Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutesMERIDIAN PLANNI~AND ZONING COMMISSION ME~NG OCTOBER 13, 1998 PAGE 18 MacCoy: I will ask the staff for comment. Stiles: Mr. Chairman, commissioners, the property was not noticed by the applicant, so we will have to re-notice and public next month. MacCoy: Thank you, commissioners? De Weerd: So it wasn't noticed so I imagine that no one is here to speak about it. Oh, okay. Stiles: The property was not posted. They need to put up a sign stating that the property is going to be under a public hearing so it can't proceed. Borup: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a motion that we continue this until our November 10th meeting. De Weerd: Second. MacCoy: All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. Borup: Mr. Chairman, I've mentioned this in the past-again, maybe the workshop or something, this is the type of item that I think could be handled very fine on a staff bases, especially in old town. This is the third seating application that we've had in old town, I realize that it doesn't take a lot of time, but I question whether it needs a public hearing either. MacCoy: Well, we will discuss that come Thursday. Borup: Right, I just wanted to state that again. MacCoy: Alright, for the record, very good. Moving on to the next item. ITEM NO. 10: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR GENERAL AUTO REPAIR & SERVICE BY JOHN BISS -WEST OF ~VIERIDIAN ROAD: MacCoy: Staff do you have anything to add to that? I didn't hear that is that for the record. Stiles: Would you like us to give a report on this application? You have copies of our comments, I won't go through every item. Some of them are standard comments. The subject property is located south of the Hope Arms Apartment and also where Lee Centers has built some apartments. It is immediately east of the Troutner Business Park. As part of the Troutner Business Park, there was a proposed roadway that would connect the subdivision to Meridian Road. They MERIDIAN PLANNIN~AND ZONING COMMISSION MEL~G OCTOBER 13, 1998 PAGE 19 have anon-development agreement, Troutner Business Park has anon- development agreement on that portion of the property and has not been required to make any improvements for that portion of the property was annexed with the same property that came in as the Troutner Business Park and is subject to the requirements within that annexation ordinance and those findings. One of the comments, one of the requirements of the annexation was that as Meridian Road is designated as an entrance corridor that a minimum 35 foot wide landscape setback be provided. Initially when the applicant had come in, I was comparing the property across the street and the requirements which was a preliminary, final plat that was continued, the Rick Thomas Wild Shamrock Partnership Plat is a directly across the street from this and I believe that they had either a 15 or a 20 foot wide landscape setback as a condition of that plat, however when I went back and reviewed the annexation ordinance and the findings, it did specifically state that Meridian Road would have a 35 landscape setback. Another issue would be that the existing easement that does extend to Meridian Road, there is some question as to who would be responsible for construction of that road. Ada County Highway District has made their comments and they are giving them a temporary access to Meridian Road for the John Biss property, however once the public road is extended, that access will need to be removed and they will actually access from the new extension of I believe it is Penwood. Another comment that we had, we would like you to review the materials of construction proposed for this site. (Inaudible) concern in the area from the property owners adjacent to this site and in the area that perhaps this is not what they expect that area to look like. The property is in it's general commercial zone and this type of service can be provided under the conditional use process in that zone. The last item that we had under 19 I don't have in my file evidence that the parcel was eligible for a one time split. There was a portion of property formerly owned by Mr. Fuller and seems to have some splits in there, but they would just need to provide verification that it is eligible for split without subdividing. Those were the major items that our (Inaudible). MacCoy: Does Bruce have anything? Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, the only item that I wanted to touch on as Shari mentioned the future Penwood street will be directly adjacent to the north of this parcel. With the new construction of re-construction of Meridian Road, sewer and water mains are being installed. There were an eight inch sewer main stubbed into what will be Penwood, there was also an eight inch water main stubbed into what will be Penwood. Services for this proposed site will come from those main extensions. In looking at the plans, the question that comes to my mind is right of access across the set easement to those water mains, or water main, sewer main. That's a question that I still have that I would like to get answered. MacCoy: Okay, is that it? Thank you. Since this is a public hearing is the applicant here this evening? MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 13, 1998 PAGE 20 Biss: Yes, I am. MacCoy: Step forward please and be sworn in. De Weerd: He needs to be sworn in. JOHN BISS, 1334 E. 1ST, MERIDIAN, ID. WAS SWORN IN BY ATTORNEY. Biss: Presently my shop is over by the post office here in town. I've completely outgrown the facility that I'm at now and purchased this property from Norm Fuller. My first step in trying to find a piece of property was actually going to Shari and asking where can I find a piece of property that is going to work in meridian without too many hassles trying to get it passed. This was one of the few that actually even showed up that was still available. I bought the property and I hope to put this shop on there and get back to working so. I'm open for any questions you guys got. Smith: Mr. Chairman this is a point of order here. On the cover page here it says location of the property or project, 1334 E. 1 gc Street, that's where I went to look and so I haven't (Inaudible) that's where his shop is now, not where this is. So, that needs to be corrected on here. Building materials I can't read on stuff we were given in the application what the building materials are. I can't read... Biss: Most of it is going to be a split block face. The roof is going to be an architectural styled-architect eighties is shingles. Smith: Asphalt? Biss: Asphalt. I personally looked at metal roofs and that's the only other choice that I'm going to have (Inaudible) opinion and I don't like the way they look, so. The buildings down off of-Meridian Plumbing is one of the buildings that I've looked at, I like the way it looks. It's got asphalt shingles on it. Smith: It looks like you have some banding going around, is that just different... Biss: Different colors of the stone I want to go with. Smith: So this will be painted or... Biss: No. Smith: It will be interval color block? Biss: Yeah. MERIDIAN PLANNIN~AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 13, 1998 PAGE 21 Smith: It's different colors not different split face and smooth. Biss: No, I kind of like the idea, I've seen some of it where they have done split face and then they had some 8 X 8 smooth kind of in sync where it looks good. I'd like the option to play it up. I want something that looks good as well as you do. Smith: I think that kind of mutilization (sic) of masonry is good design (Inaudible) I'm not to whooped up about the asphalt shingles but... (Inaudible) Biss: To me the metal roofs look cheesy... (Inaudible) Smith: I guess that is a subjective thing there. I kind of feel the same way about the asphalt shingles. Biss: (Inaudible) looks plain, but the architect eighties look pretty good, so. Smith: Just a clarification Shari, we need a 30 foot landscape buffer on Meridian? Stiles: A condition of the annexation was a 35 foot landscape setback. Smith: We need a 35 foot landscape buffer on Meridian Road, we got 20 showing here now, so. Biss: My concern there is, am I going to be the only one on Meridian Road that is going to be required fora 35 foot setback? MacCoy: Shari? (Inaudible) Stiles: If the ordinance is not changed, the only way you can put that requirement on a development would be if it were a new annexation or if it were a conditional use permit where you can impose standards greater than are contained in the ordinance, but without (Inaudible). People come in with a permitted use, we'll be able to encourage them to provide the landscape setback, but we'll have no authority to actually require that. Smith: We could require it couldn't we? Borup: Not if they don't come here. De Weerd: I think City Council could. MERIDIAN PLANNIN• ND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 13, 1998 PAGE 22 Stiles: The ordinance would have to be changed to require that and designate the corridors where that would be required as part of the ordinance. De Weerd: So did that answer your question? Biss: I have no problem with it, as long as everything else is going to be made the same way. The only one sitting back that far, be kind of an unfair disadvantage. Smith: I agree. Comment on your signage, it seems like you've got a sign out, a freestanding sign out in front, there js two on the front of the building which basically say the same thing and then there is one on the end. Seems like you have twice as much signage as you really need. Biss: To me, it dresses up the building putting something on it, but (Inaudible) it doesn't, so. Smith: I hope they (Inaudible) your integration of your split face and center scored smooth block, I think that will make your building-that will help the aesthetics of it, believe me. (Inaudible) the signage to do that for you. Are these overhead doors, those have glass in them, or are you indicating different colors or... Biss: Glass and doors. The front doors will be glass most all the way up and down. The rear doors because the west side sun will probably be-I'll have one row of glass in, but the front of the building where it matters will be all glass. Smith: I have no other questions at this time. MacCoy: Commissioner Nelson? Nelson: I have no comments. MacCoy: Commissioner Borup? Borup: Yes, Mr. Biss did you have any other questions or comments on staff comments? Other than the 35 foot thing, you mentioned that. Biss: They have in there something about a two foot easement question. The property I bought, I bought no part of the easement. The easement, the 50 foot easement is still there and is not on my property so. The other, atone time I thought we had addressed the fact that the property hadn't been split since Norm Fuller bought it, so. I'm supposed to have-I'll have that information for Shari tomorrow. It was Friday when they give me that letter asking for that information. (Inaudible) kind of messed up getting all of it in here prior, so. What else is on there? Your (Inaudible) the sign ordinance as far as what goes on the street, MERIDIAN PLANNIN~AND ZONING COMMISSION ME~NG OCTOBER 13, 1998 PAGE 23 nobody has actually told me what the sign ordinance is. Shari says you guys like to keep it to a 72 foot square feet, but the sign that I wanted to put up was identical to the sign that is on the new car wash on Fairview, but she says that sign is too big. Borup: That can be a problem sometimes when we are trying to make changes in ordinances and policies, it is hard to go backwards and correct those things that have already happened, so the only choice you have is to go forward from the starting point. I think that is part of the problem on the 35 foot buffer. All can be enforced on applications that come before us rather than-not much you can do about something that is in existence. I had some more questions for staff, but nothing else for Mr. Biss at this time. MacCoy: We will finish with Mr. Biss first. Commissioner De Weerd? De Weerd: I just had a question as far as how many service bays you have? Biss: Eight. De Weerd: Eight. Biss: Four from the front, four from the back. De Weerd: If you need to increase the frontage landscaping, you'll loose two parking spots. Biss: I'll have to move the building back, so. Smith: He will loose more than two. His stalls are only-no, that's right. Biss: I would leave the pavement base the same and move the whole thing backward. Oh, 35 you are right (Inaudible). De Weerd: Well, that's all I wanted to know. Smith: How would you circulate around the back of the building if you moved everything back? Biss: (Inaudible) Same way we are doing it now, the way it's on the plan is to just go around the side of the building. Smith: Right, but just seems kind of at 40-6-6-6 is 52-6 and your stalls are 20 feet deep? Biss: The building itself is 80X64. MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 13, 1998 PAGE 24 Smith: Right, right. I'm just trying to figure out how much room you have (Inaudible). 52-6, that leaves you 32-6, so that's, I guess that's enough. Biss: (Inaudible) another 250 foot of unused property out the back. Borup: That you own? Biss: Yes. Borup: Okay, that's what I was going to ask. It looks like your planter extends beyond your parking lot in the back. Smith: (Inaudible) at the trash enclosure. Biss: The property sells for 530 feet deep so. Smith: So this just address the improved site area, not the unimproved. Biss: Correct. Borup: If you need additional parking places, spaces you would be. Biss: I'm doing okay still. Borup: Not by my count. De Weerd: He can use the land in back. Borup: (Inaudible) He has room to expand if he needs it. What we were looking at is if you take a 35 foot buffer, on the present layout, you are going to loose four parking places unless you slide them down a bit. Biss: Just slide the whole project back that extra. Right now there is 20 feet figured, so an extra 15 feet and just move the whole project back 15 feet. Borup: Okay and you've got extra at that basis. Biss: The other thing is that the county bought about five feet off of it. At that point of time they made an agreement with me to provide access to my property in the middle of the front of my property. At the time the negotiator that they actually shipped out to talk to me said there was no way I could take access off the Penwood proposed street. So at that point of time I made plans to never be able to use that. That's what I set forth all my plans and building design. It took me a year to get this far with figuring out what I wanted to do. So I'm a little upset that they actually come back to me and told me that I'm going to loose my access when and if they ever develop a road. Because of that, I'll probably have MERIDIAN PLANNIN~AND ZONING COMMISSION MEL~NG OCTOBER 13, 1998 PAGE 25 to push the building back another 30 feet so I actually will be able to use the driveway from the side. They actually put it in writing that they would provide access to the middle of my property. I only assumed that that meant I could use that driveway, so. The latest proposal they proposed to me was that they wouldn't ask to move my driveway until I did more development on my property. Borup: Are you saying that you are going to have move your building back? Biss: I'm going to have to do something different with the. building if-I mean it's going to be real expensive to move the building later so. I've got to plan on a driveway coming from the side. Borup: That's what I was looking at at the end of your parking stalls on the north side, there is not enough room for an entrance at that point? Biss: No. Borup: Even with another 15 feet like you are proposing? Biss: It's still going to make it-you've got to be 50 foot off Meridian Road with your driveway coming in. My end bay there is the one I plan on using for the motor homes and stuff. I would really like to be able to pull a motor home in without having to move it around four or five times. MacCoy: Any other comments from the commissioners? Any other questions? Smith: Not at this time. De Weerd: Do we have anything from ACHD? Biss: I have the latest proposal that they just faxed to me. MacCoy: Shari do you have anything? Borup: Not in our packets. MacCoy: I don't have anything in mine. Biss: They said nothing would actually be official until like the 20th of this month so. Borup: (Inaudible) draft copy. Biss: Yes, they gave me a draft of it. Borup: They don't like to give us draft copies for some reason. MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 13, 1998 PAGE 26 MacCoy: No, we've had problems with it. Okay, if everybody is satisfied right now for the moment. Mr. Biss you can sit down, thank you. Before I open to the public here, staff did you have anything else to make a comment wise? Borup: I have some questions for staff, but I'm going to wait till after the public testimony. MacCoy: Okay, until we've finished with public hearing, okay. Stiles: I guess the only comment that I would have, due to the fact that the entire property is a proposed for a development that the applicant be made aware that they should come back in for a conditional use permit for the remainder of the property and that they would not be allowed to use that area for parking of vehicles or storage equipment or materials until improvements are made. MacCoy: Mr. Biss did you hear what she had to say there? Biss: I heard it. So do I need to put that as... MacCoy: Do you want to come back here, so we can get you on the tape. Biss: I guess we need to add the whole piece of property on to it? That was the original plan was to pave what was necessary and then gravel it and keep it nice, smooth and looking good and be able to occasionally park extra cars out there. MacCoy: It might be a smart decision one time through. Biss: Yeah, so, I mean if that's what I need to do, I didn't realize anybody would care what I did with the rest of it until I put a building on it. MacCoy: No, we do. Biss: I mean if I set it up so that I can park on gravel, it's going to look better than a field of weeds, I would think. MacCoy: True., Okay, thank you. We open this #o a public hearing, does anybody have any comment, pro or con at this time? MIKE BALLANTYNE, 2690 N. MILLDEER WAY, MERIDIAN, ID. WAS SWORN IN BY THE ATTORNEY. Ballantyne: I represent Troutner Business Park which is Mr. Biss's neighbor to the west. Just have a couple of concerns that I'd like to discuss. Don't necessarily have a problem with the design of the building itself and the use and certainly don't have a problem with Mr. Biss. In fact, I understand from my MERIDIAN PLANNIN• ND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING OCtOBER 13, 1998 PAGE 27 neighbors that he's a darn good mechanic. We have some concerns related to some of the logistic. To clarify the easement. There is an easement through what was Norm Fullers property to the benefit of Troutner Business Park. That easement is the access that will be used for phase II of Troutner Business Park, which is a portion of the property that has been approved, but not developed under anon-development agreement with the city, which basically says we are not going to build it, and at such time that we do build it, we will have to meet certain criteria. Our concern is that ACRD on that easement requires that we build a certain portion of the street and that the neighbors to the north and south that will benefit from that street will also have to build a certain portion of that street. We will build, I think it's a 53 foot street section total including sidewalks and curbs and gutters. We would build 41 feet and the balance would be built by the neighbors. Obviously we have concern that development occur prior to that street going in and at such time, Mr. Biss be saddled with developing, you know, putting that in. There is some concern on that part. Our bigger concern is along the same line, and it's really not Mr. Biss's fault, it's more he is a victim of circumstance. Mr. Fuller who sold Mr. Biss the property had the easement described by his engineer. He then had the same engineer describe the parcel to the north and south that were split. They were one parcel and then split by the easement, which created a legal split. It's a very old easement and I believe this is the reason that Mr. Fuller didn't have to go through the subdivision process, design review and sign a development agreement and show CC & R's that they rest of our had to do, because this was an old enough split. The concern is, that his engineer when he did the legal description for Mr. Biss overlapped the description into the easement a couple of feet. So our easement which is a legally recorded document and a legal encumbrance on the property runs through a portion of Mr. Biss's property and therefore, his site plan would have to reflect that easement and reflect the agreements that have been made with the city and highway district to allow us through. I'm sure Mr. Biss didn't plan on buying property and not being able to utilize two feet of it. So there is some challenge there. Obviously Mr. Biss is concerned about access into his property and using that access at the time that Penwood is extended. We also have a concern that if that access stays the distance between Penwood and his access into the project is not what ACRD would determine to be adequate and there could be a traffic situation there, quite a bit of problems there. Kind of a big overriding concern is really the entry way corridor issue. If you look at East 1s' street as you come in off the freeway and you see the 35 foot landscaping buffer and the way that area has developed out. There were a couple of different developers, Mr. Hon and Mr. Nahas primarily on that east side, you get a sense what the potential for east 1gt street is. To date we haven't seen that potential realized and we were very hopeful based on our efforts with what we were doing off of Franklin Road that the city would require that that type of potential be met. You have the ability to make Meridian Road look like east 1gt Street rather than Fairview. We would encourage 35 foot setback. We feel that is fair especially considering the amount of excess ground that Mr. Biss has. We would like to see plans for the entire site to know what is going to happen. We are concerned MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 13, 1998 PAGE 28 that we have a 40 acre office park that backs to MR. Biss's property and we are talking about storing cars in the back, which would back up to our property and which would certainly effect our property value. We wouldn't oppose that if there was proper screening and that type of thing. Maybe with a fence that you couldn't see through. Anyway, there are some issues outstanding here that we think need to be addressed prior to approval of Mr. Biss's property if those are addressed to our satisfaction we would certainly support his application. I would be glad to answer any questions. MacCoy: Any questions? Borup: Mr. Ballantyne, well first let me ask, I'm still confused a little bit on the two foot overlap. It's your understanding that-well I understand what you are saying about it, on where the problem originated. Was the easement that was granted back whenever, did you understand it as a 53 foot easement for Penwood. Ballantyne: I think it's about 50 feet, the easement is. Borup: Okay, that was one of my questions, which is normal street easement right at 50 feet. You had mentioned something about 53 earlier. Ballantyne: I don't remember the exact number, Shari might have it in the file. It was greater than the easement because of the fact that the road would also be a collector for the existing properties. So, the highway district would like to build the road to a larger standard than the existing easement. They would allow us to put the street through for our use. For the neighbors to use that street they would have to improve it to a higher standard. Borup: At this point, it was a 50 easement. It was surveyed at the time, the easement was originally created. Ballantyne: Right, by the same engineer that did the legal description. Borup: The second one. So which survey was the two foot mistake made on? Ballantyne: Well, that is a question for God I guess. My engineer thinks they are both slightly in error. The really amazing thing is that Meridian Road is on the principle in Meridian of the State of Idaho from the initial point which is south of Meridian it's about as easy to survey off of as any point in the State of Idaho. So the fact that the engineer went off of two different points rather than going off the same point and therefore making his survey match and the fact he didn't go back then and check and make sure all his legals matched was a concern. It's really not Mr. Biss's fault. We did call Mr. Fuller and did say, after he had sold the parcel to Mr. Biss and it became public record the legal description, we said hey, • MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 13, 1998 PAGE 29 there is a problem here and he said it was Mr. Biss's problem. (Inaudible) problem unfortunately. It's our problem, we have a concern obviously. Borup: You had mentioned that you would be in support if your concerns were met you went through quite a number of things. Can you condense those down to specific items? Ballantyne: Well, lets see. We've got the landscaping setback, we've got the use of the entire site, we have the easement issue, the street section issue and by street section, the ACHD requirement that they were going to place on the property owners that would abut the street. Important to note, kind of on the side, one of the things that Mr. Biss eluded to is potentially that street may never be built. We have told the highway district they really don't want that street to go through. We don't necessarily see reason for it to go through Norm Fuller obviously doesn't want it to go through because it hurts, takes away some of the property that he can sell. The goal would be for Corporate Drive to extend through similar to the way it extends into Central Valley Corporate Park and that would become a main artery that all the development in that area would feed into. There is a number of different owners in that area and if that doesn't come to fruition within the time period that we would have to develop the second phase of our project we would go ahead and punch this street through. Borup: I think we've had that proposal before, I've seen it somewhere. Ballantyne: We would love for that to go through. We think that would be the best possible solution for everyone, but there is a lot of things that have to happen. We have to protect our interest that this easement isn't taken away from us, prior to that happening. Borup: But by the street section each neighbor paying for their share of the development. Ballantyne: Right, it's fairly minor I think. Borup: So it's, if you are doing 41 feet and then there is 50 total, there is another 9 feet divided by two? So 4 '/2 feet? Ballantyne: Basically, approximately, but I don't have the exact numbers. (Inaudible) Borup: Okay, that was (Inaudible). Ballantyne: And the other concern just relates to those, is the fact that the highway district hasn't submitted their comments on his application and I think they are going to address a lot of those issues that they had concerns about. Thank you. MERIDIAN PLANNI•ANDZONING COMMISSION ME~NG OCTOBER 13, 1998 PAGE 30 MacCoy: Any other questions? Okay, thanks Mike. Is there anyone else here who has anything to say to pro or con on this one? Come on up. ARTHUR BERRY, 1305 S. HAWAII, BOISE, ID. WAS SWORN BY THE ATTORNEY. Berry: My company, Arthur Berry and company and (Inaudible) Associates own the property immediately to the south of the subject property, was formerly referred to as the Johnson Property, 10 acres that abuts Corporate and intersection. I support Mr. Ballantyne's contentions concerning the property. We think there are major concerns over the access issue and the main entry point of Meridian. I'm not as conversant as Mr. Ballantyne concerning the technical issues. I've had discussions with Mr. Biss before about concern we have as the developing and neighboring property about cars and entry points and ACRD issues around Corporate Drive. We are the people who control whether Corporate Drive can extend back to the further area and we are trying to work with ACRD as much as possible and the neighbors to not have the clutter of the multiple access along the frontage and are having some difficulty with ACRD trying to get that accomplished. I don't have any objection with the nature of Mr. Biss's building or I'm not conversant enough with specifics of his plan, I simply don't think with the character of the whole neighborhood in general and this being the main entryway into Meridian that the use and the type of building that he intends to put on the site is consistent with the general commercial development in the area. I stand in front of you a little embarrassed in as much as Mr. Johnson's property is not the greatest property in the world if you look at it now. I know that Shari and some of us have had some issues over the years. We are in the process of trying to clean up the property and we've purchased other property from Mr. Johnson, it's a slow process to move all that junk literally off the property. One of the concerns we have is wanting to expedite that to not carry on with the nature of the neighborhood the way it is. We think it is a very great piece of property that's the gateway not only to Meridian but also to Mr. Ballantyne's park and would encourage it to consider that in granting this conditional use permit. Borup: I have on for Mr. Berry. You say that your property, you are the one who would control Corporate Drive extending to the west and tying back into that property? Berry: Yes sir, we own the 10 acre rectangular piece. We have sold approximately'h of acre of the frontage to ACRD both on the frontage street and on Corporate Lane proposed which they are presently using for a drainage area. We have yet to come to an agreement with the neighbors to the west as to the extent to which Corporate Drive will be extended and some other issues, but we are the owners of the property. MERIDIAN PLANNI•AND ZONING COMMISSION ME•NG OCTOBER 13, 1998 PAGE 31 Borup: Are you in agreement with ACHD's apparently their policy or their desires to have Corporate Drive extend to the west is that your desire also? Berry: Yes sir. Borup: So the problem is not through your property, it's through some of the adjoining neighbors. Berry: The only problem with our property is the front access that is being restricted on Corporate Drive and the fact that if Corporate Drive and Mr. Biss property have accesses along 1St Avenue, we think it'll become, there will be some clutter issues. Borup: Okay, thank you. MacCoy: Any other questions from any commissioners? Okay, thank you very much. Is there anyone else here this evening that would like to make a comment? We had a letter that was mailed to us. The person is Bob Nahas, I don't see him here this evening. Okay, I'll read his letter regarding this project. "I would like to voice my opposition to the above reference proposed auto repair facility on Meridian Road, I think this is incongruous with other types of business's that have now located in the area. At Central Valley Corporation Park we have declined even auto lube operations here." I don't think this has any bearing on this, I just read that for the record book. We have the actual document on our files. Is there anybody else that has anything else before I close the public hearing? Borup: I have some questions for staff, did I forget to mention that? MacCoy: Put staff on the line again. De Weerd: You had one other letter. MacCoy: I don't have it in mine, would you read that one? De Weerd: This is from Foad Roghani "This letter is to inform you that I believe the subject business does not fit into the general business structure of the area and application for conditional use of the subject property for alignment business should not be approved.n He has signed it. Borup: The only question I have for that letter, I'm not sure what-his address. is not anywhere near this property. He didn't state that he was a business owner. I guess you don't have to, but it would hold more credence if it was someone in the area. MacCoy: Are you going to talk to the staff now? • MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 13, 1998 PAGE 32 Borup: Question for Bruce and wasn't sure on your statement on-you had some concern about sewer and water access through the easement, through the Penwood Road easement to the sewer and water lines, is that what you stated? Freckleton: Yes Commissioner Borup, the easement is still technically owned by Fuller still. Mr. Biss would have to have some sort of easement for his service lines to cross that easement to the (Inaudible) Borup: (Inaudible) easement to cross an easement. That's where I was confused. I was assuming that if there was an easement-so at this point the easement is strictly for the road, not for utilities? Freckleton: I believe that is true, yes. The location of those service lines would be a bit awkward as well, those service-or those mainlines are just being stubbed barely ofF of Meridian Road to the right-of-way fine. Those mains will be extended on in the future when the road is extended through. At this time, they terminate at the right-of--way line. So any services from that point snaking them through on up to the building would be a bit awkward, not impossible, but awkward. Borup: The other question that I had, I was still confused Shari on the lot split. Did you have concerns on whether the legality of it. Could you elaborate on that a little bit? Stiles: Commissioner Borup, commissioners, that-I didn't know if we discussed it previously ,the city does allow an one time split if it is in the same configuration as it was in 1984. I don't have verification in my files that the original parcel was in that same configuration in 1984 and has not been split besides this one. Borup: Okay, you are talking about the entire Fuller property. Would be the configuration. Stiles: Yes. Borup: Yeah, I believe that's how your comments (Inaudible) That's all I had Mr. Chairman. MacCoy: Since there is no one else, I guess you had something else to add to this. Biss: I had a question as far as the sewer goes... (END OF TAPE) • MER1DlAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 13, 1998 PAGE 33 Biss: property had water and sewer to it, I mean, I called and talked to somebody and they said water and sewer is an 8" main both of them break (Inaudible) my property and that's where I did it from. 1 guess I'm a little miffed if there is a problem with that why we didn't go ahead and stub it straight into my property instead of relying on pulling it off the big main. Freckleton: That was why 1 raised the question because 1 looked on the ACRD reconstruction plans to see if services were being brought in off of Meridian Road to your property or whether they were coming off Penwood. There were no indications on those plans that anything were coming off of Meridian. That's why 1 raised that concern. Biss: I called and they verified that's where 1 would get my water and sewer from. Nobody at any point in time, 1 said I couldn't figure out why we had 8" going into there, but that point in time they didn't tell me that it was main lines going in there. They assured me that's where I would get mine. I've got to be able to call and get the right information. I don't know what we can do... Freckleton: It is true they are 8" lines going in, but they are in the alignment with Penwood. Into that future roadway, not directly... Biss: Possible future roadway which may never ever be built. Freckleton: They are not directly into your property. Biss: Well actually, when I called they said that was where I would get mine from. Freckleton: Your service lines would go to those 8" mains. Biss: The other, Mr. Ballantyne raised the question about not being the same design as what else is going on. Still nothing else is going on, I've never seen nothing what he's proposing back there. I have talked to him in the past and he's expressed an interest in purchasing my property, he just never ever wanted to buy it, so. But you know as far as building design other buildings in town, this basic design is similar to construction to Meridian Plumbing, which is a Meridian Building, it's a good looking building in my opinion. The actual design of itself is a Meineke Muffler off the just built off of Broadway, which I know Boise is really proud of Broadway going into town and they wouldn't let something ugly go into there and I think this building actually looks better than the one out there. Little bit more of the roof than what Bruce did with Meineke Muffler on Broadway, but as far as this easement thing goes, I got a piece of paper that says how big my piece of property is and says where that easement is supposed to be. It's supposed to be 20 feet off of Norm Fullers house that is on that property and 50 feet over from that is where my property starts. That was the agreement that Norm Fuller made with a (Inaudible) move that easement that's my knowledge. If MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 13, 1998 PAGE 34 I remember right, that easement was actually not in the middle of that property but all the way to the side once upon a time. Once upon a time at least this is what Norm Fuller told me is that Troutner actually owned this property only he give it back. I think the best way to protect your investment is not to give it back, but continue owning it. I guess my question would be to Ballantyne, what is his idea of a good looking building, as far as an auto repair shop, we've got Les Shwab here in town, built just a simple plain Jane flat roofed building. I don't think it looks anywhere near as good as this one. Borup: I doubt that he gave it back, if that happened. Mr. Chairman, I have a few questions for Mr. Biss. MacCoy: Go ahead. Borup: Well, first of all, did you get a title policy when you bought the property? Biss: Yes I did. Borup: So if there is an easement problem, is that covered in your title policy as far as you understand? Biss: I don't know that for a fact. Borup: You may want to look at that. Are you familiar with the configuration prior to 1984? Is it your understanding that this was the same configuration of property? Biss: Norm Fuller what he actually did to, he actually never sold any property off to the property. He did do some modifications to it. For financing different parts of it. It was never ever left, no part of that ever left his hands. It was all kept in one piece, so. Borup: So you don't have a concern with verifying that aspect of the lots? Biss: No. Borup: Was it your understanding that you would be tying into the sewer mains that are in that easement? Was that your understanding where your sewer and water access was coming from? Biss: Yes, when Icalled Ididn't-I thought that was just the standard way they did it. They just bring in one line to service to pieces of property so. (Inaudible) Borup: Have you realized that you don't really have a legal access to that, apparently? Is that what you are saying? MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 13, 1998 PAGE 35 Biss: Norm Fuller says I've got full access to that easement. So-that's as far as having a piece of paper that says that, I don't know that I actually have that. I'm sure it can be obtained so. Borup: That's what I was going to ask. 1 would think if he didn't grant that, at least from my standpoint he may have a hard time getting anything else approved for that property. We have not received the ACRD comments, was there-and I guess we are going to need to see that. Was everything on the draft copy that you think is pertinent? Biss: Basically what they said was, at this point in time, they originally asked for a $7,500 dollar deposit, they have dropped that. They also stated that they would not pursue the relocation of it, unless I redevelop my property later, so. Borup: They didn't make mention of developing of Penwood? Biss: Yes they did. What they basically said was if Penwood ever gets developed and if I after that do more development to my property, at that point in time they would ask me to move my driveway then, so. Borup: I thought I had one other question. That's all Mr. Chairman. MacCoy: Is that it? Anybody anything for Mr. Biss? Borup: I'm sorry, this is back on the 35 foot easement. I think to be consistent, anything else that would develop north or south of you would have that same. Biss: I was just a little confused by the property just across the street to me is being developed now, or maybe going to be developed now. I'm not sure when it's going to be developed, it just seems puzzling to me that they are not doing the same thing there, so. Borup: The Wild Shamrock Piece? Biss: Where the Godfathers Pizza and the other Rockets is at, that's-it's my understanding that it's all owned by the same gentleman so. Borup: That hasn't made it here yet. Biss: When I originally approached Shari and I asked her about that in there and that's why the plans are drawn up the way it is, she was under the understanding that across the street they were going to do a 15-20 foot. I said well, 20 foot sounds normal to me. The other project that I know the NAPA here in town (Inaudible) store. I don't think she's got 15 foot on hers. As far as being consistent, we ought to be consistent. How are we going to make it all look right if it's all done in parts? • MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 13, 1998 PAGE 36 MacCoy: Mr. Smith you have something that you want to say? Smith: Not, just some comments on the application. It seems like to me we've kind of got some issues here that we need to get resolved before we can take any kind of action on this and one of them would be the easement issue. Second would be, as Commissioner Borup brought up, we need to get a copy of the ACHD report. The third thing is and this is something that we needed to start doing here the last few months is to have accurate, correct plats to forward on to City Council and this with needing to add the 35 foot landscape buffer onto that, shifting your building back... Biss: I tried to get all of that the first time. Smith: I know, it takes awhile sometimes. To address the ACHD concern about possibility of loosing your access onto Meridian Road and having to access off of Penwood, you need to address that with your side of your building as well. Like you say, you build it once and it's in the right place. In the future if your access changes, you can put that in 70 feet off of Meridian Road and it still works with getting in and out of your building. I do agree with some of the comments about clarifying how the rest of your site is going to be developed. I think that is an appropriate comment. You've already mentioned that there is a possibility that you may have to park additional vehicles back there depending on your work load and so forth. I don't know that we want to see vehicles driving back and forth on a gravel lot. I'm not familiar with the ordinance on that, but I don't agree with the comments. I don't think I heard any comments negative toward the architecture of the building. What I heard was the concern was how it fit in with the adjacent commercial uses and there a block away there is a Les Schwab, which is just an austere, across the street from that is the Meridian Speedway, behind Les Schwab (Inaudible) across the intersection of Meridian Road and I don't remember the name of the street, is one of the ugliest retail developments in the city. I have seen Mr. Johnson's property for 30 years and it looks the same as it did 30 years ago. As far as the area, I don't have any problem with it personally with this type of... I'm not familiar with the development to the west of this property, because I went to the wrong address. I'm not supposed to say that I went to the site, but I didn't go to this site. I'm familiar with this site because I've lived here for a long time. MacCoy: Okay Commissioner Smith. Smith: So that's all, I think we've got some things here that we need to get wrapped up and brought back. MacCoy: We've got to do this. • MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 13, 1998 PAGE 37 Biss: One of the comments was screening of parked cars. To ask me to screen parked cars at my place, I'd say we need to screen the parked cars at any grocery store, any office building. My business solely the shop is to fix cars. The cars aren't supposed to go out of the shop until they are fixed. That's the way we try to do it. The present facility we have now, we used to do it that way. We just got so busy that we can't do it that way no more. This shop right now is more than four times the size of the one we have now. I don't need to do anymore business to keep it busy, I just need to be able to do it all in one place without having to shuffle cars around. Borup: Mr. Biss, you are saying then that if you did need to use that area for parking cars, it would be cars that you are working on, cars owned by someone else, they wouldn't be excess. Biss: They would just be for parking, there is not going to be any cars torn apart outside, no. Abandoned or tore apart, not a wrecking yard or nothing like that. Borup: I think that's where, at least in mind, that's where the concern was. Cars being parked there for months at a time, not being used, that type of thing. Biss: Idon't-that's not the type of business that I want to do. I mean, a trashy looking repair shop isn't what I want. If that was what I wanted, I certainly wouldn't want to put it on a main road in town. I wouldn't have to pay all this extra money to make it look good, if that was what I wanted so. I guess what we ought to do is probably come up with some idea what we are going to do with the whole piece of property. I guess I need to be able to ask the questions, can I gravel this back there? Someone give me the right answers, like I did ask the question how far the setbacks should be. I understand the confusion three was the property across the street going only 20 or 15 foot, but like I said, when we ask these questions, they need to be answered right, so we can give you stuff that is drawn up right. If 35 foot was what it had to be, I would've presented you one with 35 foot setback on it and we wouldn't... Borup: I think sometimes there are specific answers to questions that going by ordinance has to be in a certain way, to go different than that, you could certainly ask for a waiver. MacCoy: Mr. Biss, I want to suggest to you that you work with the staff on these items and