item. MacCoy: Second. Johnson: Motion and second to have the city attorney prepare findings of fact and conclusions of law. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. ITEM NO. 14: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR MAWS SUBDIVISION NO. 3 BY TEALEY'S LAND SURVEYING -NORTH OF E. PINE AND WEST OF LOCUST GROVE. Johnson: At this time I will open the public hearing and ask that the applicant be resworn. Any testimony given on the prior item can also be incorporated into this. RICHARD PAVELEK 915 W. JEFFERSON WAS SWORN BY THE CITY ATTORNEY. Pavelek: I think much of what we've discussed under the C.U. pertains also the formation of this plat, and the two really do go hand in hand. I guess the only comment I would make based upon the previous speaker is I have two children that are young and I am grouchy sometimes too. It's hard to know who your neighbors are and whether young or old is a benefit or not. Johnson: It's better to be young, I can tell you. Pavelek: I'm sure that's right, but sometimes it's best to lie.. So I'm not sure whether or not that's going to make a difference. I would presume that the fence will be between the two properties will take care of many of the nuisance items that occur between properties, and there are also hopes that we will have reasonable neighbors for the existing neighbors, that they will not be the (inaudible) that might be presumed here, but • Planning and Zoning Commission May 12, 1998 Page 46 I think everything else that we previously looked at in C.U. pertains here. I'm not as familiar with your process - I guess we will wait for the stated time and find out which way the decision is on both of these applications and what your recommendation is to the council. Johnson: Yes, and to be real frank with you we won't proceed on a preliminary plat tonight. We'll table that item until we get the findings of fact on the conditional use permit. We would incorporate all of your prior testimony into this preliminary plat testimony as well. Any further questions? Anyone else would like to come forward? At this point then, I'll close this public hearing. Smith: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a motion that we table this item-let me back up. I'd like to make a motion that we incorporate all previous testimony on the preceding agenda item into this item and that we table this item for discussion until our June 9th meeting. MacCoy: Second. Johnson: We have a motion and a second to table this item and incorporate prior testimony on the conditional use permit into this application for item 14 which is really 15. All in favor? And opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. ITEM NO. 16: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF 121. 897 ACRES TO R-4 FOR PROPOSED THOUSAND SPRINGS SUBDIVISION BY FARWEST DEVELOPERS AND MARTY GOLDSMITH -NORTH OF VICTORY AND WEST OF EAGLE ROAD. Johnson: At this time I will open the public hearing and ask the applicant or the applicant's representative address the commission. Everything you bring tonight stays here. Prior: Anything that is damaged is taken out of - (inaudible) BECKY BOWCUTT BRIGGS ENGINEERING 1111 S. ORCHARD WAS SWORN BY THE CITY ATTORNEY. Bowcutt: We're coming before you this evening with an application for annexation from R-T, rural transition, under Ada County jurisdiction to R-4, which is a low density residential zone. We're asking for annexation of 121.227 total acres, and then we also • Meridian City Council Regular Meeting July 7, 1998 Page 17 Crookston: Our ordinance says that we do not have a public hearing on an appeal. Stiles: I realize that. He knows that there's no public hearing on the appeal but Eagle Partners is going to City Council as a public hearing for their annexation and zoning and conditional use permit on the 21St and he would rather do that all the same evening. Crookston: I see. That'd be fine. Stiles: Okay. Corrie: Technically, we haven't even seen it yet, I mean we've got his appeal on paper but we haven't even seen the Findings of Fact yet. Stiles: That's correct. It was originally scheduled to be on the 7t" but Eagle Partners requested that it be deferred until the 21St Bentley: Mr. Mayor, I just move that we table this until 7-21. Bird: Second. Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Bentley, second by Mr. Bird that we table the appeal until July 21St of this year, any further discussion? All those in favor of the motion say aye. MOTION CARRIED: Ali aye. ITEM #12: APPEAL OF PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION DECISION ON FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR MAWS SUBDIVISION NO. 3 BY TEALEY'S LAND SURVEYING: Corrie: There's a request that that be tabled until the 21St as well. Bentley: So moved. Rountree: Second. Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Bentley, second by Mr. Rountree that we table this request for appeal till the 21St of July. Any further discussion? All those in favor of the motion say aye. MOTION CARRIED: All aye. ITEM #13: ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES IN THE PARK PERMIT FOR RAREFY DAVIDSON MOTORCYCYLE RALLY BY WALTER SMITH: MERIDIAN CITY CO[J~i, ~, JULY 21, 1998 __ PAGE 5 the appeal. There will be no public hearing or no public testimony given on this appeal, it's merely a situation where the City Council considers the facts presented by Mr. Williams in the appeal. The City Council will have 10 days to submit a decision to the city clerk, that can be done individually where you will submit your decision to the city clerk and the city clerk will notify Mr. Williams within 10 days of that decision on this appeal. Mr. Williams has every right to testify at the public hearing and can request that his appeal be incorporated into his conditional use permit Item #8, if that is his desire. The applicant has been informed of all of these rights Mr. Mayor. Corrie: Thank you Mr. Prior. Based on that, we have Mr. Williams written appeal. So, do we need a motion to have that accepted by the council. Prior: I don't think it's necessary to have a motion, Mr. Mayor. All it does, all you need to do is take it under advisement that the appeal has been issued and that the city council will provide a decision within 10 days to the applicant. Corrie: Okay. Understand on that one, Dick? Okay, thank you. Rountree: Is that 10 days from this evening? Prior: That will be 10 days starting today. Excuse me, 10 more days, 10 additional days, President Rountree. ITEM #4: APPEAL OF PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION DECISION ON FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR MAWS SUBDIVISION NO. 3 BY TEALEY'S LAND SURVEYING. Corrie: I will ask Mr. Prior to give us counseling on that one. Prior: Same decision Mr. Mayor, I spoke with the applicant on this item, as well. The applicant's only request is that his conditional use permit public hearing be noticed and brought before the City Council as soon as possible and he would also at that time request that the appeal be incorporated into the public hearing at that time. Once again, the City Council has been provided with some information in regards to the appeal. In the form of an application for appeal and a memo in that regard. Once again, the City Council will have 10 days to address the issues on that appeal. Corrie: Any questions for council on this appeal? Anderson: I have none. We will carry it on to a public hearing on that one and note it. ITEM #5: FINDS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: REQUEST TO AMEND CITY ORDINANCE, FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF