Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMarch 20, 2003Meridian Planning & Zoning March 20, 2003 Page 27 of 64 Centers: I would move that we recommend approval to the City Council on continued Public Hearing Item AZ 03-003, request for annexation and zoning of 14.31 acres from RUT to R-8 zones for proposed Timberfalls Sub by Dan Wood, south of East Ustick Road and west of Locust Grove Road, including all staff comments from memo dated March 11th. Mathes: Second. Borup: Okay. We didn't mention anything on definition of micropath. Centers: On the zoning? Borup: No. I'm sorry. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Centers: Continuing on. I would like to recommend approval for the continued Public Hearing from March 6th, specifically, PP 03-002, request for preliminary plat approval of 50 building lots and six other lots on 14.31 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Timberfalls S ub b y D an Wood, s outh o f East U stick R oad a nd west o f N orth Locust Grove Road, including all staff comments from memo dated March 11th, and applicant's letter dated March 10th from Shawn Nickel, item seven, to be included in staff comments, item eight to be included -- and I will give a copy of the memo to the attorney. Second page. Micropaths shall not be the definition of the interior paths of the subdivision and they would not comply with the micropath ordinance. End of motion. Rohm: I will second that. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 9: Public Hearing: RZ 03-003 Request for a Rezone of 0.35 acres from R- 4 to O-T zones by for Merlyn Schmeckpeper by Merlyn Schmeckpeper- 230West Pine Avenue: Item 10: Public Hearing: CUP 03-006 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Child Care Facility for approximately 30 children in a proposed O-T zone for Sunshine Academy by Sharon O'Toole and Debbie and James Sheridan - 230 West Pine Avenue: Borup: Okay. We are finally to an original hearing. But, actually, that is the purpose -- normally, our second meeting is set aside for continued hearings and, then, if we have others, we also put those on here, so we don't have to wait for the previous month. We like to try to move them along as well as we can. So, Public Hearing -- I'd like to open Meridian Planning & Zoning March 20, 2003 Page 28 of 64 Public Hearing RZ 03-003, request for rezone of .35 acres from R-4 to O-T zone for Merlyn Schmeckpeper -- excuse me -- at 320 West Pine Avenue and start with the staff report. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, if I could interrupt at this time. If we could open Item No. 10 as well, Sunshine Academy is for the same piece of property? Borup: Oh, right. It is. I was planning on doing that earlier. And, then, also Public Hearing CUP 03-006, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a childcare facility for approximately 30 children on the -- for Sunshine Academy and that's for that same property. Did I say open that one? Okay. Go ahead. McKinnon: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. If I could direct your attention to the overhead, just to give you some orientation as to where this piece of property is. Meridian Elementary School is to the north. There is one single family residential that's sandwiched between the proposed day care and the elementary school just to the north of that. There is small alley that runs on the east side of the proposed day care center and there is 3rd Street on the west side of the proposed day care center. The collector street, West Pine Avenue, runs across the front of the property. West Pine Avenue is an approved collector with a bike path. It does have a parking lane on the -- adjacent to the sidewalks. Go to the next slide. It gives you an aerial view showing what surrounds the property is residential to the east and residential to the west. Some to the north as well, to the northwest, in addition to the elementary school site. Across the street there are some commercial properties and some residential properties. This is the proposed site plan. It doesn't come out very clear. Let me orient you to what we are looking. This dark piece of property right here is the detached two car garage. Pine Street is on the top of the project. This is the day care facility. It's a single family residential unit at this time. We doh't have a picture of that for you in the site plan, but just for your knowledge, there is a small retaining wall adjacent to the sidewalk and the property is raised. Currently it is a -- what is an alley, but currently just looks like a driveway that comes in off of Pine Street. There is a small irrigation ditch that runs along the western side of the property. It would have to be tiled in accordance with the City of Meridian's requirements for tiling of ditches. The applicant has proposed one, two, three parking stalls in the back of the property, in addition to the two parking stalls for the employee parking in the detached garage, that's a total of five parking stalls. As we get into the staff report, you will note that the parking