come up with that finished product so we can look at it. Borup: If that's not quite right, I guess that's not quite right. If Ms. Stiles has something to say. Smith: Shari says it's written in stone, it needs to be 35 feet. Borup: No, I'm not talking about that. • MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 13, 1998 PAGE 38 Stiles: Commissioners the city attorney has advised me that we are doing far too much work on these site plans as far as actually having designed them ourselves before the application submitted and that's not our charge. What Mr. Gigray has stated to me is to give them acpy-have them purchase a copy of the ordinance, have them research their conditions of their annexation and comply with those ordinances. That's what Mr. Gigray has stated to me. So we do get to the point where we on a case by case basis we are actually doing site plan design. We don't have the staff or time to do that. I guess for us to make sure that it totally complies with all conditions, there is no reason to go to you. There is no reason to have a public hearing, there is no reason to go through any of this process if you are requiring staff to get down to that level of detail just to accept an application. MacCoy: Well, I've got one comment with the city attorney, which we'll pick up later on, but I think some of our material is not as explicit as it should be for what we are trying to do. I don't believe that the applicant is knowledgeable many a time as to understand what we've written or have intended before and I think we ought to clean this up too. So there is a two way street in this situation I feel. Which will get done. Smith: I agree with that and I take issue with what the city attorney has told you as well. I think there might be a semantics problem here between the two of you as well, but I think a couple of things are easy, as Mr. Biss needs an answer on what the easement of the landscape buffer needs tq be, he needs to know if he has to pave his back lot. The only other things besides what I've already stated, while you are going back through this process to kind of re-work your siding of your building and everything, take a look at your signage and I'd strongly suggest to eliminate some of it. I think it's excessive and really-I think it's overkill. It's just going to save you money, you don't have to spend by omitting a couple of them. Biss: Well most of the signs on the building is painted on. Smith: Right, I don't know that you need all of it. To me it takes away from the aesthetics of the building, the architecture when you start plastering big billboards on the side of it and I think the function of a sign is to identify who you are and what you do. To allow people who don't know where you are located to find you and I don't think you need four signs to do that. It's kind of you're advertising at your business. I don't think you need four signs to do that on a parcel this size. That's all I had to say. MacCoy: I will add my comments. I am in the same business as Commissioner Smith is and I agree with him 100% on that, I think that you can do less and actually get more for your buck out of a nice designed sign then trying to plaster the place like it's a service operation. So I think... i • MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 13, 1998 PAGE 39 Siss: The two signs that I'd like to keep would be the one that is on the road and the one just above the door, the entry there. Smith: I think that would be plenty, I think that would tell folks who you are and what you do and get them there. MacCoy: Alright, at this point. Commissioners what is your preference here? We've gat some work ahead of us. De Weerd: Did Mr. Biss understand the information that we need? Borup: I think it would be appropriate to reiterate. De Weerd: We are waiting for the ACRD report and perhaps an answer to the access and also the section off of Penwood, the nine foot section. Design reflecting the 35 foot landscape and your plans for the entire property parcel and an answer to the easement issue. That's what I have. Biss: I didn't get his letter till this last Friday. They wanted this additional information on here. Try to get everything in. De Weerd: If we could get that, you know, I personally think that we need to continue this till November 10t`'. Borup: I do have a question on the statement on plans for the entire property, are we asking them to have a concept for the entire... I had the impression that he didn't know what he wanted to do with the entire property. That's the status I would have if I owned this. If Penwood goes through, he may have an opportunity to sell off a tot on the west end of his property for another business. Smith: It is my understanding that it would be appropriate that he show what he has planned because he plans not to leave it as weeds and also it is in writing that he also plans on some overflow parking. I went to his current address and based on the appearance of his shop and how well kept it was, I wouldn't expect to see-the types of vehicles parked over there, we are trying to avoid another unlicensed contractor sharing is what we are worried about. By the... Borup: Or a used car lot. Smith: Or a used car lot, yes. I don't expect to see that. Although if he plans on graveling that, that would be appropriate to put on the plan. I don't know whether that is allowed or not. Borup: You can take care of weeds without graveling a whole site. ~ ~ MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 13, 1998 PAGE 40 Smith: I think it would be appropriate to list that as either undeveloped or which part is graveled and then takes that question out when it goes to City Council. Well and then how that property if undeveloped would be maintained. De Weerd: If undeveloped would be maintained. Nelson: City Council is going to ask those questions anyway, might as well put it in print. Smith: I think the only thing that concerns me about the part of the project that was not included was just the overflow parking and like I said, I'm not familiar with the ordinance or whether it is supposed to be paved or graveled. That's something to get clarified with staff. MacCoy: I think ACRD may also answer that question for us. At least (Inaudible) Biss: The highway department only asks that the driveway be paved 35 feet. MacCoy: I'm saying that between our city ordinance, ACRD, etc. that will eventually fold out. I would like to get this thing moving on here. De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, I would like to move to continue the request for conditional use permit for the general auto repair and service by John Biss to November 10tH Smith: Second. MacCoy: All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. MacCoy: This will be tabled for the moment. There will be a public hearing on November 10tH, when we will reconvene on this subject. Good luck to you Mr. Biss. Borup: Mr. Biss was wondering if there was any way he could get those items in writing. Berg: Chairman, members of the commission, we can have the minutes done this week probably at least his section and he can have those draft copies of the minutes in writing. I can also type them out of what you have told me and put them in writing. If Shari has them written down so when he has a meeting with her, they will be in some kind of configuration of writing. Is that going to be sufficient? Okay, thanks. MERIDIAN PLANNING ~ ZONING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 8, 1998 PAGE 87 Nelson: I'm for proceeding as it is. We've already discussed the four parking stalls in the back plus two in the garage. He's got additional parking on the front road if there's no curb cuts. De Weerd: I don't think the pazking was in the garage. It's along side the gazage. Is that right? (Inaudible) De Weerd: In the garage? Borup: Part of the pazking is for the residents and pazts for the business so there's - Rueppel: There's six overall in the back. Borup: We got four for the business plus three on the street if neighbors azen't taking up those spots. Nelson: I do believe you do have two internal to the gazage. We're counting that. De Weerd: Okay. Nelson: So I'm comfortable with the second as discussed. Borup: Without any additional conditions? Nelson: No. MacCoy: All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. De Weerd: I can't wait to see the Findings. (Inaudible) ITEM 13: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR GENERAL AUTO REPAIR AND SERVICE BY JOHN BISS - ON MERIDIAN ROAD JUST NORTH OF MERIDIAN RENTAL. MacCoy: This business has been told to me by ACHD that they did not have the material forms yet. It is one of their concerns and it will not be available until our October 13th meeting. So I need a motion to change this. This is an open public hearing and there seems to be nobody in the house to say anything. MERIDIAN PLANNING ZONING COMMISSION MEETING • SEPTEMBER 8, 1998 PAGE 88 Borup: Mr. Chairman, I move we continue this public hearing on item number 13 to our October 13~' meeting. Nelson: Second. MacCoy: All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. Borup: Mr. Chairman you said ACHD just did not prepaze their report on this or they weren't prepazed to do anything on the street? MacCoy: No, they said they were very concerned about this piece and have it in committee and they said we came tonight to tell me to take it off the list because there will be no ACRD report until the technical get the thing done. Borup: I guess that surprises me with widening Meridian Road and you think and all that's already commercial along there, they should have planned for the whole thing going commercial. MacCoy: He didn't tell me what the problem was. I'm waiting for one more motion. De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, I would move to adjourn. Nelson: Second. MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 12:30 A.M. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.) APPROVED: MALCOLM MACCOY, CFLAIRMAN ATTEST: WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CITY CLERK MERIDIAN PLANN~ AND ZONING COMMISSION ME~ING OCTOBER 13, 1998 PAGE 18 MacCoy: I will ask the staff for comment. Stiles: Mr. Chairman, commissioners, the property was not noticed by the applicant, so we will have to re-notice and public next month. MacCoy: Thank you, commissioners? De Weerd: So it wasn't noticed so I imagine that no one is here to speak about it. Oh, okay. Stiles: The property was not posted. They need to put up a sign stating that the property is going to be under a public hearing so it can't proceed. Borup: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a motion that we continue this until our November 10~' meeting. De Weerd: Second. MacCoy: All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. Borup: Mr. Chairman, I've mentioned this in the past-again, maybe the workshop or something, this is the type of item that I think could be handled very fine on a staff bases, especially in old town. This is the third seating application that we've had in old town, I realize that it doesn't take a lot of time, but I question whether it needs a public hearing either. MacCoy: Well, we will discuss that come Thursday. Borup: Right, I just wanted to state that again. MacCoy: Alright, for the record, very good. Moving on to the next item. ITEM NO. 10: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR GENERAL AUTO REPAIR & SERVICE BY JOHN BISS -WEST OF MERIDIAN ROAD: MacCoy: Staff do you have anything to add to that? I didn't hear that is that for the record. Stiles: Would you like us to give a report on this application? You have copies of our comments, I won't go through every item. Some of them are standard comments. The subject property is located south of the Hope Arms Apartment and also where Lee Centers has built some apartments. It is immediately east of the Troutner Business Park. As part of the Troutner Business Park, there was a proposed roadway that would connect the subdivision to Meridian Road. They MERIDIAN PLANNI~ AND ZONING COMMISSION ML~ING OCTOBER 13, 1998 PAGE 19 have anon-development agreement, Troutner Business Park has anon- development agreement on that portion of the property and has not been required to make any improvements for that portion of the property was annexed with the same property that came in as the Troutner Business Park and is subject to the requirements within that annexation ordinance and those findings. One of the comments, one of the requirements of the annexation was that as Meridian Road is designated as an entrance corridor that a minimum 35 foot wide landscape setback be provided. Initially when the applicant had come in, I was comparing the property across the street and the requirements which was a preliminary, final plat that was continued, the Rick Thomas Wild Shamrock Partnership Plat is a directly across the street from this and I believe that they had either a 15 or a 20 foot wide landscape setback as a condition of that plat, however when I went back and reviewed the annexation ordinance and the findings, it did specifically state that Meridian Road would have a 35 landscape setback. Another issue would be that the existing easement that does extend to Meridian Road, there is some question as to who would be responsible for construction of that road. Ada County Highway District has made their comments and they are giving them a temporary access to Meridian Road for the John Biss property, however once the public road is extended, that access will need to be removed and they will actually access from the new extension of I believe it is Penwood. Another comment that we had, we would like you to review the materials of construction proposed for this site. (Inaudible) concern in the area from the property owners adjacent to this site and in the area that perhaps this is not what they expect that area to look like. The property is in it's general commercial zone and this type of service can be provided under the conditional use process in that zone. The last item that we had under 19 I don't have in my file evidence that the parcel was eligible for a one time split. There was a portion of property formerly owned by Mr. Fuller and seems to have some splits in there, but they would just need to provide verification that it is eligible for split without subdividing. Those were the major items that our (Inaudible). MacCoy: Does Bruce have anything? Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, the only item that I wanted to touch on as Shari mentioned the future Penwood street will be directly adjacent to the north of this parcel. With the new construction of re-construction of Meridian Road, sewer and water mains are being installed. There were. an eight inch sewer main stubbed into what will be Penwood, there was also an eight inch water main stubbed into what will be Penwood. Services for this proposed site will come from those main extensions. In looking at the plans, the question that comes to my mind is right of access across the set easement to those water mains, or water main, sewer main. That's a question that I still have that I would like to gef answered. MacCoy: Okay, is that it? Thank you. Since this is a public hearing is the applicant here this evening? MERIDIAN PLANNI~ AND ZONING COMMISSION M~ING OCTOBER 13, 1998 PAGE 20 Biss: Yes, I am. MacCoy: Step forward please and be sworn in. De Weerd: He needs to be sworn in. JOHN BISS, 1334 E. 1ST, MERIDIAN, ID. WAS SWORN IN BY ATTORNEY. Biss: Presently my shop is over by the post office here in town. I've completely outgrown the facility that I'm at now and purchased this property from Norm Fuller. My first step in trying to find a piece of property was actually going to Shari and asking where can I find a piece of property that is going to work in meridian without too many hassles trying to get it passed. This was one of the few that actually even showed up that was still available. I bought the property and I hope to put this shop on there and get back to working so. I'm open for any questions you guys got. Smith: Mr. Chairman this is a point of order here. On the cover page here it says location of the property or project, 1334 E. 1st Street, that's where I went to look and so I haven't (Inaudible) that's where his shop is now, not where this is. So, that needs to be corrected on here. Building materials I can't read on stuff we were given in the application what the building materials are. I can't read... Biss: Most of it is going to be a split block face. The roof is going to be an architectural styled-architect eighties is shingles. Smith: Asphalt? Biss: Asphalt. I personally looked at metal roofs and that's the only other choice that I'm going to have (Inaudible) opinion and I don't like the way they look, so. The buildings down off of-Meridian Plumbing is one of the buildings that I've looked at, I like the way it looks. It's got asphalt shingles on it. Smith: It looks like you have some banding going around, is that just different... Biss: Different colors of the stone I want to go with. Smith: So this will be painted or... Biss: No. Smith: It will be interval color block? Biss: Yeah. MERIDIAN PLANNI~ AND ZONING COMMISSION ML~ING OCTOBER 13, 1998 PAGE 21 Smith: It's different colors not different split face and smooth. Biss: No, I kind of like the idea, I've seen some of it where they have done split face and then they had some 8 X 8 smooth kind of in sync where it looks good. I'd like the option to play it up. I want something that looks good as well as you do. Smith: I think that kind of mutilization (sic) of masonry is good design (Inaudible) I'm not to whooped up about the asphalt shingles but... (Inaudible) Biss: To me the metal roofs look cheesy...(Inaudible) Smith: I guess that is a subjective thing there. I kind of feel the same way about the asphalt shingles. Biss: (Inaudible) looks plain, but the architect eighties look pretty good, so. Smith: Just a clarification Shari, we need a 30 foot landscape buffer on Meridian? Stiles: A condition of the annexation was a 35 foot landscape setback. Smith: We need a 35 foot landscape buffer on Meridian Road, we got 20 showing here now, so. Biss: My concern there is, am I going to be the only one on Meridian Road that is going to be required fora 35 foot setback? MacCoy: Shari? (Inaudible) Stiles: If the ordinance is not changed, the only way you can put that requirement on a development would be if it were a new annexation or if it were a conditional use permit where you can impose standards greater than are contained in the ordinance, but without (Inaudible). People come in with a permitted use, we'll be able to encourage them to provide the landscape setback, but we'll have no authority to actually require that. Smith: We could require it couldn't we? Borup: Not if they don't come here. De Weerd: I think City Council could. MERIDIAN PLANNI~ AND ZONING COMMISSION ML~ING OCTOBER 13, 1998 PAGE 22 Stiles: The ordinance would have to be changed to require that and designate the corridors where that would be required as part of the ordinance. De Weerd: So did that answer your question? Biss: I have no problem with it, as long as everything else is going to be made the same way. The only one sitting back that far, be kind of an unfair disadvantage. Smith: I agree. Comment on your signage, it seems like you've got a sign out, a freestanding sign out in front, there is two on the front of the building which basically say the same thing and then there is one on the end. Seems like you have twice as much signage as you really need. Biss: To me, it dresses up the building putting something on it, but (Inaudible) it doesn't, so. Smith: I hope they (Inaudible) your integration of your split face and center scored smooth block, I think that will make your building-that will help the aesthetics of it, believe me. (Inaudible) the signage to do that for you. Are these overhead doors, those have glass in them, or are you indicating different colors or... Biss: Glass and doors. The front doors will be glass most all the way up and down. The rear doors because the west side sun will probably be-I'll have one row of glass in, but the front of the building where it matters will be all glass. Smith: I have no other questions at this time. MacCoy: Commissioner Nelson? Nelson: I have no comments. MacCoy: Commissioner Borup? Borup: Yes, Mr. Biss did you have any other questions or comments on staff comments? Other than the 35 foot thing, you mentioned that. Biss: They have in there something about a two foot easement question. The property I bought, I bought no part of the easement. The easement, the 50 foot easement is still there and is not on my property so. The other, at one time I thought we had addressed the fact that the property hadn't been split since Norm Fuller bought it, so. I'm supposed to have-I'll have that information for Shari tomorrow. It was Friday when they give me that letter asking for that information. (Inaudible) kind of messed up getting all of it in here prior, so. What else is on there? Your (Inaudible) the sign ordinance as far as what goes on the street, MERIDIAN PLANN~ AND ZONING COMMISSION ML~ING OCTOBER 13, 1998 PAGE 23 nobody has actually told me what the sign ordinance is. Shari says you guys like to keep it to a 72 foot square feet, but the sign that I wanted to put up was identical to the sign that is on the new car wash on Fairview, but she says that sign is too big. Borup: That can be a problem sometimes when we are trying to make changes in ordinances and policies, it is hard to go backwards and correct those things that have already happened, so the only choice you have is to go forward from the starting point. I think that is part of the problem on the 35 foot buffer. All can be enforced on applications that come before us rather than-not much you can do about something that is in existence. I had some more questions for staff, but nothing else for Mr. Biss at this time. MacCoy: We will finish with Mr. Biss first. Commissioner De Weerd? De Weerd: I just had a question as far as how many service bays you have? Biss: Eight. De Weerd: Eight. Biss: Four from the front, four from the back. De Weerd: If you need to increase the frontage landscaping, you'll loose two parking spots. Biss: I'll have to move the building back, so. Smith: He will loose more than two. His stalls are only-no, that's right. Biss: I would leave the pavement base the same and move the whole thing backward. Oh, 35 you are right (Inaudible). De Weerd: Well, that's all I wanted to know. Smith: How would you circulate around the back of the building if you moved everything back? Biss: (Inaudible) Same way we are doing it now, the way it's on the plan is to just go around the side of the building. Smith: Right, but just seems kind of at 40-6-6-6 is 52-6 and your stalls are 20 feet deep? Biss: The building itself is 80 X 64. MERIDIAN PLANNI~ AND ZONING COMMISSION ML~ING OCTOBER 13, 1998 PAGE 24 Smith: Right, right. I'm just trying to figure out how much room you have (Inaudible). 