becomes an issue several different times in the staff report. One, because there is no handicapped accessible parking stall as required by federal law in the parking lot that they have proposed. Furthermore, there is a requirement for some additional landscape buffering in this area adjacent to the one single family home sandwiched between the day care -- the proposed day care and the elementary school. I hope we have --that's the final drawing. I'm going to go to the staff report now and there is a few things I'd like to point out in the staff report, if I could have you follow with me. Under the application summary, the applicant is requesting a day care for up to 30 children and the way they have arrived at that number is a number that's dictated by the state that allows one child for every 35 square feet of usable space and that's where they came up .with the Meridian Planning & Zoning March 20, 2003 Page 29 of 64 number for 30. Parking is also derived from the number of children that are allowed in a day care facility and one parking space is being required for every ten children, in addition to one parking space for every employee. The applicant has stated in their application that there would be three employees for this day care facility and, therefore, they need to have six parking spaces, only five are provided on site. Either a variance or a revised parking plan will be required for this site prior to approval. If I can direct your attention to page three, item number F, the finding for the rezone states that the findings that you have to make asks the question will the use -- will the rezone be hazardous or disturbing to existing or future neighboring uses. I notice that there are several people here tonight to testify in opposition of the requested rezone and the Conditional Use Permit. Please consider all of their testimony, including their written testimony that has been submitted to you. You should all have received a copy of the petition in opposition of this tonight. Please consider that when making this finding on page three. I direct your attention to page four. Item number A, as to whether or not the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use in all yards, open spaces, parking, and landscaping. If reviewing the site plans, staff has found that the site could accommodate all of the required parking and all of the required landscaping. However, some changes will need to be made and a number of those changes are detailed further on in the report under the additional considerations regarding landscaping and parking, so -- which parking we have already discussed. Again, item number D on page five asks you to consider all testimony given at the Public Hearing, as to whether or not this proposed use will adversely affect other properties in the vicinity prior to making a recommendation for approval or denial. Again, we just ask you to take into consideration any testimony tonight. Special considerations on page six. Parking modifications. I have included a number of different options. Those are not the only options, but there are some options for providing additional parking on site. Some of those options would include providing parking behind the garage in a tandem parking arrangement with one vehicle being parked behind vehicles in the garage. The vehicles in the garage are being used for employee parking. That would allow additional vehicles t o p ark behind t he g arage, b ecause t hose v ehicles i n t he g arage w ould n of leave until after the vehicles parked behind the garage leave. There are some safety issues to consider when dealing with that, that these vehicles that park here diagonally would have to back out of the alley. This is a small alley that would not provide for two- way traffic. It's not quite wide enough for that. Typically, alleys are much smaller in width. So, that's an issue to consider. Another issue that we could deal with to accommodate additional parking would be this large unimproved area at the back of the home. Access could be taken off of 3rd Street. There is a small irrigation ditch that would have to be tiled. Additional parking could be provided off-street off of 3rd Street. There are a number of other uses, residential uses, that have access off of 3rd Street. There currently is no access off of 3rd Street to this property. It is an option that they could take a look at. Furthermore, a handicapped parking space will be required on this site plan. Alternative compliance with landscaping. The applicant has only provided a five-foot w ide I andscape b uffer. I 'm s orry. A f ive foot w ide I andscape b uffer o n t he. south side adjacent to the parking and staff can see that within rezone to the Old Town there are some allowances in the alternative compliance section of the landscape ordinance that would allow a change of use for a piece of property to have a decreased Meridian Planning & Zoning March 20, 2003 Page 30 of 64 amount of landscaping, but the applicant did not provide what type of landscaping would be back here and staff would