52-6, that leaves you 32-6, so that's, I guess that's enough. Biss: (Inaudible) another 250 foot of unused property out the back. Borup: That you own? Biss: Yes. Borup: Okay, that's what I was going to ask. It looks like your planter extends beyond your parking lot in the back. Smith: (Inaudible) at the trash enclosure. Biss: The property sells for 530 feet deep so. Smith: So this just address the improved site area, not the unimproved. Biss: Correct. Borup: If you need additional parking places, spaces you-would be. Biss: I'm doing okay still. Borup: Not by my count. De Weerd: He can use the land in back. Borup: (Inaudible) He has room to expand if he needs it. What we were looking at is if you take a 35 foot buffer, on the present layout, you are going to loose four parking places unless you slide them down a bit. Biss: Just slide the whole project back that extra. Right now there is 20 feet figured, so an extra 15 feet and just move the whole project back 15 feet. Borup: Okay and you've got extra at that basis. Biss: The other thing is that the county bought about five feet off of it. At that point of time they made an agreement with me to provide access to my property in the middle of the front of my property. At the time the negotiator that they actually shipped out to talk to me said there was no way I could take access off the Penwood proposed street. So at that point of time I made plans to never be able to use that. That's what I set forth all my plans and building design. It took me a year to get this far with figuring out what I wanted to do. So I'm a little upset that they actually come back to me and told me that I'm going to loose my access when and if they ever develop a road. Because of that, I'll probably have MERIDIAN PLANNI~ AND ZONING COMMISSION ML~ING OCTOBER 13, 1998 PAGE 25 to push the building back another 30 feet so I actually will be able to use the driveway from the side. They actually put it in writing that they would provide access to the middle of my property. I only assumed that that meant I could use that driveway, so. The latest proposal they proposed to me was that they wouldn't ask to move my driveway until I did more development on my property. Borup: Are you saying that you are going to have move your building back? Biss: I'm going to have to do something different with the building if-I mean it's going to be real expensive to move the building later so. I've got to plan on a driveway coming from the side. Borup: That's what I was looking at at the end of your parking stalls on the north side, there is not enough room for an entrance at that point? Biss: No. Borup: Even with another 15 feet like you are proposing? Biss: It's still going to make it-you've got to be 50 foot off Meridian Road with your driveway coming in. My end bay there is the one I plan on using for the motor homes and stuff. I would really like to be able to pull a motor home in without having to move it around four or five times. MacCoy: Any other comments from the commissioners? Any other questions? Smith: Not at this time. De Weerd: Do we have anything from ACHD? Biss: I have the latest proposal that they just faxed to me. MacCoy: Shari do you have anything? Borup: Not in our packets. MacCoy: I don't have anything in mine. Biss: They said nothing would actually be official until like the 20th of this month so. Borup: (Inaudible) draft copy. Biss: Yes, they gave me a draft of it. Borup: They don't like to give us draft copies for some reason. MERIDIAN PLANN~ AND ZONING COMMISSION M~ING OCTOBER 13, 1998 PAGE 26 MacCoy: No, we've had problems with it. Okay, if everybody is satisfied right now for the moment. Mr. Biss you can sit down, thank you. Before I open to the public here, staff did you have anything else to make a comment wise? Borup: I have some questions for staff, but I'm going to wait till after the public testimony. MacCoy: Okay, until we've finished with public hearing, okay. Stiles: I guess the only comment that I would have, due to the fact that the entire property is a proposed for a development that the applicant be made aware that they should come back in for a conditional use permit for the remainder of the property and that they would not be allowed to use that area for parking of vehicles or storage equipment or materials until improvements are made. MacCoy: Mr. Biss did you hear what she had to say there? Biss: I heard it. So do I need to put that as... MacCoy: Do you want to come back here, so we can get you on the tape Biss: I guess we need to add the whole piece of property on to it? That was the original plan was to pave what was necessary and then gravel it and keep it nice, smooth and looking good and be able to occasionally park extra cars out there. MacCoy: It might be a smart decision one time through. Biss: Yeah, so, I mean if that's what I need to do, I didn't realize anybody would care what I did with the rest of it until I put a building on it. MacCoy: No, we do. Biss: I mean if I set it up so that I can park on gravel, it's going to look better than a field of weeds, I would think. MacCoy: True. Okay, thank you. We open this to a public hearing, does anybody have any comment, pro or con at this time? MIKE BALLANTYNE, 2690 N. MILLDEER WAY, MERIDIAN, ID. WAS SWORN IN BY THE ATTORNEY. Ballantyne: I represent Troutner Business Park which is Mr. Biss's neighbor to the west. Just have a couple of concerns that I'd like to discuss. Don't necessarily have a problem with the design of the building itself and the use and certainly don't have a problem with Mr. Biss. In fact, I understand from my MERIDIAN PLANN~ AND ZONING COMMISSION ML~ING OCTOBER 13, 1998 PAGE 27 neighbors that he's a darn good mechanic. We have some concerns related to some of the logistic. To clarify the easement. There is an easement through what was Norm Fullers property to the benefit of Troutner Business Park. That easement is the access that will be used for phase II of Troutner Business Park, which is a portion of the property that has been approved, but not developed under anon-development agreement with the city, which basically says we are not going to build it, and at such time that we do build it, we will have to meet certain criteria. Our concern is that ACRD on that easement requires that we build a certain portion of the street and that the neighbors to the north and south that will benefit from that street will also have to build a certain portion of that street. We will build, I think it's a 53 foot street section total including sidewalks and curbs and gutters. We would build 41 feet and the balance would be built by the neighbors. Obviously we have concern that development occur prior to that street going in and at such time, Mr. Biss be saddled with developing, you know, putting that in. There is some concern on that part. Our bigger concern is along the same line, and it's really not Mr. Biss's fault, it's more he is a victim of circumstance. Mr. Fuller who sold Mr. Biss the property had the easement described by his engineer. He then had the same engineer describe the parcel to the north and south that were split. They were one parcel and then split by the easement, which created a legal split. It's a very old easement and I believe this is the reason that Mr. Fuller didn't have to go through the subdivision process, design review and sign a development agreement and show CC & R's that they rest of our had to do, because this was an old enough split. The concern is, that his engineer when he did the legal description for Mr. Biss overlapped the description into the easement a couple of feet. So our easement which is a legally recorded document and a legal encumbrance on the property runs through a portion of Mr. Biss's property and therefore, his site plan would have to reflect that easement and reflect the agreements that have been made with the city and highway district to allow us through. I'm sure Mr. Biss didn't plan on buying property and not being able to utilize two feet of it. So there is some challenge there. Obviously Mr. Biss is concerned about access into his property and using that access at the time that Penwood is extended. We also have a concern that if that access stays the distance between Penwood and his access into the project is not what ACHD would determine to be adequate and there -could be a traffic situation there, quite a bit of problems there. Kind of a big overriding concern is really the entry way corridor issue. If you look at East 1St street as you come in off the freeway and you see the 35 foot landscaping buffer and the way that area has developed out. There were a couple of different developers, Mr. Hon and Mr. Nahas primarily on that east side, you get a sense what the potential for east 1St street is. To date we haven't seen that potential realized and we were very hopeful based on our efforts with what we were doing off of Franklin Road that the city would require that that type of potential be met. You have the ability to make Meridian Road look like east 1St Street rather than Fairview. We would encourage 35 foot setback. We feel that is fair especially considering the amount of excess ground that Mr. Biss has. We would like to see plans for the entire site to know what is going to happen. We are concerned MERIDIAN PLANN~ AND ZONING COMMISSION ML~ING OCTOBER 13, 1998 PAGE 28 that we have a 40 acre office park that backs to MR. Biss's property and we are talking about storing cars in the back, which would back up to our property and which would certainly effect our property value. We wouldn't oppose that if there was proper screening and that type of thing. Maybe with a fence that you couldn't see through. Anyway, there are some issues outstanding here that we think need to be addressed prior to approval of Mr. Biss's property if those are addressed to our satisfaction we would certainly support his application. I would be glad to answer any questions. MacCoy: Any questions? Borup: Mr. Ballantyne, well first let me ask, I'm still confused a little bit on the two foot overlap. It's your understanding that-well I understand what you are saying about it, on where the problem originated. Was the easement that was granted back whenever, did you understand it as a 53 foot easement for Penwood. Ballantyne: I think it's about 50 feet, the easement is Borup: Okay, that was one of my questions, which is normal street easement right at 50 feet. You had mentioned something about 53 earlier. Ballantyne: I don't remember the exact number, Shari might have it in the file. It was greater than the easement because of the fact that the road would also be a collector for the existing properties. So, the highway district would like to build the road to a larger standard than the existing easement. They would allow us to put the street through for our use. For the neighbors to use that street they would have to improve it to a higher standard. Borup: At this point, it was a 50 easement. It was surveyed at the time, the easement was originally created. Ballantyne: Right, by the same engineer that did the legal description. Borup: The second one. So which survey was the two foot mistake made on? Ballantyne: Well, that is a question for God I guess. My engineer thinks they are both slightly in error. The really amazing thing is that Meridian Road is on the principle in Meridian of the State of Idaho from the initial point which is south of Meridian it's about as easy to survey off of as any point in the State of Idaho. So the fact that the engineer went off of two different points rather than going off the same point and therefore making his survey match and the fact he didn't go back then and check and make sure all his legals matched was a concern. It's really not Mr. Biss's fault. We did call Mr. Fuller and did say, after he had sold the parcel to Mr. Biss and it became public record the legal description, we said hey, MERIDIAN PLANNI~ AND ZONING COMMISSION M~ING OCTOBER 13, 1998 PAGE 29 there is a problem here and he said it was Mr. Biss's problem. (Inaudible) problem unfortunately. It's our problem, we have a concern obviously. Borup: You had mentioned that you would be in support if your concerns were met you went through quite a number of things. Can you condense those down to specific items? Ballantyne: Well, lets see. We've got the landscaping setback, we've got the use of the entire site, we have the easement issue, the street section issue and by street section, the ACRD requirement that they were going to place on the property owners that would abut the street. Important to note, kind of on the side, one of the things that Mr. Biss eluded to is potentially that street may never be built. We have told the highway district they really don't want that street to go through. We don't necessarily see reason for it to go through Norm Fuller obviously doesn't want it to go through because it hurts, takes away some of the property that he can sell. The goal would be for Corporate Drive to extend through similar to the way it extends into Central Valley Corporate Park and that would become a main artery that all the development in that area would feed into. There is a number of different owners in that area and if that doesn't come to fruition within the time period that we would have to develop the second phase of our project we would go ahead and punch this street through. Borup: I think we've had that proposal before, I've seen it somewhere. Ballantyne: We would love for that to go through. We think that would be the best possible solution for everyone, but there is a lot of things that have to happen. We have to protect our interest that this easement isn't taken away from us, prior to that happening. Borup: But by the street section each neighbor paying for their share of the development. Ballantyne: Right, it's fairly minor I think. Borup: So it's, if you are doing 41 feet and then there is 50 total, there is another 9 feet divided by two? So 4'h feet? Ballantyne: Basically, approximately, but I don't have the exact numbers. (Inaudible) Borup: Okay, that was (Inaudible). Ballantyne: And the other concern just relates to those, is the fact that the highway district hasn't submitted their comments on his application and I think they are going to address a lot of those issues that they had concerns about. Thank you. MERIDIAN PLANN~ AND ZONING COMMISSION M~ING OCTOBER 13, 1998 PAGE 30 MacCoy: Any other questions? Okay, thanks Mike. Is there anyone else here who has anything to say to pro or con on this one? Come on up. ARTHUR BERRY, 1305 S. HAWAII, BOISE, ID. WAS SWORN BY THE ATTORNEY. Berry: My company, Arthur Berry and company and (Inaudible) Associates own the property immediately to the south of the subject property, was formerly referred to as the Johnson Property, 10 acres that abuts Corporate and intersection. I support Mr. Ballantyne's contentions concerning the property. We think there are major concerns over the access issue and the main entry point of Meridian. I'm not as conversant as Mr. Ballantyne concerning the technical issues. I've had discussions with Mr. Biss before about concern we have as the developing and neighboring property about cars and entry points and ACHD issues around Corporate Drive. We are the people who control whether Corporate Drive can extend back to the further area and we are trying to work with ACRD as much as possible and the neighbors to not have the clutter of the multiple access along the frontage and are having some difficulty with ACRD trying to get that accomplished. I don't have any objection with the nature of Mr. Biss's building or I'm not conversant enough with specifics of his plan, I simply don't think with the character of the whole neighborhood in general and this being the main entryway into Meridian that the use and the type of building that he intends to put on the site is consistent with the general commercial development in the area. I stand in front of you a little embarrassed in as much as Mr. Johnson's property is not the greatest property in the world if you look at it now. I know that Shari and some of us have had some issues over the years. We are in the process of trying to clean up the property and we've purchased other properly from Mr. Johnson, it's a slow process to move all that junk literally off the property. One of the concerns we have is wanting to expedite that to not carry on with the nature of the neighborhood the way it is. We think it is a very great piece of property that's the gateway not only to Meridian but also to Mr. Ballantyne's park and would encourage it to consider that in granting this conditional use permit. Borup: I have on for Mr. Berry. You say that your property, you are the one who would control Corporate Drive extending to the west and tying back into that property? Berry: Yes sir, we own the 10 acre rectangular piece. We have sold approximately %Z of acre of the frontage to ACHD both on the frontage street and on Corporate Lane proposed which they are presently using for a drainage area. We have yet to come to an agreement with the neighbors to the west as to the extent to which Corporate Drive will be extended and some other issues, but we are the owners of the property. MERIDIAN PLANN~ AND ZONING COMMISSION M~'ING OCTOBER 13, 1998 PAGE 31 Borup: Are you in agreement with ACHD's apparently their policy or their desires to have Corporate Drive extend to the west is that your desire also? Berry: Yes sir. Borup: So the problem is not through your property, it's through some of the adjoining neighbors. Berry: The only problem with our property is the front access that is being restricted on Corporate Drive and the fact that if Corporate Drive and Mr. Biss property have accesses along 1St Avenue, we think it'll become, there will be some clutter issues. Borup: Okay, thank you. MacCoy: Any other questions from any commissioners? Okay, thank you very much. Is there anyone else here this evening that would like to make a comment? We had a letter that was mailed to us. The person is Bob Nahas, I don't see him here this evening. Okay, I'll read his letter regarding this project. "I would like to voice my opposition to the above reference proposed auto repair facility on Meridian Road, I think this is incongruous with other types of business's that have now located in the area. At Central Valley Corporation Park we have declined even auto tube operations here." I don't think this has any bearing on this, I just read that for the record book. We have the actual document on our files. Is there anybody else that has anything else before I close the public hearing? Borup: I have some questions for staff, did I forget to mention that? MacCoy: Put staff on the line again. De Weerd: You had one other letter. MacCoy: I don't have it in mine, would you read that one? De Weerd: This is from Foad Roghani "This letter is to inform you that I believe the subject business does not fit into the general business structure of the area and application for conditional use of the subject property for alignment business should not be approved." He has signed it. Borup: The only question I have for that letter, I'm not sure what-his address is not anywhere near this property. He didn't state that he was a business owner. I guess you don't have to, but it would hold more credence if it was someone in the area. MacCoy: Are you going to talk to the staff now? MERIDIAN PLANN~ AND ZONING COMMISSION M~ING OCTOBER 13, 1998 PAGE 32 Borup: Question for Bruce and wasn't sure on your statement on-you had some concern about sewer and water access through the easement, through the Penwood Road easement to the sewer and water lines, is that what you stated? Freckleton: Yes Commissioner Borup, the easement is still technically owned by Fuller still. Mr. Biss would have to have some sort of easement for his service lines to cross that easement to the (Inaudible) Borup: (Inaudible) easement to cross an easement. That's where I was confused. I was assuming that if there was an easement-so at this point the easement is strictly for the road, not for utilities? Freckleton: I believe that is true, yes. The location of those service lines would be a bit awkward as well, those service-or those mainlines are just being stubbed barely off of Meridian Road to the right-of--way line. Those mains will be extended on in the future when the road is extended through. At this time, they terminate at the right-of--way line. So any services from that point snaking them through on up to the building would be a bit awkward, not impossible, but awkward. Borup: The other question that I had, I was still confused Shari on the lot split. Did you have concerns on whether the legality of it. Could you elaborate on that a little bit? Stiles: Commissioner Borup, commissioners, that-I didn't know if we discussed it previously ,the city does allow an one time split if it is in the same configuration as it was in 1984. I don't have verification in my files that the original parcel was in that same configuration in 1984 and has not been split besides this one. Borup: Okay, you are talking about the entire Fuller property. Would be the configuration. Stiles: Yes. Borup: Yeah, I believe that's how your comments (Inaudible) That's all I had Mr. Chairman. MacCoy: Since there is no one else, I guess you had something else to add to this. Biss: I had a question as far as the sewer goes... (END OF TAPE). MERIDIAN PLANNI~ AND ZONING COMMISSION MEL!ING OCTOBER 13, 1998 PAGE 33 Biss: property had water and sewer to it, I mean, I called and talked to somebody and they said water and sewer is an 8" main both of them break (Inaudible) my property and that's where I did it from. I guess I'm a little miffed if there is a problem with that why we didn't go ahead and stub it straight into my property instead of relying on pulling it off the big main. Freckleton: That was why I raised the question because I looked on the ACRD reconstruction plans to see if services were being brought in off of Meridian Road to your property or whether they were coming off Penwood. There were no indications on those plans that anything were coming off of Meridian. That's why I raised that concern. Biss: I called and they verified that's where I would get my water and sewer from. Nobody at any point in time, I said I couldn't figure out why we had 8" going into there, but that point in time they didn't tell me that it was main lines going in there. They assured me that's where I would get mine. I've got to be able to call and get the right information. I don't know what we can do... Freckleton: It is true they are 8" lines going in, but they are in the alignment with Penwood. Into that future roadway, not directly... Biss: Possible future roadway which may never ever be built. Freckleton: They are not directly into your property. Biss: Well actually, when I called they said that was where I would get mine from. Freckleton: Your service lines would go to those 8" mains. Biss: The other, Mr. Ballantyne raised the question about not being the same design as what else is going on. Still nothing else is going on, I've never seen nothing what he's proposing back there. I have talked to him in the past and he's expressed an interest in purchasing my property, he just never ever wanted to buy it, so. But you know as far as building design other buildings in town, this basic design is similar to construction to Meridian Plumbing, which is a Meridian Building, it's a good looking building in my opinion. The actual design of itself is a Meineke Muffler off the-just built off of Broadway, which I know Boise is really proud of Broadway going into town and they wouldn't let something ugly go into there and I think this building actually looks better than the one out there. Little bit more of the roof than what Bruce did with Meineke Muffler on Broadway, but as