suggest that that actually be widened to include the full length of the property, rather than just the area adjacent to the parking, that it would be the full length of the property, in addition to making it deeper, ten feet instead of five feet. In order to do that, one of these parking spaces would have to be eliminated and additional parking would have to be provided elsewhere on site. My written comments are a little more coherent than my spoken comments, but item number three on page seven, the sidewalk on 3rd Street, Meridian City Code requires a sidewalk adjacent to the public right of ways. Ada County Highway District was approached to waive their requirement for a sidewalk and ACRD waived the requirement for the sidewalk at this location as the only thing the sidewalk would lead to was one residential house and, then, into the back of a chain link fence for the elementary school site and staff agrees with ACHD that that should be waived as a requirement for this, that the sidewalk would serve very little purpose, if any purpose at all, and would very expensive. In addition to that, the M eridian C ity C ode, Section 1 2-5-2-K a Ilows f or t hat t o be w aived i f t he I of frontages, on average, are over 100 feet in length and that is the case for most of the properties on Pine Street, so there is a section of code to tie that to allow a waiver. As far as the conditions of approval go, there are a few things I would like to point out to you. Because this will be a change from a single family residential to an educational use, there may be several changes that are going to be required per the International Building Code and the applicant would be required to meet those, in addition to the International Fire Code. And item number eight on the site specific conditions of approval, the off-street parking plan, we did require the applicant provide a new off- street parking plan prior to approval and we would rather have that brought back to you for approval, rather than send it on tonight to the Council without you having an opportunity to review the new parking plan or the applicant could -- this is an either/or type of recommendation, that the applicant request a variance from the city, because there is on-site parking -- not on-site, but on-street parking on Pine Street adjacent to this use. The recommendation is just reflective of what I have said. It does meet code for the City of Meridian. There are some issues with -- I know from reading through the opposition, there are some issues that will be raised concerning the amount of traffic on Pine Street. Again, Pine Street is a collector roadway that has been built and improved to handle a large volume of traffic. It is not a local roadway, such 3rd Street, Broadway, Idaho would be. It is an improved collector street to carry the amount of traffic on that and that's also reflective in ACHD's report. I think that concludes all of the comments that I have for you tonight and I would ask you if you have any questions of me before we turn the Public Hearing back over to the public. Centers: Mr. Chairman, yes. Where does -- can you point out Sniffles 'n Sneezes? Do you remember that? McKinnon: Yeah. I do remember. Sniffles 'n Sneezes is actually, on the other side of Main Street. Centers: It's not on this side, but it's on Pine, isn't it? Meridian Planning & Zoning March 20, 2003 Page 31 of 64 McKinnon: It's Pine and 2"d, pine and East 2nd. Centers: Is it correct for me to understand that it has to go to O-T zone or it wouldn't have -- or it wouldn't be able to do a CUP? McKinnon: That's correct. Centers: Okay. In the R-4 it's not allowed? McKinnon: In the R-4 it's not allowed. That's correct. Centers: Okay. And how did you verify -- or the square footage is 35 square feet per -- McKinnon: Per child. The applicant -- Centers: Which -- and 30 children, that would be 1,050 square feet, so they are well within it. McKinnon: There are some areas that are not included in that. Centers: Okay. That's what I thought, like the kitchen. McKinnon: That's correct. Centers: At the bathrooms, how did you verify square footage on this submitted schematic? McKinnon: The actual verification takes place with the state licensing. Centers: Okay. Because there is no way I can calculate the square footage of this schematic the way it's submitted. It doesn't have the breakouts needed to calculate it out. McKinnon: That's correct. And I -- Centers: So, any approval would be verified by the state? McKinnon: It would have to be verified by the state and there is a requirement for the state licensing to approve that. In addition to that, the application is based on an approximation of 30 -- to an approximate 30. The state would set a maximum limit. Centers: Why would we -- why would we rely on the state to do our work? If we are saying we require 35 square feet per child, why wouldn't we verify that before we would approve it? Meridian Planning & Zoning March 20, 2003 Page 32 of 64 McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Centers, that's a state requirement for the 