far as this easement thing goes, I got a piece of paper that says how big my piece of property is and says where that easement is supposed to be. It's supposed to be 20 feet off of Norm Fullers house that is on that property and 50 feet over from that is where my property starts. That was the agreement that Norm Fuller made with a (Inaudible) move that easement that's my knowledge. If MERIDIAN PLANN~ AND ZONING COMMISSION M~ING OCTOBER 13, 1998 PAGE 34 I remember right, that easement was actually not in the middle of that property but all the way to the side once upon a time. Once upon a time at least this is what Norm Fuller told me is that Troutner actually owned this property only he give it back. I think the best way to protect your investment is not to give it back, but continue owning it. I guess my question would be to Ballantyne, what is his idea of a good looking building, as far as an auto repair shop, we've got Les Shwab here in town, built just a simple plain Jane flat roofed building. I don't think it looks anywhere near as good as this one. Borup: I doubt that he gave it back, if that happened. Mr. Chairman, I have a few questions for Mr. Biss. MacCoy: Go ahead. Borup: Well, first of all, did you get a title policy when you bought the property? Biss: Yes I did. Borup: So if there is an easement problem, is that covered in your title policy as far as you understand? Biss: I don't know that for a fact. Borup: You may want to look at that. Are you familiar with the configuration prior to 1984? Is it your understanding that this was the same configuration of property? Biss: Norm Fuller what he actually did to, he actually never sold any property off to the property. He did do some modifications to it. For financing different parts of it. It was never ever left, no part of that ever left his hands. It was all kept in one piece, so. Borup: So you don't have a concern with verifying that aspect of the lots? Biss: No. Borup: Was it your understanding that you would be tying into the sewer mains that are in that easement? Was that your understanding where your sewer and water access was coming from? Biss: Yes, when Icalled Ididn't-I thought that wa$ just the standard way they did it. They just bring in one line to service to pieces of properly so. (Inaudible) Borup: Have you realized that you don't really have a legal access to that, apparently? Is that what you are saying? MERIDIAN PLANNI~ AND ZONING COMMISSION M~ING OCTOBER 13, 1998 PAGE 35 Biss: Norm Fuller says I've got full access to that easement. So-that's as far as having a piece of paper that says that, I don't know that I actually have that. I'm sure it can be obtained so. Borup: That's what I was going to ask. I would think if he didn't grant that, at least from my standpoint he may have a hard time getting anything else approved for that property. We have not received the ACHD comments, was there-and I guess we are going to need to see that. Was everything on the draft copy that you think is pertinent? Biss: Basically what they said was, at this point in time, they originally asked for a $7,500 dollar deposit, they have dropped that. They also stated that they would not pursue the relocation of it, unless I redevelop my property later, so. Borup: They didn't make mention of developing of Penwood? Biss: Yes they did. What they basically said was if Penwood ever gets developed and if I after that do more development to my property, at that point in time they would ask me to move my driveway then, so. Borup: I thought I had one other question. That's all Mr. Chairman. MacCoy: Is that it? Anybody anything for Mr. Biss? Borup: I'm sorry, this is back on the 35 foot easement. I think to be consistent, anything else that would develop north or south of you would have that same. Biss: I was just a little confused by the property just across the street to me is being developed now, or maybe going to be developed now. I'm not sure when it's going to be developed, it just seems puzzling to me that they are not doing the same thing there, so. Borup: The Wild Shamrock Piece? Biss: Where the Godfathers Pizza and the other Rockets is at, that's-it's my understanding that it's all owned by the same gentleman so. Borup: That hasn't made it here yet. Biss: When I originally approached Shari and I asked her about that in there and that's why the plans are drawn up the way it is, she was under the understanding that across the street they were going to do a 15-20 foot. I said well, 20 foot sounds normal to me. The other project that I know the NAPA here in town (Inaudible) store. I don't think she's got 15 foot on hers. As far as being consistent, we ought to be consistent. How are we going to make it all look right if it's all done in parts? MERIDIAN PLANNI~ AND ZONING COMMISSION ML~ING OCTOBER 13, 1998 PAGE 36 MacCoy: Mr. Smith you have something that you want to say? Smith: Not, just some comments on the application. It seems like to me we've kind of got some issues here that we need to get resolved before we can take any kind of action on this and one of them would be the easement issue. Second would be, as Commissioner Borup brought up, we need to get a copy of the ACHD report. The third thing is and this is something that we needed to start doing here the last few months is to have accurate, correct plats to forward on to City Council and this with needing to add the 35 foot landscape buffer onto that, shifting your building back... Biss: I tried to get all of that the first time. Smith: I know, it takes awhile sometimes. To address the ACHD concern about possibility of loosing your access onto Meridian Road and having to access off of Penwood, you need to address that with your side of your building as well. Like you say, you build it once and it's in the right place. In the future if your access changes, you can put that in 70 feet off of Meridian Road and it still works with getting in and out of your building. I do agree with some of the comments about clarifying how the rest of your site is going to be developed. I think that is an appropriate comment. You've already mentioned that there is a possibility that you may have to park additional vehicles back there depending on your work load and so forth. I don't know that we want to see vehicles driving back and forth on a gravel lot. I'm not familiar with the ordinance on that, but I don't agree with the comments. I don't think I heard any comments negative toward the architecture of the building. What I heard was the concern was how it fit in with the adjacent commercial uses and there a block away there is a Les Schwab, which is just an austere, across the street from that is the Meridian Speedway, behind Les Schwab (Inaudible) across the intersection of Meridian Road and I don't remember the name of the street, is one of the ugliest retail developments in the city. I have seen Mr. Johnson's property for 30 years and it looks the same as it did 30 years ago. As far as the area, I don't have any problem with it personally with this type of... I'm not familiar with the development to the west of this property, because I went to the wrong address. I'm not supposed to say that I went to the site, but I didn't go to this site. I'm familiar with this site because I've lived here for a long time. MacCoy: Okay Commissioner Smith. Smith: So that's all, I think we've got some things here that we need to get wrapped up and brought back. MacCoy: We've got to do this. MERIDIAN PLANNIi~AND ZONING COMMISSION ME~NG OCTOBER 13, 1998 PAGE 37 Biss: One of the comments was screening of parked cars. To ask me to screen parked cars at my place, I'd say we need to screen the parked cars at any grocery store, any office building. My business solely the shop is to fix cars. The cars aren't supposed to go out of the shop until they are fixed. That's the way we try to do it. The present facility we have now, we used to do it that way. We just got so busy that we can't do it that way no more. This shop right now is more than four times the size of the one we have now. I don't need to do anymore business to keep it busy, I just need to be able to do it all in one place without having to shuffle cars around. Borup: Mr. Biss, you are saying then that if you did need to use that area for parking cars, it would be cars that you are working on, cars owned by someone else, they wouldn't be excess. Biss: They would just be for parking, there is not going to be any cars torn apart outside,. no. Abandoned or tore apart, not a wrecking yard or nothing like that. Borup: I think that's where, at least in mind, that's where the concern was. Cars being parked there for months at a time, not being used, that type of thing. Biss: Idon't-that's not the type of business that I want to do. I mean, a trashy looking repair shop isn't what I want. If that was what I wanted, I certainly wouldn't want to put it on a main road in town. I wouldn't have to pay all this extra money to make it look good, if that was what I wanted so. I guess what we ought to do is probably come up with some idea what we are going to do with the whole piece of property. I guess I need to be able to ask the questions, can I gravel this back there? Someone give me the right answers, like I did ask the question how far the setbacks should be. I understand the confusion three was the property across the street going only 20 or 15 foot, but like I said, when we ask these questions, they need to be answered right, so we can give you stuff that is drawn up right. If 35 foot was what it had to be, I would've presented you one with 35 foot setback on it and we wouldn't... Borup: I think sometimes there are specific answers to questions that going by ordinance has to be in a certain way, to go different than that, you could certainly ask for a waiver. MacCoy: Mr. Biss, I want to suggest to you that you work with the staff on these items and come up with that finished product so we can look at it. Borup: If that's not quite right, I guess that's not quite right. If Ms. Stiles has something to say. Smith: Shari says it's written in stone, it needs to be 35 feet. Borup: No, I'm not talking about that. MERIDIAN PLANNI~ AND ZONING COMMISSION M~ING OCTOBER 13, 1998 PAGE 38 Stiles: Commissioners the city attorney has advised me that we are doing far too much work on these site plans as far as actually having designed them ourselves before the application submitted and that's not our charge. What Mr. Gigray has stated to me is to give them ampy-have them purchase a copy of the ordinance, have them research their conditions of their annexation and comply with those ordinances. That's what Mr. Gigray has stated to me. So we do get to the point where we on a case by case basis we are actually doing site plan design. We don't have the staff or time to do that. I guess for us to make sure that it totally complies with all conditions, there is no reason to go to you. There is no reason to have a public hearing, there is no reason to go through any of this process if you are requiring staff to get down to that level of detail just to accept an application. MacCoy: Well, I've got one comment with the city attorney, which we'll pick up later on, but I think some of our material is not as explicit as it should be for what we are trying to do. I don't believe that the applicant is knowledgeable many a time as to understand what we've written or have intended before and I think we ought to clean this up too. So there is a two way street in this situation I feel. Which will get done. Smith: I agree with that and I take issue with what the city attomey has told you as well. I think there might be a semantics problem here between the two of you as well, but I think a couple of things are easy, as Mr. Biss needs an answer on what the easement of the landscape buffer needs to be, he needs to know if he has to pave his back lot. The only other things besides what I've already stated, while you are going back through this process to kind of re-work your siding of your building and everything, take a look at your signage and I'd strongly suggest to eliminate some of it. I think it's excessive and really-I think it's overkill. It's just going to save you money, you don't have to spend by omitting a couple of them. Biss: Well most of the signs on the building is painted on. Smith: Right, I don't know that you need all of it. To me it takes away from the aesthetics of the building, the architecture when you start plastering big billboards on the side of it and I think the function of a sign is to identify who you are and what you do. To allow people who don't know where you are located to find you and I don't think you need four signs to do that. It's kind of you're advertising at your business. I don't think you need four signs to do that on a parcel this size. That's all I had to say. MacCoy: I will add my comments. I am in the same business as Commissioner Smith is and I agree with him 100% on that, I think that you can do less and actually get more for your buck out of a nice designed sign then trying to plaster the place like it's a service operation. So I think... MERIDIAN PLANNI~AND ZONING COMMISSION M~NG OCTOBER 13, 1998 PAGE 39 Biss: The two signs that I'd like to keep would be the one that is on the road and the one just above the door, the entry there. Smith: I think that would be plenty, I think that would tell folks who you are and what you do and get them there. MacCoy: Alright, at this point. Commissioners what is your preference here? We've got some work ahead of us. De Weerd: Did Mr. Biss understand the information that we need? Borup: I think it would be appropriate to reiterate. De Weerd:. We are waiting for the ACHD report and perhaps an answer to the access and also the section off of Penwood, the nine foot section. Design reflecting the 35 foot landscape and your plans for the entire property parcel and an answer to the easement issue. That's what I have. Biss: I didn't get his letter till this last Friday. They wanted this additional information on here. Try to get everything in. De Weerd: If we could get that, you know, I personally think that we need to continue this till November 10tH Borup: I do have a question on the statement on plans for the entire property, are we asking them to have a concept for the entire... I had the impression that he didn't know what he wanted to do with the entire property. That's the status I would have if I owned this. If Penwood goes through, he may have an opportunity to sell off a lot on the west end of his property for another business. Smith: It is my understanding that it would be appropriate that he show what he has planned because he plans not to leave it as weeds and also it is in writing that he also plans on some overflow parking. I went to his current address and based on the appearance of his shop and how well kept it was, I wouldn't expect to see-the types of vehicles parked over there, we are trying to avoid another unlicensed contractor sharing is what we are worried about. By the... Borup: Or a used car lot. Smith: Or a used car lot, yes. I don't expect to see that. Although if he plans on graveling that, that would be appropriate to put on the plan. I don't know whether that is allowed or not. Borup: You can take care of weeds without graveling a whole site. MERIDIAN PLANNI~ AND ZONING COMMISSION M~ING OCTOBER 13, 1998 PAGE 40 Smith: I think it would be appropriate to list that as either undeveloped or which part is graveled and then takes that question out when it goes to City Council. Well and then how that property if undeveloped would be maintained. De Weerd: If undeveloped would be maintained. Nelson: City Council is going to ask those questions anyway, might as well put it in print. Smith: I think the only thing that concerns me about the part of the project that was not included was just the overflow parking and like I said, I'm not familiar with the ordinance or whether it is supposed to be paved or graveled. That's something to get clarified with staff. MacCoy: I think ACRD may also answer that question for us. At least (Inaudible) Biss: The highway department only asks that the driveway be paved 35 feet. MacCoy: I'm saying that between our city ordinance, ACHD, etc. that will eventually fold out. I would like to get this thing moving on here. De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, I would like to move to continue the request for conditional use permit for the general auto repair and service by John Biss to November 10tH Smith: Second. MacCoy: All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. MacCoy: This will be tabled for the moment. There will be a public hearing on November 10tH, when we will reconvene on this subject. Good luck to you Mr. Biss. Borup: Mr. Biss was wondering if there was any way he could get those items in writing. Berg: Chairman, members of the commission, we can have the minutes done this week probably at least his section and he can have those draft copies of the minutes in writing. I can also type them out of what you have told me and put them in writing. If Shari has them written down so when he has a meeting with her, they will be in some kind of configuration of writing. Is that going to be sufficient? Okay, thanks. 11-~ i ~`l ~- ~ ~ ITEM NO. 3: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIt \~L, ~' PERMIT FOR GENERAL AUTO REPAIR AND SERVICE BY JOHN BISS - I MERIDIAN ROAD: MacCoy: Since it is a public hearing, staff? Stiles: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, I believe you have in your packets additional information that's been submitted by the applicant. He has submitted a revised site plan showing where he intends to have some additional parking in the back, has modified the plan to show the additional landscaping setback. I'm not aware of the outcome of the problems with the actual survey that's been done. I don't know if Bruce has any answers on that, but maybe Mr. Biss could address that as part of his testimony. MacCoy: All right I'll open the public hearing. It's a continued public hearing. But we'll open it for tonight. Is the applicant here to make any more statements before we move on to the public? JOHN BISS WAS SWORN BY THE ATTORNEY. Biss: Well hopefully we got everything we need to get it to go. She had a question about the survey. I talked to Glenn Bennett about that and he said that it was right. The only thing that from Balentyne the only concern he had was he thought the lines were a little off and there was one line that Mr. Glenn Bennett actually had marked as a north line and it was supposed to be marked as a south. That's actually been filed with the county and been correct. Just that Balentyne hadn't caught that. I just talked to Balentyne a while back and said he didn't have a problem with it no more. MacCoy: Anything else? Biss: I changed the landscaping for the 35 feet like they asked for, added some additional parking. One of my concerns was I thought I'd be able to use the rest of my property for additional parking later if I need to, but the way I understand it I can't so I just made the additional parking in the back so I won't need no additional parking out there. I took the signage off the side of the building. I just left it all in the front so hopefully we don't have no more hang ups so we can get going on this. MacCoy: Commissioners, do you have any questions for Mr. Biss? Borup: You took both signs off the building? Biss: No, the signage off the sides of the building. Borup: Yeah, both of them? I don't remember - I don't remember that we specifically said you needed to do that so that's all I was wondering. Biss: Somebody asked me - (Inaudible) • Borup: I just was wondering about that. MacCoy: He just commented on the aesthetics of the building which he thought to make it a more presentable building and it was just a suggestion. Borup: I think the other thing was waiting for was ACHD report and we've received that. De Weerd: Did you have any comments to ACHD's report and recommendations? Biss: The way I gathered it, they just granted a temporary approach until I redevelop the property and Pennwood whatever gets developed and nobody will guarantee Pennwood's going to be developed. So at this point in time I don't see a problem. De Weerd: When and if that is ever done how will you fill in the temporary entry and where would you put the entry off of Pennwood? Biss: Well I still have an argument there ACHD when that day does come with the fact that they've put in writing that they guarantee that approach and now they tell me they don't so I don't really have the time right now to completely argue that fact with them so if and when lever - I may never develop any more on that property so if and when I do then that will become a new concern, but to answer that question if we had to away with it, we just continue the landscaping on across to be a way to button that up. De Weerd: And you have configured this so if you get the entry off Pennwood you would have - Biss: It's pretty tight so if and when somebody's motor home comes in it will have to jockeyed into the shop to get it in the door. De Weerd: In the very back of your lot and the unimproved site area where you have your imagine a couple of trees, is that going to be sod or gravel? Biss: Around it, it's just going to be undeveloped property until I figure out what I'm going to do. Hopefully eventually later I'll be able to pave all that back there and at that point in time continue the landscaping atl the way back. The landscaping down the sides. De Weerd: Okay how much of that is still undeveloped? Biss: All of it. De Weerd: And how much is that? Biss: I'm using approximately half the depth of the property now. There's a -the property is 533 feet deep. • • De Weerd: For some reason I thought when we asked you to come back we wanted to know what would be done with that part. And I saw that you did extend it back somewhat. Biss: I added some parking back there. At that time I thought I could just gravel the whole thing and I could use it for additional parking but they tell me I can't gravel it or use it for additional parking so at that point in time I'm going to leave it like everything else is back there until we get moving along further so just keep the weeds down. I'd rather gravel it and use it for additional parking if I had to but they tell me I can't. Smith: Who told you that? Biss: The staff. I thought it would be easier to gravel it than it would be keep control of weeds. Nelson: It is my understanding what we wanted to do was just on this development - Biss: If things were to go the way I would like them to truly go I would like to move the tube shop back there with a couple stall carwash back there and pave the whole thing and landscape it but that's going to really depend on what they - I don't know what I'm going to do with that piece of property until they know what they are going to do with Pennwood. If Pennwood never goes through I'm going to do something completely different back there than if it does. What you do with that is going to completely depend on how you get back there. If Pennwood never goes through, then I'll probably eventually just pave the whole thing and just make it parking. If Pennwood goes through then I can do something else back there. Nelson: It is my understanding in my mind what we had wanted on your plan just to kind of notate that either nothing was either happening with that or - so there wouldn't be any question although I see you did extend the parking. Because before we showed nothing that you had planned on gravelling. This ungraveling is a new thing. Biss: Shari said we had to put in this conditional use permit that we weren't going to use this for anything if nothing was going to go back there so I am assuming that still holds. Borup: I think that's what it says. It says unimproved site so that's not even taken into consideration. De Weerd: I have nothing further. MacCoy: All right thank you. You can sit down. Biss: One thing it does sound like I'm going to be the only one on Meridiah Road with 35 feet of landscaping. I still think it's somewhat funny there. • . Rossman: Let me expound upon that a little bit as what I was indicating before just so you understand what the legal position is on that particular issue. Properties that are already within the city that were not recently annexed in with a development. When they come before the commission and the City Council what they request for preliminary and final platting of a subdivision. There are specific standards se# forth within the ordinance that they have to comply with and if they comply with those standards, approval of the particular application should be granted. There isn't really the flexibility in a subdivision ordinance or under Idaho law for the commission to impose an additional landscaping setback requirement on those properties. When an applicant comes in as they did with your property before you purchased it and asked for annexation of that particular piece of property, a development agreement can be imposed with that annexation that spells out what has to be done and apparently included with that development agreement was a 35 foot setback. Now the commission in this particular case can certainly recommend approval to the City Council that they approved the conditional use permit on your property. They could also impose should the P & Z Commission determine it necessary or appropriate in light of the fact that you are one of the few properties out there with that requirement that the City Council consider waiving that requirement. That's certainly an option. But that's up to the Planning and Zoning Commission. Any comments on that? You understand? Biss: I don't really have a problem with 35 foot setback. My biggest concern is that everything I've got is going to be pushed further back and I got no real problem with that if everybody else is pushed back it will look well, but if I'm the only one pushed back that far, I think it's going to look funny. Rossman: Well ideally all of them would be back that far. The problem is they can't impose that requirement on the other properties. So the only options are have yours and the other annexed properties be the only ones with that requirement or recommend that the City Council waive that requirement of your development agreement. Borup: I've got a question that Mr. Chairman probably for Shari. How much property did that effect'? You said it was when Troutner was annexed and this was part of that same annexation? And then the question beyond that is what would be the status of the properties to the south of this? Are they also waiting for annexation or are they in the same under the same stipulation? What would be the status there? Stiles: Chairman, Commissioners, Commissioner Borup, the Troutner Business Park included this as part of the annexation because they needed another access into the property, which they got through Norm Fuller and an existing 50 foot wide easement. As part of that they also had to annex Norm Fuller's property and that 35 foot requirement was put on Troutner along their full frontage on Franklin Road and was also put on this piece. As far as additional properties south of this there's one home I think it is just north of where the Transportation Department has their gravel pile. And that gravel pile that are not annexed. Everything from the freeway north to Cherry on Meridian Road has already been annexed. • • Borup: So what's the setback on those other properties already annexed? The 15 feet? I don't mean the setback. I mean the landscaping. Stiles: Most of the other property is already developed. Borup: To the south? Stiles: No, not to the south. Borup: What I'm getting at I think the same thing Mr. Biss was if that whole street is developed and he is the only one I think that's going to defeat what we're trying to accomplish there. There needs to be some consistency. Stiles: He has a legitimate argument. Borup: It may or may not be. That was my question if the properties on both sides are eventually going to develop and be the same then I think that can be a nice looking area along there. But if his truly is the only one and everything else is different then that's going to look out of place. So if that is the case then I would recommend that City Council that they waive that. But if that's not the case and is there a way for that to be determined before it goes to City Council and what the other properties could end up being or if that same restriction could be there. I we're talking one little lot here that is going to look out of place. Stiles: It would include the lot that Mr. Biss has purchased and the undeveloped property to the north. Borup: That would be it. Stiles: Pretty much, yeah. Smith: We can pass that recommendation on to city Council that they with the direction of staff to have that information available to City Council to as far as the landscape setbacks north and south of this property that they consider waiving the 35 foot landscape requirement based on that adjacent setbacks so that it's consistent with the adjacent properties. Rosman: Well of course we're going to have a public hearing at this level. There won't be a public at the City Council level. However there's nothing that would prevent staff from providing a report to City Council in accompanying the application as it goes on. Smith: Just as long as they have the information there so they can say yes or no. Rosman: You could move to recommend approval with consideration for an • . amendment for a amendment of the development agreement to require only a 15 foot landscaping setback. MacCoy: Or you could even put it to the point that they make the determination whatever that is. Rossman: Just ask that they consider it because they are going to make the final determination. It won't be made here. Borup: Mr. Biss if there was a reduction in the setback would you be open to maybe increasing some of the landscaping along there? Or is what we have -was that intended to be the landscaping plan or just a conceptual or? Biss: Yeah, I still have the original plan where I had 20 feet. I really thought when Shari said we needed 15 feet across the street, I figured I would go with 20 feet and play it safe. Borup: So you made - Biss: I'd go back to 20 feet pretty simple. Borup: Well I'm going back to what I said earlier. I think with some nice landscaping 15 feet or 20 feet can be nicer than 35 if it's done right. That's what I was wondering if you'd be open to maybe doing a little more landscaping if it was decreased back to - Biss: I'm sure I could. Borup: I guess that what (would - I would rather see that and then be consistent with the rest of the street and I guess we don't know what the rest of the street would be. Biss: I guess what I would really like to know is what Arthur Berry is truly going to do with his piece of property. (Inaudible) Borup: We don't know at this point. But some of us we may have an influence on some of that. Biss: I mean if he was going to do 35 feet, I wouldn't have no real problem, but if he's just going to be 15 foot. Like I said it just pushing my whole project back a little further and like I said real good chance it just looks funny. Rossman: For clarification was the Arthur Berry property was that annexed with the development agreement? Well it's going to be difficult if not impossible for the commission to impose such a requirement on them if there is no development agreement. If they just come in with requesting plat approval. • Borup: That's directly adjacent to yours to the south. That's what would make a difference in how it would look. De Weerd: Now does our ordinance state that it's a minimum of 15 feet or it's only 15 feet? Doesn't that give us some latitude? Stiles: What was the question? De Weerd: In our landscaping ordinance, is it a minimum of 15 feet or is it just 15 feet? Stiles: It's not even 15 feet in the ordinance. The 15 feet would be a minimum building setback requirement, however the 15 feet for the First Meridian Plaza came from their voluntary -that was what they volunteered to do when they came in with the site plan for the whole site before Godfathers, before Rockets came in there. They had a whole site plan for that whole site. That was what they proposed at that time was the 15 feet. If you wanted to actually go with the ordinance and what it would require, they could get by with four feet from the right-of--way. Smith: So we're asking for beyond minimum requirements. I mean you did it on Dakota. I think all of us are after just the consistency down the street. Borup: Something that is going to look nice. MacCoy: Just for comment Commissioner Borup and I sat on that with the Rockets and the Godfather thing. I remember the discussion we had on that and we went back and forth and finally agreed that 15 was a pretty good measure and bought that at that time and that kind of set the scale for that moment based on what Shari just said you know we decided we were going to decide on something. Are you ready to - De Weerd: Close the public hearing? MacCoy: No, not yet. It's still a continued public hearing, so if we're finished with Mr. Biss I'll ask him to return to his seat. Nelson: I just have one more. So we're discussing the possibility of sending this off with a reduced requirement. So basically what we've asked him to do at this point we just document his site as per the requirements of the development agreement; is that right? Stiles: And/or the annexation. Nelson: Okay. Stiles: The development agreement that was established for this may have only included the Troutner Business Park, but I believe the 35 foot landscape requirement was a condition of the annexation itself. Nelson: Okay so this documentation -the changes we asked him to make just brought it up to what those requirements were. Stiles: Yes. Nelson: Okay that makes sense to me. There for a minute I was thinking it required him to do a bunch of work and then ask him to put it back the way he had it. So it would be appropriate that we'd ask you to do these changes so when it went to City Council it was documented per the requirement. Does that make sense to you? MacCoy: Anything else Mr. Biss? Okay you can take your seat. Since this is a continued public hearing, is anybody in the public here who would like to speak for the project? If not anybody here willing to or wants to speak on the other side of the fence the con side? If not Commissioners, what's your choice? Borup: Move we close the public hearing. Smith: Second. MacCoy: All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. MacCoy: The public hearing is now closed. What is your desire now for the item? Smith: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion that we recommend approval of this conditional use permit with the consideration by City Council to -let me back up. I'd like to make a motion that we ask staff to prepare information on required landscape setbacks on the property south and north of Troutner Business Park and Mr: Biss's property and that we recommend approval to City Council of this project as deSic~ned with the consideration that they reduce the landscape requirement to 20 feet as stud. by Mr. Biss with additional landscaping beyond what the minimum is required if that i~. appropriate with adjacent setbacks of landscaping. De Weerd: I'll second that. MacCoy: All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. Meridian Planning ~ Zoning Commission November 10, 1998 Page 5 Smith: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a motion that we recommend approval of the preliminary and final plat for First Meridian Plaza to City Council. Nelson: Second. MacCoy: All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. ITEM N0.2: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR OUTSIDE SEATING BY TODD MASON D/B/A MOXIE JAVA -106 E. WILLIAMS: Stiles: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, once again -they did not post the property for the notice of the hearing. I finally get a hold of them and they have assured me they will be attending the December meeting. MacCoy: All right thank you. Commissioners, what's the next - Smith: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion we continue this public hearing until December 8 meeting. De Weerd: Second. MacCoy: All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. ITEM NO. 3: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR GENERAL AUTO REPAIR AND SERVICE BY JOHN BISS -WEST OF MERIDIAN ROAD: MacCoy: Since it is a public hearing, staff? Stiles: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, I believe you have in your packets additional information that's been submitted by the applicant. He has submitted a revised site plan showing where he intends to have some additional parking in the back, has modified the plan to show the additional landscaping setback. I'm not aware of the outcome of the problems with the actual survey that's been done. I don't know if Bruce has any answers on that, but maybe Mr. Biss could address that as part of his testimony. MacCoy: All right I'll open the public hearing. It's a continued public hearing. But we'll open it for tonight. Is the applicant here to make any more statements before we move i Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 10, 1998 Page 6 on to the public? JOHN BISS WAS SWORN BY THE ATTORNEY. Biss: Well hopefully we got everything we need to get it to go. She had a question about the survey. I talked to Glenn Bennett about that and he said that it was right. The only thing that from Balentyne the only concern he had was he thought the lines were a little off and there was one line that Mr. Glenn Bennett actually had marked as a north line and it was supposed to be marked as a south. That's actually been filed with the county and been correct. Just that Balentyne hadn't caught that. I just talked to Balentyne a while back and said he didn't have a problem with it no more. MacCoy: Anything else? Biss: I changed the landscaping for the 35 feet like they asked for, added some additional parking. One of my concerns was I thought I'd be able to use the rest of my property for additional parking later if I need to, but the way I understand it I can't so I just made the additional parking in the back so I won't need no additional parking out there. I took the signage off the side of the building. I just left it all in the front so hopefully we don't have no more hang ups so we can get going on this. MacCoy: Commissioners, do you have any questions for Mr. Biss? Borup: You took both signs off the building? Biss: No, the signage off the sides of the building. Borup: Yeah, both of them? I don't remember - I don't remember that we specifically said you needed to do that so that's all I was wondering. Biss: Somebody asked me - (Inaudible) Borup: I just was wondering about that. MacCoy: He just commented on the aesthetics of the building which he thought to make it a more presentable building and it was just a suggestion. Borup: I think the other thing was waiting for was ACHD report and we've received that. De Weerd: Did you have any comments to ACHD's report and recommendations? Biss: The way I gathered it, they just granted a temporary approach until I redevelop the property and Pennwood whatever gets developed and nobody will guarantee Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 10, 1998 Page 7 Pennwood's going to be developed. So at this point in time I don't see a problem. De Weerd: When and if that is ever done how will you fill in the temporary entry and where would you put the entry off of Pennwood? Biss: Well I still have an argument there ACHD when that day does come with the fact that they've put in writing that they guarantee that approach and now they tell me they don't so I don't really have the time right now to completely argue that fact with them so if and when lever - I may never develop any more on that property so if and when I do then that will become a new concern, but to answer that question if we had to away with it, we just continue the landscaping on across to be a way to button that up. De Weerd: And you have configured this so if you get the entry off Pennwood you would have - .Biss: It's pretty tight so if and when somebody's motor home comes in it will have to jockeyed into the shop to get it in the door. De Weerd: In the very back of your lot and the unimproved site area where you have your imagine a couple of trees, is that going to be sod or gravel? Biss: Around it, it's just going to be undeveloped property until I figure out what I'm going to do. Hopefully eventually later I'll be able to pave all that back there and at that point in time continue the landscaping all the way back. The landscaping down the sides. De Weerd: Okay how much of that is still undeveloped? Biss: All of it. De Weerd: And how much is that? Biss: I'm using approximately half the depth of the property now. There's a -the property is 533 feet deep. De Weerd: For some reason I thought when we asked you to come back we wanted to know what would be done with that part. And I saw that you did extend it back somewhat. Biss: I added some parking back there. At that time I thought I could just gravel the whole thing and I could use it for additional parking but they tell me I can't gravel it or use it for additional parking so at that point in time I'm going to leave it like everything else is back there until we get moving along further so just keep the weeds down. I'd Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 10, 1998 Page 8 rather gravel it and use it for additional parking if I had to but they tell me I can't. Smith: Who told you that? Biss: The staff. I thought it would be easier to gravel it than it would be keep control of weeds. Nelson: It is my understanding what we wanted to do was just on this development - Biss: If things were to go the way I would like them to truly go I would like to move the tube shop back there with a couple stall car wash back there and pave the whole thing and landscape it but that's going to really depend on what they - I don't know what I'm going to do with that piece of property until they know what they are going to do with Pennwood. If Pennwood never goes through I'm going to do something completely different back there than if it does. What you do with that is going to completely depend on how you get back there. If Pennwood never goes through, then I'll probably eventually just pave the whole thing and just make it parking. If Pennwood goes through then I can do something else back there. Nelson: It is my understanding in my mind what we had wanted on your plan just to kind of notate that either nothing was either happening with that or - so there wouldn't be any question although I see you did extend the parking. Because before we showed nothing that you had planned on gravelling. This ungraveling is a new thing. Biss: Shari said we had to put in this conditional use permit that we weren't going to use this for anything if nothing was going to go back there so I am assuming that still holds. Borup: I think that's what it says. It says unimproved site so that's not even taken into consideration. De Weerd: I have nothing further. MacCoy: All right thank you. You can sit down. Biss: One thing it does sound like I'm going to be the only one on Meridian Road with 35 feet of landscaping. I still think it's somewhat funny there. Rossman: Let me expound upon that a little bit as what I was indicating before just so you understand what the legal position is on that particular issue. Properties that are already within the city that were not recently annexed in with a development. When they come before the commission and the City Council what they request for preliminary and final platting of a subdivision. There are specific standards set forth within the • • Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 10, 1998 Page 9 ordinance that they have to comply with and if they comply with those standards, approval of the particular application should be granted. There isn't really the flexibility in a subdivision ordinance or under Idaho law for the commission to impose an additional landscaping setback requirement on those properties. When an applicant comes in as they did with your property before you purchased it and asked for annexation of that particular piece of property, a development agreement can be imposed with that annexation that spells out what has to be done and apparently included with that development agreement was a 35 foot setback. Now the commission in this particular case can certainly recommend approval to the City Council that they approved the conditional use permit on your property. They could also impose should the P & Z Commission determine it necessary or appropriate in light of the fact that you are one of the few properties out there with that requirement that the City Council consider waiving that requirement. That's certainly an option. But that's up to the Planning and Zoning Commission. Any comments on that? You understand? Biss: I don't really have a problem with 35 foot setback. My biggest concern is that everything I've got is going to be pushed further back and I got no real problem with that if everybody else is pushed back it will look well, but if I'm the only one pushed back that far, I think it's going to look funny. Rossman: Well ideally all of them would be back that far. The problem is they can't impose that requirement on the other properties. So the only options are have yours and the other annexed properties be the only ones with that requirement or recommend that the City Council waive that requirement of your development agreement. Borup: I've got a question that Mr. Chairman probably for Shari. How much property did that effect? You said it was when Troutner was annexed and this was part of that same annexation? And then the question beyond that is what would be the status of the properties to the south of this? Are they also waiting for annexation or are they in the same under the same stipulation? What would be the status there? Stiles: Chairman, Commissioners, Commissioner Borup, the Troutner Business Park included this as part of the annexation because they needed another access into the property, which they got through Norm Fuller and an existing 50 foot wide easement. As part of that they also had to annex Norm Fuller's property and that 35 foot requirement was put on Troutner along their full frontage on Franklin Road and was also put on this piece. As far as additional properties. south of this there's one home I think it is just north of where the Transportation Department has their gravel pile. And that gravel pile that are not annexed. Everything from the freeway north to Cherry on Meridian Road has already been annexed. Borup: So what's the setback on those other properties already annexed? The 15 feet? I don't mean the setback. I mean the landscaping. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 10, 1998 Page 10 Stiles: Most of the other property is already developed. Borup: To the south? Stiles: No, not to the south. Borup: What I'm getting at I think the same thing Mr. Biss was if that whole street is developed and he is the only one I think that's going to defeat what we're trying to accomplish there. There needs to be some consistency. Stiles: He has a legitimate argument. Borup: It may or may not be. That was my question if the properties on both sides are eventually going to develop and be the same then I think that can be a nice looking area along there. But if his truly is the only one and everything else is different then that's going to look out of place. So if that is the case then I would recommend that City Council that they waive that. But if that's not the case and is there a way for that to be determined before it goes to City Council and what the other properties could end up being or if that same restriction could be there. I we're talking one little lot here that is going to look out of place. Stiles: It would include the lot that Mr. Biss has purchased and the undeveloped property to the north. Borup: That would be it. Stiles: Pretty much, yeah. Smith: We can pass that recommendation on to city Council that they with the direction of staff to have that information available to City Council to as far as the landscape setbacks north and south of this property that they consider waiving the 35 foot landscape requirement based on that adjacent setbacks so that it's consistent with the adjacent properties. Rossman: Well of course we're going to have a public hearing at this level. There won't be a public at the City Council level. However there's nothing that would prevent staff from providing a report to City Council in accompanying the application as it goes on. Smith: Just as long as they have the information there so they can say yes or no. Rossman: You could move to recommend approval with consideration for an u Meridian City Council January 5, 1999 Page 29 • Corrie: Mr. Clerk would you read Ordinance #812 title only? Berg: Thank you Mr. Mayor. (ORDINANCE #812 WAS READ TITLE ONLY) Corrie: Okay that concludes the first reading of Ordinance #812. The second reading to be January 19th, 99. Before we start on the public hearings, I'll entertain a motion to have a ten minute recess. Bentley: So moved. Bird: Second. Corrie: Motion made and second. All those in favor say aye. MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. (TEN MINUTE RECESS TAKEN) 18. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR GENERAL AUTO REPAIR & SERVICE BY JOHN BISS -WEST OF MERIDIAN ROAD: Corrie: I'll open the public hearing and at this time I'll have staff give a report. Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council you requested that this be placed back up for a public hearing because of some of the issues that remained with the extension of Pinwood Street. The (inaudible) of the entire parcel of property that was not shown on the conditional use permit and Mr. Biss is here tonight to answer any questions you may have. Corrie: Since this is a public hearing, I invite the applicant's representative to speak. Name and address please. Biss: It's John Biss, current place of business is 1334 E. First Street, Meridian. Corrie: Okay anything you want to tell us about your request? Biss: Just answer your questions you got. Corrie: Council, questions of Biss? Rountree: Mr. Mayor, Mr. Biss and Shari as well, I think one of the biggest issues we had was the landscaping and the setback or buffer strip if you will on that particular • Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 10, 1998 Page 10 Stiles: Most of the other property is already developed. Borup: To the south? Stiles: No, not to the south. • Borup: What I'm getting at I think the same thing Mr. Biss was if that whole street is developed and he is the only one I think that's going to defeat what we're trying to accomplish there. There needs to be some consistency. Stiles: He has a legitimate argument. Borup: It may or may not be. That was my question if the properties on both sides are eventually going to develop and be the same then I think that can be a nice looking area along there. But if his truly is the only one and everything else is different then that's going to look out of place. So if that is the case then I would recommend that City Council that they waive that. But if that's not the case and is there a way for that to be determined before it goes to City Council and what the other properties could end up being or if that same restriction could be there. I we're talking one little lot here that is going to look out of place. Stiles: It would include the lot that Mr. Biss has purchased and the undeveloped property to the north. Borup: That would be it. Stiles: Pretty much, yeah. Smith: We can pass that recommendation on to city Council that they with the direction of staff to have that information available to City Council to as far as the landscape setbacks north and south of this property that they consider waiving the 35 foot landscape requirement based on that adjacent setbacks so that it's consistent with the adjacent properties. Rossman: Well of course we're going to have a public hearing at this level. There won't be a public at the City Council level. However there's nothing that would prevent staff from providing a report to City Council in accompanying the application as it goes on. Smith: Just as long as they have the information there so they can say yes or no. Rossman: You could move to recommend approval with consideration for an Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 10, 1998 Page 11 amendment for a amendment of the development agreement to require only a 15 foot landscaping setback. MacCoy: Or you could even put it to the point that they make the determination whatever that is. Rossman: Just ask that they consider it because they are going to make the final determination. It won't be made here. Borup: Mr. Biss if there was a reduction in the setback would you be open to maybe increasing some of the landscaping along there? Or is what we have -was that intended to be the landscaping plan or just a conceptual or? Biss: Yeah, I still have the original plan where I had 20 feet. I really thought when Shari said we needed 15 feet across the street, I figured I would go with 20 feet and play it safe. Borup: So you made - Biss: I'd go back to 20 feet pretty simple. Borup: Well I'm going back to what I said earlier. I think with some nice landscaping 15 feet or 20 feet can be nicer than 35 if it's done right. That's what I was wondering if you'd be open to maybe doing a little more landscaping if it was decreased back to - Biss: I'm sure I could. Borup: I guess that what I would - I would rather see that and then be consistent with the rest of the street and I guess we don't know what the rest of the street would be. Biss: I guess what I would really like to know is what Arthur Berry is truly going to do with his piece of property. (Inaudible) Borup: We don't know at this point. But some of us we may have an influence on some of that. Biss: I mean if he was going to do 35 feet, I wouldn't have no real problem, but if he's just going to be 15 foot. Like I said it just pushing my whole project back a little further and like I said real good chance it just looks funny. Rossman: For clarification was the Arthur Berry property was that annexed with the ~ i Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 10, 1998 Page 12 development agreement? Well it's going to be difficult if not impossible for the commission to impose such a requirement on them if there is no development agreement. If they just come in with requesting plat approval. Borup: That's directly adjacent to yours to the south. That's what would make a difference in how it would look. De Weerd: Now does our ordinance state that it's a minimum of 15 feet or it's only 15 feet? Doesn't that give us some latitude? Stiles: What was the question? De Weerd: In our landscaping ordinance, is it a minimum of 15 feet or is it just 15 feet? Stiles: It's not even 15 feet in the ordinance. The 15 feet would be a minimum building setback requirement, however the 15 feet for the First Meridian Plaza came from their voluntary -that was what they volunteered to do when they came in with the site plan for the whole site before Godfathers, before Rockets came in there. They had a whole site plan for that whole site. That was what they proposed at that time was the 15 feet. If you wanted to actually go with the ordinance and what it would require, they could get by with four feet from the right-of--way. Smith: So we're asking for beyond minimum requirements. I mean you did it on Dakota. I think all of us are after just the consistency down the street. Borup: Something that is going to look nice. MacCoy: Just for comment Commissioner Borup and I sat on that with the Rockets and the Godfather thing. I remember the discussion we had on that and we went back and forth and finally agreed that 15 was a pretty good measure and bought that at that time and that kind of set the scale for that moment based on what Shari just said you know we decided we were going to decide on something. Are you ready to - De Weerd: Close the public hearing? MacCoy: No, not yet. It's still a continued public hearing, so if we're finished with Mr. Biss I'll ask him to return to his seat. Nelson: I just have one more. So we're discussing the possibility of sending this off with a reduced requirement. So basically what we've asked him to do at this point we just document his site as per the requirements of the development agreement; is that right? Meridian Planning 8~ Zoning Commission November 10, 1998 Page 13 Stiles: And/or the annexation. Nelson: Okay. Stiles: The development agreement that was established for this may have only included the Troutner Business Park, but I believe the 35 foot landscape requirement was a condition of the annexation itself. Nelson: Okay so this documentation -the changes we asked him to make just brought it up to what those requirements were. Stiles: Yes. Nelson: Okay that makes sense to me. There for a minute I was thinking it required him to do a bunch of work and then ask him to put it back the way he had it. So it would be appropriate that we'd ask you to do these changes so when it went to City Council it was documented per the requirement. Does that make sense to you? MacCoy: Anything else Mr. Biss? Okay you can take your seat. Since this is a continued public hearing, is anybody in the public here who would like to speak for the project? If not anybody here willing to or wants to speak on the other side of the fence the con side? If not Commissioners, what's your choice? Borup: Move we close the public hearing. Smith: Second. MacCoy: All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. MacCoy: The public hearing is now closed. What is your desire now for the item? Smith: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion that we recommend approval of this conditional use permit with the consideration by City Council to -let me back up. I'd like to make a motion that we ask staff to prepare information on required landscape setbacks on the property south and north of Troutner Business Park and Mr. Biss's property and that we recommend approval to City Council of this project as designed with the consideration that they reduce the landscape requirement to 20 feet as stated by Mr. Biss with additional landscaping beyond what the minimum is required if that is appropriate with adjacent setbacks of landscaping. De Weerd: I'll second that. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 10, 1998 Page 14 MacCoy: All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. ITEM 4: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF 2.84 ACRES FOR PROPOSED OLIASON PARK SUBDIVISION BY TONY HICKEY -EAST OF 603 E. PINE: MacCoy: Staff. Borup: This is just findings. MacCoy: That's right. After I said that I thought that. Commission what's your desire on this? You've all read the material. De Weerd: Mr. Chairman I would like to move the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts and approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. Borup: Second. MacCoy: Okay I am going to have a roll call on this I think. ROLL CALL: Borup, aye. Smith, aye. De Weerd, aye. Nelson, aye. MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. De Weerd: Mr. Chairman the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council of the City of Meridian that they approve the annexation and zoning as set forth with these Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law as requested by the applicant for the property described in the application with the conditions set forth within these Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and any other conditions required by the Meridian City Council. Smith: Second. MacCoy: All right. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. ITEM NO. 5: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT. PROPOSED OLIASON PARK SUBDIVISION BY TONY HICKEY -EAST OF 603 E. PINE: Meridian City Cour~ November 17, 1598 Page 33 testimony that was received at the Planning and Zoning Commission public hearing. Bentley: Second. Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Rountree second by Mr. Bentley to direct the attorney to draw up the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law to reflect the meeting of the Planning and Zoning and reflect the decision of the Planning and Zoning. Any further discussion on the motion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say aye. MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. ITEM NO. 9: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR GENERAL AUTO REPAIR & SERVICE BY JOHN BISS - WEST OF MERIDIAN ROAD: Corrie: I believe Council the reading this conditional use permit -Shari would you like to fill us in on this conditional use permit please. Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council this property was annexed with the Troutner Business Park because of the 50 foot easement that existed to Meridian Road that would go to the Troutner Business Park. The property was formerly owned by Norm Fuller, and he has sold off a parcel of ground to Mr. John Biss. One of the requirements of the annexation was that they enter into a development agreement and that they provide a minimum 35 foot landscape setback on Meridian Road. Mr. Biss is not particularly against providing that, but he is a little concerned that he'll be one of the few properties on that road that will be providing a 35 foot landscape setback, because everything else is already annexed. Across the street would be where Rick Thomas has his First Meridian Plaza. That's where Rockets Restaurant and Godfather's Pizza and Blimpie's are currently. I believe he is proposing as part of that plat, a 15 foot setback, so that was the only thing that Mr. Biss took issue with. We did have some letters from some of the developers in the City that have a problem with this particular use on the property. We did -the Planning and Zoning Commission did request that Mr. Biss come back with a more detailed site plan. He was showing a significant portion of the property as being undeveloped, and when asked at the Planning and Zoning Commission what he planned to do with that, he said well I'll just gravel it and park cars there. So we did ask that he come back with a detailed plan that if he was planning on having cars parked back there, that it would be paved and landscaped in accordance with the ordinance. There's also the issue of the easement that goes from Meridian Road bade to the Troutner Business Park. Ada County Highway District had initially required that approximately $7500 be deposited i7to an account to get rid of the driveway a temporary driveway on Meridian Road and that when Pennwood was extended through the Troutner Business Park that he would take access off that Pennwood future road Meridian City Coun~ November 17, 1998 Page 34 extension. I believe they took out the requirement for the $7500. But it is still a temporary driveway on Meridian Road and at the time that Pennwood was developed they would need to change their access. Other than that I believe you have you should elevations of the building. He has agreed to reduce some of his signage as requested by Planning and Zoning. Gary may have an issue about the utilities. The utilities are apparently in Meridian Road and have been stubbed into the easement area, but I don't know what the plan is for extension of those. If they would go down the future Pennwood Street or down Meridian Road. And so that really hasn't been figured out who would pay for those. Even the construction of that portion of Pennwood Street, I know that Mike Balentyne of Troutner Business Park is not interested in paying the full cost for extending that street when the two properties closest to Meridian Road are going to be the ones that are benefiting from the most. That was kind of an issue with him. Bird: I got a question Shari. Planning and Zoning passed this with -you're stating a whole bunch of conditions. Their #hing is just strictly pass to us with the setbacks and the landscaping is the only requirement. Stiles: I don't know that we made specific conditions as far as extension of the sewer and water and it is a problem. I don't know how it's going to be resolved as to who will pay for those things, but - Bird: Well that's something that we need to know now is what the staff feel about those conditions. They need to be part of this conditional use permit or at least I do. Stiles: I think part of the roadway issue that really has to do with Ada County Highway District and what their requirements are. I'd love to make it a requirement that they pay their proportionate share of extending curb, gutter, sidewalk and construction of the roadway through there, but I don't know if we can do that. Bird: Then I got a question for Mr. Gigray. To do this to change these conditions that don't coincide with what the Planning and Zoning Commission passed, you have to have another public hearing. Do you not? Gigray: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, Councilman Bird to answer your question, I don't know that you would to necessarily have a public hearing in order to do that, but I would say that if you were going to impose conditions as a condition of granting the use, that you will have to meticulously go through this record to determine what is appropriate conditions to be imposed or not imposed based on your assessment of the requirements of the ordinance as it relates to establishing those conditions. It sounds somewhat complex to me in listening to I think a good report by the Planning and Zoning Director and there may be some issues that you may want to at least hear what the applicant's position is and Meridian City Counci'~` November 17, 1998 Page 35 what the merits of that position are and if you are not in a position to make that decision based upon reading the record that's before you alone, I do think you have the authority under the ordinance and inherently have the authority because you are the, governing body of the City to set it for a public hearing before you make a decision to allow additional testimony. Bird: Thank you Mr. Gigray. Bentley: I have one follow up question for Shari. On this temporary entrance on south Meridian Road, is it my understanding that when Pennwood goes in that he would revert to Pennwood. Would he then take and complete the landscaping across the temporary entrance? Stiles: That wasn't specified as part of the conditions. Bentley: Say was or wasn't? Stiles: That was not a definite condition. Bentley: Well then how would we - Stiles: Chairman MacCoy indicated that he did state that he would be willing to do that. Bentley: My question would be if he didn't do that, how would you stop it from being an entrance? Stiles: Mr. Snead has the answer. Gigray: Mr. Mayor, point of procedure for the Mayor and Council. I think what we're getting into is a public hearing. I think in my opinion there's a lot of merit to having one, but I think if you are going to do it you need to advertise it and you have to give notice to affected property owners so they have an opportunity to address the questions as well if you are going to open it up. If you don't open it up and you decide on the record alone. Bentley: Mr. Mayor my feeling would be that this does need to go for a public hearing. We've got a lot of issues that are unanswered and both in the P & Z side. Public Works side and I have some questions too that I feel it should go before public hearing. Corrie: Any other comment from Council? Bird: I have none Mayor. Meridian City Counc~ November 17, 1998 Page 36 Rountree: Just a direction to Shari in looking into this I don't know the date of this plat that I have in front of me that shows that area as N & D, Inc. ownership for the entire parcel and this particular lot appears to be split out of that entire ownership that goes across and includes the easement and that portion of that lot to the north. Has this been re-subdivided? Have they taken advantage of a one time split action and doesn't that have to be recognized by the city in order to do that? And I guess my last comment is that it seems be a bit too convenient to avoid the putting of a road through there into Troutner Sub. So yeah I agree. It ought to go back to hearing. That's I think something that you need to if you haven't already thought of be thinking about and when you are talking to be applicant. Stiles: We did request that they provide a warrant deed showing that they were eligible for a one time split. The city doesn't have an ordinance that allows a one time split, but we do follow the same procedure that Ada County as far as allowing that if it's in the same configuration as it was in April of 1984. Rountree: That's our option though. Stiles: Yes. I think staff would feel much more comfortable with this going back through a public hearing too because we have a lot of unanswered questions as well. Bentley: Mr. Mayor I'm not quite sure the wording on this, but I would move that we remand the request of John Biss for conditional use permit for general auto repair service to be remanded back to set up for a public hearing. Bird: Which body, the City Council? Bentley: The City Council. Bird: I'll second that. Corrie: Motion by Mr. Bentley second by Mr. Bird the request for conditional use permit for general auto repair service by John Biss be given a new public hearing by the City Council. And do we need a date certain on that? Bird: Yes, we do. Corrie: We need a date certain by - Bird: How long do we need? Gigray: You're going to have to give the 15 days notice. Meridian City Coun~ November 17, 1998 Page 37 Bird: So it would be the second meeting in December. Corrie: The 15~' of December? That's the second meeting. Rountree: Can't get the - Stiles: We have a whole lot of public hearings that night. Berg: The 15~' is very full. Corrie: You better make it January. You got a full agenda the 15~'? I think I heard we did. A lot of public hearings, okay when is the next meeting in January then? January the 5~'. To January the 5"', 1999 for a public hearing. Any further discussion on the motion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say aye. MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. Corrie: City Clerk if you will notice the public hearing for the conditional use permit for January 5, 1999. ITEM NO. 10: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT FOR PROPOSED FIRST MERIDIAN PLAZA BY WILD SHAMROCK PARTNERSHIP -SOUTH OF GEM AVENUE BETWEEN MERIDIAN ROAD AND E. 1sT: Corrie: Shari. Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council this is the - it was submitted as a preliminary and final plat. That's why it's come to you without a public hearing. This is the property that is directly across the street from the proposed John Biss project. It was held up a little bit at P & Z because some items were missing from the plat as well as we didn't have any covenants submitted. You'll notice in your packets that you do have I hope that you do have covenants. They're very sparse and don't really put any kind of restrictions on the development as far as what kind of construction or anything like that. I don't know if that is something that you want to think about. Mr. Thomas had proposed this development a long time ago back when he was working on the Godfather's and Blimpies. He does want to-sell off these individual lots now. That's the reason for the plat. The canal has been fully piped. I don't know what kind of sewer and water issues are with this project, but -sewer and water is already in to serve the parcels. Rountree: tt's just to establish one of those two lots on Meridian Road; right? Stiles: Yes, and then the existing lots or the lots where the existing buildings are. • Meridian City Council January 5, 1999 Page 29 r~ Corrie: Mr. Clerk would you read Ordinance #812 title only? Berg: Thank you Mr. Mayor. (ORDINANCE #812 WAS READ TITLE ONLY) Corrie: Okay that concludes the first reading of Ordinance #812. The second reading to be January 19~h, 99. Before we start on the public hearings, I'll entertain a motion to have a ten minute recess. Bentley: So moved. Bird: Second. Corrie: Motion made and second. All those in favor say aye. MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. (TEN MINUTE RECESS TAKEN) 18. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR GENERAL AUTO REPAIR & SERVICE BY JOHN BISS -WEST OF MERIDIAN ROAD: Corrie: I'll open the public hearing and at this time I'll have staff give a report. Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council you requested that this be placed back up for a public hearing because of some of the issues that remained with the extension of Pinwood Street. The (inaudible) of the entire parcel of property that was not shown on the conditional use permit and Mr. Biss is here tonight to answer any questions you may have. Corrie: Since this is a public hearing, I invite the applicant's representative to speak. Name and address please. Biss: It's John Biss, current place of business is 1334 E. First Street, Meridian. Corrie: Okay anything you want to tell us about your request? Biss: Just answer your questions you got. Corrie: Council, questions of Biss? Rountree: Mr. Mayor, Mr. Biss and Shari as well, I think one of the biggest issues we had was the landscaping and the setback or buffer strip if you will on that particular Meridian City Council January 5, 1999 Page 30 • corridor. I think we have 35 feet. That's what has been talked about with you, and you have difficulty in providing that given the lay out of the lot and - Biss: I don't really have difficulty providing it. The only real problem I have is they're not asking that of everybody on Meridian Road. They just approved a development straight across the street for only 15 feet. It's my understanding there's only two people that's asked for the 35 feet, and that's the one piece of property that I bought half of and Norm Fuller owns the other half, so that's the only piece of property they they're going to ask the 35 feet of landscaping on. I just thought it's going to look funny with 35 feet of landscaping in front of my place and the person beside me only having 15 feet and across the street only having 15 feet. Rountree: You don't have any problem providing landscaping consistent with what's adjacent to you or what may be adjacent to you? Biss: No. Rountree: Okay. Biss: In fact my original findings show 20 feet because Shari said that would be fine but then you come back and say 35 is what had been requested in the annexation of the property. Rountree: We also have some information from the Public Works Department about the need of an easement in order to get hook ups for city water and sewer. Biss: The gentleman that I bought the property from still owns the property of the easement actually. There's a 50 foot easement there now for Pinwood Street that may or may not go through some day, but I've got verbal permission for the easement for the sewer. I have an easement agreement that I have access to that property, but I guess I need another easement agreement for the sewer. Rountree: A question for probably Gary or Shari, do we have documentation that identifies that easement? Smith: Mr. Mayor and Council, Councilman Rountree I think there is documentation concerning the 50 foot wide ingress egress easement. It's identified I believe as an access easement. I believe that's all we have or all that's available. Rountree: And would that be sufficient for the utilities or do the utilities have to be outside of that easement? • Meridian City Council January 5, 1999 Page 31 Smith: I would have to read the easement and see what it says specifically. If it's an exclusive easement to access only, then it wouldn't be sufficient. At least I don't believe it would from a legal standpoint and Mr. Gigray could probably address that better than I, but the easement would be between Mr. Biss and the property owner, N & D, I believe. Biss: Back when they were building the road, I called both the City of Meridian Public Works and they had me call the civil engineer, and they told me I got an 8 inch water and 8 inch main being stubbed into the property. What they didn't tell me is that was a main line that they planned on going back through Pinwood Street so somewhere along the line somebody has got planned for an 8 inch sewer and water going through Pinwood Street. I would assume that they had plans and permission to do so. Rountree: That's all I have. Bentley: On your diagram that's done by your architect, Rendition, they show a temporary entrance off of S. Meridian Road. Biss: Yes. Bentley: Okay and that's between two landscape - Biss: Right. Bentley: If and when Pinwood goes through, are you going to change your access to Pinwood? Biss: At the time that I sold the property to the highway district, I took what I thought was substantially less than the property was worth for a trade for a guarantee to access to my property. And then later the Ada County Highway District says they want that to be a temporary, so they granted a temporary approach upon future redevelopment of that property. Only at that point in time would they ask that approach to be changed, and that's only if Pinwood Street ever went through, and Pinwood Street is still a big if. Bentley: Okay. My question is when Pinwood goes through, are you going to close the temporary access with landscaping to match what's existing? Biss: At this point in time, I'm not planning on closing it at all. I don't have any plans to do any more development, so I don't - my agreement with the highway district anyway is that I won't have to worry about that unless I plan to do further development on my property. Meridian City Council January 5, 1999 Page 32 LJ Bentley: But the one thing I'd like to see is if that development occurs and your entrance changes, that this temporary be closed in with landscaping to match what's there. Biss: If in deed the temporary driveway has to be closed, yeah, we'd have to do something with it. Bentley: Thank you. Corrie: Any other questions? Bird: I have none. Corrie: Okay, thank you. Anyone else for this development request for conditional use permit to speak tonight? Anybody against the conditional use permit? Okay, hearing nobody else asking for public hearing request I will entertain a motion to close the public hearing on item number 18. Bentley: Mr. Mayor I move we close the public hearing for item 18, John Biss's conditional use permit. Bird: Second. Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Bentley second by Mr. Bird to close the public hearing on item 18 request for conditional use permit by Mr. John Biss. Council you have before you make a motion to either accept, deny or change the - I'm sorry. All those in favor of the motion close the hearing say aye. MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. Corrie,: Discussion? I guess we need a discussion before we make a motion. Rountree: I have none. Mr. Mayor I would move that we direct the city attorney to prepare Findings of Fact and Conclusions and Order of decision on the request for conditional use permit by Mr. John Biss, and that the Findings of Fact reflect a favorable action on the part of the city for the conditional use permit and that the permit be conditioned with concerns addressed by the City Planning and Zoning Director, Stiles, as it relates to landscaping,along Meridian Road and the points of access as discussed by Councilman Bentley. Bentley: Second. Meridian City Council January 5, 1999 Page 33 Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Rountree second by Mr. Bentley on the motion to have the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law as stated in the motion. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say aye. MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. 19. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF 7.84 ACRES BY PAULA. HOFFMAN (MERIDIAN PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH) - SOUTHWEST CORNER OF MERIDIAN ROAD AND USTICK: Corrie: At this time I will open the public hearing and invite any staff reports. (Inaudible) Gigray: I have submitted to you Mr. Mayor and members of the Council a memo regarding this particular agenda item. My review of this file in preparation for this meeting, I have some concern regarding the action the Planning and Zoning Commission has recommended a designation of L-O, limited office district, and I believe the application was submitted for a low density residential district, which is R-4. That would be a material change in the notice that would have been provided for the public hearing before the Planning and Zoning Commission, which the requirements of Idaho Code are that you have to renotice the public hearing, and I believe the process should also include that there were going to be hearing and a recommendation of limited office district that the applicant should make an amendment to their application for that district. I recommend in this memo a procedure as you will see under recommendations for the Mayor and Council to follow in this matter to ensure number one that I have interpreted the record appropriately which I believe that Shari Stiles, Planning and Zoning, as well as the City Clerk could answer those questions, and then you may want to determine if the applicant has a representative here, what their position about amending their application, and then I recommend that you remand it back to Planning and Zoning. That the applicant amend their application, that there would be a staff report on the amended application which of course one of the analyses that we have to have is whether or not the application and the zoning designation is in conformance with the comp plan, and also that notice is given to the neighboring property owners as well as to the published notice of the zoning designation that would be recommended and sought, and I must disclose for the record that I'm a Presbyterian and a member of Boon Memorial Presbyterian Church. I make this recommendation (inaudible). Corrie: City Clerk, Planning and Zoning are these facts stated correct? What we have in this file I guess that it was advertised L-O and people had the neighboring property owners was R-4? Is that correct? Stiles: It was advertised as R-4. Bird: This being ran through as an L-O now? s Meridian City Council January 19, 1999 Page 7 MOTION CARRIED: All yeas. 5. ORDINANCE #812 -ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF OLSON BUSH INDUSTRIAL PARK: Corrie: Mr. Gigray. Gigray: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, this is another matter where there is no development agreement. It was held for approval of the legal description and the draft ordinance. I want to make sure and the Clerk can confirm this we received that approval today. We revised the draft ordinance with the approval from the Public Works Department and I believe that was hand delivered to the Clerk today, so that you have that ordinance. You had an earlier one in your packet, but there was a change in the legal description of the annexed property but that has been now corrected and approved. . Berg: Yes, Mayor and Council members, I received the one dated for the 19tH to take the place of the one dated on the 15tH Rountree: Mr. Mayor I move that the City Council approve Ordinance #812 version 1/19/99 with suspension of rules, authorize the Mayor to sign and the Clerk to attest. Bird: Second. Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Rountree second by Mr. Bird to approve the Ordinance #812 dated 1/19/99 annexation and zoning of the Olson Bush Industrial Park. Any further discussion? Hearing none, roll call vote. ROLL CALL VOTE: ANDERSON, YEA. BENTLEY, YEA. ROUNTREE, YEA. BIRD, YEA. MOTION CARRIED: All yeas. 6. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR GENERAL AUTO REPAIR & SERVICE BY JOHN BISS -WEST OF MERIDIAN ROAD: Corrie: Council you .have the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and the Decision and Order. Discussion? Rountree: Shari, have you had an opportunity to review this and one of the conditions of the motion for preparation was that your conditions and concerns be included in the Findings. Have they been satisfactorily included? • Meridian City Council January 19, 1999 Page 8 • Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council, Councilman Rountree, if you may recall this project required a second public hearing to be held before the City Council because some of the issues related to future public road construction on Pennwood that would go into Troutner Business Park and a lack of information in regard to what was proposed for the entire site. Although we did have the second public hearing, I don't really feel any of those issues were addressed. I don't see in part of the - I haven't had an opportunity to read all of this. I'm just looking at the Decision and Order, and it doesn't seem to include any of the comments that - at least I don't see where it includes the comments from staff as being a requirement. If I'm missing it, let me know, but I don't know if you'll recall that meeting, that second public hearing requirement and the adjacent property owner, one of the people with interest in the Troutner Business Park was unable to attend that meeting. I'm sorry to bring it up at this late date, but I still don't feel that the issues that required the second public hearing before Council were really resolved as far as requirements for closing of the temporary driveway allowed on Meridian Road and any public improvements for Pennwood Street falling upon this applicant or the remainder the remnant piece of the site that was never shown as part of the conditional use permit. I know that doesn't help you much, but those are still concerns of mine. Corrie: Would it help Shari if you had two weeks to go through this one to make sure that some of these you needed to add or wanted to add could be brought back to the Council. I think we need to have some way the Council get your input as well before they approve or deny. Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council I do apologize for not being able to review this before tonight and I would like to meet with legal counsel and see if we can resolve those by the February 2"d meeting. Bentley: If we go into adding comments, are we going to have to reopen the public hearing? Corrie: That's correct. Bird: Mr. Mayor our motion from last meeting Charlie stated that we get the Findings of Facts and the action of the City for conditional use permit and that permit be conditioned with concerns addressed by the City Planning and Zoning Director Stiles as it relates to landscape along Meridian Road and points of access as discussed by Councilman Bentley. I think if you read through this, I think that very well covers it. They wrote up the permit just as we had asked in our motion to do. Rountree: Mr. Mayor I would refer Shari to page seven, paragraph 14.5 as it relates to access and future landscape treatment depending on the conditions of access on Pennwood and Meridian Road. I believe address part of the issues. I have not found • Meridian City Council January 19, 1999 Page 9 and maybe I would defer to Counselor Mr. Bird the paragraph on landscaping. Do you have one? I don't find one. Bird: 14.5 yeah and 14.4. Rountree: 14.5 Bird: 14.5 it's exactly what you had in your motion. Rountree: Does that make it clear? Does it help? Bird: It's also in the conditions too Charlie. Rountree: Yeah. Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council, I do again apologize. I just received this packet this morning and have not had a chance to read it. The landscape treatment addresses one issue, but as far as actual roadway construction curb, gutter, sidewalk, paving, utility extension which would be in this proposed easement. I'm not sure has been entirely addressed. Rountree: As far as the characteristic of the roadway, wouldn't that be a condition that would have to be met from ACHD? Not related to the utilities, but curb, gutter, sidewalk. Stiles: But unless they ask for an additional building permit, if that roadway is required which we don't know is for certain right now, I'm afraid that the progression is going to be that the Troutner Business Park Development is going to be entirely responsible for 100% of those improvements. Bird: 4.4 will cover that. Corrie: Page 4 Shari, 4.4. Stiles: In the Findings? Corrie: In the Order of Approval of Conditional Use Permit, page 4, 4.4. Bentley: It's also in the Findings. Corrie: Yeah. Page 19 also in the Findings. Stiles: So that statement would cover that -there would be no additional requirements of this applicant probably as if the extension to Pennwood were required. Maybe I'm Meridian City Council January 19, 1999 Page 10 stepping out of my bounds in worrying about that, but Ada County Highway District has not made any requirements as far as that is concerned for bonding or any other purpose. There's no plat involved. They're allowed a one time split. Corrie: Councilmen, John is sitting out there. Can we ask a question (inaudible) Gigray: Mr. Mayor and members of the Council, as to a point of order the problem you have is that you closed the public hearing and in order for you to receive more testimony in relationship to this particular matter, you have to reopen the public hearing. Now you can exercise your discretion and do that, but if you do that you'll need to postpone this for a period of greater than 15 days in order to meet the notice provisions and then direct the Clerk to provide notice of continued public hearing, which means you couldn't do it on the 2"d. You'd have to do it at the next council meeting. I prepared these Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law based on what I understood the decision of the Council was at the last meeting, but you certainly have a right to receive more information if you believe there are concerns and things that need to be covered. The best way to do that would be to reopen the public hearing and direct the Clerk to advertise that public hearing. Just for purposes of information you have before you Findings Conclusions of Law. There are Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, those findings reference specific points that go with regards to your ordinance and with your comp plan and then the decision and order sets out the specific conditions of which a special use permit would be granted, the type of permit, what allowed use is, what the site plan is, and what the conditions of that use are and then the order what you're looking at is simply you will be giving the Mayor the authority to sign the order. That's just so we have an independent order on the conditional use permit, but they are identical to your decision. Rountree: Mr. Mayor given the contents of the motion, it seems to me that if in fact Shari's concern as she just stated is written and was part of the record previously, then an amendment to these Findings to include that comment would be in order and we wouldn't have to get into some kind of procedural - Gigray: You can amend these all day long, because you haven't adopted them yet. Excuse me, Mayor, I'm sorry. Rountree: So that would be a way to address that particular issue. Corrie: Is that the way you want to go? Rountree: Well -we've been at this long enough. Corrie: I'll entertain a motion on the additions of the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and Decision and Order (inaudible). Meridian City Council January 19, 1999 Page 11 Rountree: I'll take a stab at this. Mr. Mayor I move that we approve the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and Decision and Order with the addition of the comment as stated by Planning Administrator Stiles as it relates to the applicant's responsibility for providing access or future roadway improvements to the west from Meridian Road to the Troutner Business Park. Anderson: Second. Corrie: Motion is made by Mr. Rountree second by Mr. Anderson on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law with the conditions set forth in the statement request. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all in favor of the motion as -roll call. ROLL CALL VOTE: BIRD, YEA. ANDERSON, YEA. ROUNTREE, YEA. BENTLEY, YEA. MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. Corrie: Mr. Counselor, would you be making those conditions then before I sign it then back to me? Gigray: Mr. Mayor and members of the Council, as I understood the motion which passed we would substitute the appropriate page in the Decision and Order that would include that as an additional condition. We would also conform the Order for the Mayor's signature and make the appropriate reference in the Findings in accordance with that. If that's agreeable with the Council. 7. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: REQUEST FOR REZONE OF APPROXIMATELY 4.296 ACRES FOR PROPOSED SCOTTSDALE SUBDIVISION BY WOLFE COMMERCIAL ENTERPRISES, LLC -SOUTH SIDE OF W. FRANKLIN ROAD: Corrie: Council, you have those Findings of Facts in front of you along with the Decision and Order. Staff any comments? Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council, if you are aware this is the property that's located adjacent to the Dreamland Education Center on Franklin Road. It's the remaining property that is currently zoned R-15. I believe this application to be in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and should be a nice buffer adjacent to those properties. Corrie: Thank you.