35 feet. Centers: So --and -- McKinnon: So, it's a state limitation and that's why they are the ones that verify that. Centers: We have nothing in our ordinance? McKinnon: No. Centers: Okay. Okay. Thank you. Borup: We don't have anything saying that we adopt the state's standards or ask people to comply with the state's -- McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, we do require that they meet all the licensing requirements of the State of Idaho prior to the beginning of operation. Borup: That's what I thought. McKinnon: That's, actually, condition of approval number five on page eight. Borup: Okay. Centers: You do good work, Dave. Borup: Any other questions? Rohm: Yes. Borup: Commissioner Rohm. Rohm: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I have one question on this acceptable alternative for the handicapped parking. Dave, do you have a proposed alternative for that parking? McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Rohm, I do. I played with it myself and I have come up with some ways they could make it work. I'm not in the business of designing things for people, but it can work and I would be happy to share that with you if you like. I have drawn on my site plan, but it would require them taking some access off of 3rd Street. Rohm: Okay. Well, maybe we will just wait and let the applicant speak to that and see where we go from there. McKinnon: That sounds great. Thanks. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 20, 2003 Page 33 of 64 Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Borup: And that's where it needs to come from, but from reading the staff report they would -- they would lose one of the present parking spaces there to accommodate that. Would the applicant like to come forward? Schmeckpeper: I would. Borup: Okay. This would be a n o pportunity for you to explain a nything else to the Commission that you would like on this application. Schmeckpeper: Well -- Borup: Go ahead and state your name for the record. Schmeckpeper: My name is Merlyn Schmeckpeper, Mr. Commissioner. I think pretty much it's been covered. As you can see, the dilemma, if it can be called that, with the parking, can be resolved. As far as any other issues, I didn't really hear any that would cause any problems or concerns. Day care centers or childcare centers are also considered a good neighbor as far as neighborhood development. The city, I think, is in need of a center like this. The location is excellent, close to the center of town, easy access to highways and freeways and, as Dave's mentioned, it is on a collector street that accommodates the traffic. We are a little bit reluctant to involve ourselves in the access to 3rd Street, because of the irrigation ditch, but, as you can see, there is adequate property there and I think this can be resolved without any problem. What I would like to ask you to do is judge on this tonight, allowing ourselves and the academy and the Planning and Zoning, to work out adequate and acceptable parking with the Planning and Zoning Department. When these things are postponed, they not only increase your agenda, but they also cause large delays. So, I would ask you to accept that and allow us to work with Planning and Zoning to resolve the parking issue. Borup: Did you have any questions or issue with any of the other -- did you have a chance to read the staff report? Schmeckpeper: No, I have not read the staff report and I have not seen it. I listened to it this evening and unless you have had some other concerns that I'm not aware of or didn't pickup on -- Centers: Well, Mr. Chairman, that's the question I had. Could I call you Merlyn? Schmeckpeper: Yes, you may. Centers: I appreciate it. Schmeckpeper: Certainly, Jerry. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 20, 2003 Page 34 of 64 Centers: You're named as the applicant -- that's fine. You're named as the applicant for the rezone and we have another individual named as the applicant for the Conditional Use Permit. Schmeckpeper: That's correct. Centers: Who is going to be responsible here? Schmeckpeper: As for -- Centers: The applicant for the Conditional Use Permit, that's the nuts and bolts of it. The rezone would give you an O-T zone. You're -- you know, I take it you're the landlord and owner of the property? Schmeckpeper: Yes. Yes, I am. Centers: You're going to rent to the applicant? Schmeckpeper: That's correct. And we are working together with them. We will work together. I will take the responsibility for that, as the owner of the property, and we will work with the Academy folks to accommodate whatever we can determine and make agreeable with the Planning and Zoning. We have got the property there to do it. We arranged it this way -- I talked with Dave about it and he says, well, it's submittable like this, knowing full well that we may have to make some concessions on it. As far as the buffer now, I do have a bit of a problem with that landscape buffer, because the five-foot does meet standards and regulations. Centers: No. Fifteen -- or twenty feet meets code. Schmeckpeper: Well, if that's the case, then, I was informed wrong by your Planning and Zoning. Borup: Yeah. Schmeckpeper: Excuse me. You're talking on the front of the property now, I believe, Mr. Chairman? Centers: You're wanting five feet; correct? Schmeckpeper: On the backside of the lot where the parking will be. Centers: And -- Borup: Yeah. The staff reports says that the landscape ordinance requires 20 feet. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 20, 2003 Page 35 of 64 Schmeckpeper: I'm sorry? Borup: The landscape ordinance is 20 feet, as stated on the -- Schmeckpeper: On the front side. Borup: Well, a buffer between -- between uses. Schmeckpeper: Well, then, I was informed wrong from the Planning and Zoning, because I was informed that five foot on that parking side would be adequate. Borup: You mean on the alley side? Schmeckpeper: No. No. No. On the -- on the north side. Borup: On the north side -- on the north side is the school, isn't it? Schmeckpeper: No. There is one residential there. Borup: Yeah. Okay. Centers: And code is 20 feet, another -- Borup: D avid, h ow i s the s tall report delivered to t he a pplicant? Are they called o r notified or -- McKinnon: Well, it can happen one of a couple ways, Mr. Chairman. Typically, the staff report is e-mailed to the applicant at the same time it's e-mailed to the clerk's office and that way they receive it the same time the clerk's office does. If there is no a-mail that's associated with that, it's sent to the clerk's office and the clerk's office, then, contacts the applicant and lets them know that there is a staff report available for the applicant to pick u p a t c ity h all a nd I h ave t alked w ith J essica, o ur c ity c Jerk representative h ere tonight, and she stated that she has tried to contact both of the applicants prior to tonight's meeting to have them pick that up and there was no response. Borup: Okay. That's what she just --there were phone calls made and -- but also there would not be time for mailing to -- well, if it was mailed they would have got it by yesterday. Schmeckpeper: I'm sorry. I was listening to Bruce. Just me. Borup: Well, they said they had made phone calls to try to notify you, both -- actually, both of you, that there was a staff report. Schmeckpeper: They tried to? Meddlan Planning 8 Zoning March 20, 2003 Page 36 of 64 Borup: Made a phone call, no answer. Schmeckpeper: My phone is always answered on an answering machine. Borup: Have an answering machine? Schmeckpeper: Yeah. And, usually, there is somebody there 90 percent of the time. However, we did not receive it. I'm not concerned about not receiving it. Borup: 9494; is that the correct phone number? Schmeckpeper: Yes. That's correct. Borup: Okay. Well, I'm a -- we'd like to have -- make sure the applicant knows what the staff report said, so they are not surprised about something that we are going to -- Centers: Did the other people receive it? O'Toole: Well, we did not and -- Borup: Okay. I still think that -- we are probably looking at two issues. One, the landscaping buffer and the other would be parking. So, those are probably two things that we ought to discuss. Now, have you -- have you played with the design a little bit or is this the first -- tonight the first you knew about the six stalls? Schmeckpeper: We have played with it to some extent. We were not -- I was not under the impression it was going to be this big of a situation. Planriing and Zoning accepted this and said this should probably be adequate. Obviously, it's not. Borup: Should be or could be? Schmeckpeper: Take your choice. Centers: Mr. Chairman, could I make a suggestion, that the two applicants maybe meet with staff for about ten minutes while we hear the testimony of the other people here? Because there is not that much to the report and they could go over it with them and show them the -- McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, if we are going to do that, I would suggest that we actually take a break, because if the applicant is here talking with us at our table, we won't have an opportunity to hear the things to rebut on the final comments. So, if we want to take a break, I'd be more than happy to meet with the applicants at this time. Borup: Okay. Is there anything else -- Meridian Planning & Zoning March 20, 2003 Page 37 of 64 Centers: I would be for that. Borup: Yes. So, that would be -- take a look at a parking design and maybe discuss the buffering. Is there anything else? That's basically it. That should be covered. Rohm: I would like to hear your proposed parking after you've had an opportunity to talk to staff, though. Schmeckpeper: Sure. Rohm: Okay. Schmeckpeper: No problem. Borup: Okay. We will take a short break at this time. About a ten minute break. Is that what we are thinking? Schmeckpeper: I think that's probably adequate. Borup: Thank you. (Recess.) Borup: Okay. We are reconvening our meeting. Schmeckpeper: I have just some -- Borup: Input? Schmeckpeper: N o. I'm j ust a sking if you folks h ave a ny other q uestions of me. I would also like to state as I depart here, this does fall in line with the new Comprehensive Plan as far as zoning change to Old Town. Borup: Right. Schmeckpeper: And as we all know, that whole street is beginning to commercialize. Borup: I believe the staff report -- Schmeckpeper: Stated that. Borup: Stated that. Yes. Schmeckpeper: The parking thing can be resolved. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 20, 2003 Page 38 of 64 Centers: Well, let me ask that question, Merlyn. To be resolved, the staff would like to have that back to us prior to the City Council meeting or you apply for a variance through the City Council. What's your preference? I can't tell you whether a variance is going to be easy or -- Schmeckpeper: I think we'd have to -- we didn't discuss that with the zoning folks. Centers: I guess I'm letting you -- Schmeckpeper: What's the best way to go, Dave? Centers: You're short one parking space, the way I read it; correct? Borup: Yes. McKinnon: Yes and no, Commissioners. Centers: Unless we see a revised plan. McKinnon: Unless we receive a revised plan, they would actually be short, because we need the ADA parking stall, which we don't have right now, to revise the plan to make them two short, rather than just one short. But a variance is an option that they do have and that was not discussed here at the table, because it was in the staff report and I should have talked to them about it. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, the variance would be for the applicant to have some on-street parking count for this -- recognizing the Meridian City Code under the guidelines for child care facilities, one of the things that they state in child care facilities it's not tied specifically to Conditional Use Permits or child care centers, but also addresses the child care facilities in the residential areas, that they should not have on-street parking on a collectors or arterials. So, it would be fairly hard to go against code and recommend approval of the variance that says day care facilities should not have off-site loading on collectors or arterials. Centers: If they were to have it, it might be tough. Schmeckpeper: We would agree with that, too. We don't want to go for the on-street parking. Centers: Yeah. I guess I wouldn't want you to either, because my kids -- you know -- Borup: Yeah. I would agree with that. I assume that there is on-street parking that would be for employees. Schmeckpeper. I don't think we would want to go that route. We can discuss that amongst ourselves. So, if I understand you correctly, our options are that we need to resubmit the plans? Meridian Planning & Zoning March 20, 2003 Page 39 of 64 Borup: Showing the six parking spaces and revising the landscaping plan. Schmeckpeper: Okay. We are not -- you folks won't allow us to move ahead, so that we can work this out with Planning and Zoning? That was my wish, because I mean everybody can see it's a doable thing. Borup: It is. Schmeckpeper: And we just drew it up over here in a quick -- Borup: It may be up to the Commissioners. I know City Council has requested when we forward something onto them, that it be a clean application and that the details are worked out prior to their receiving it. Centers: And don't forget the handicapped parking spot. Schmeckpeper: You know, we have got that -- Borup: Now, I guess it could be -- that is an option, staff could work it out with the -- whatevercriteria we wanted to recommend. Rohm: Well, I think before we assume that those are the only issues, we should listen to -- Borup: Well, right. Yes. Rohm: What are the terms and, then, you will have a chance to respond to those as well and we will move forward. Centers: Good idea. Borup: As Commissioner Rohm mentioned, this is time for anyone else that has any testimony on this application to come forward, for those that would like to. Please do. Rokovitz: My name is Darrin Rokovitz and I presently live in the residents that is north of the requested site, between that and the school lot. Correct. Several of my concerns. I noticed in the staffing notes that they mentioned that this would not increase the traffic flow, noise, or pollution. Currently right now I live there, a couple other people live there, it's been strictly residential up to this point, so you're looking at maybe just a couple cars coming and going from that particular location. If a child care is put in there, we are looking at up to 30 children, which, even if you do an average, you're probably going to have a good 15 to 24 plus cars coming and going. Borup: You're talking about on Pine Street or are you worried about traffic on 3rd? Meridian Planning & Zoning March 20, 2003 Page 40 of 64 Rokovitz: Essentially, Pine andlor the alleyway, depending on which way they may -- I understood that they -- well, actually, I understood that Pine Street was addressed as being adequate to handle the flow, so I also have to look at 3rd Street and also the alleyway. Borup: Yeah. The alley is what is planned right now. Rokovitz: Correct. Okay. Borup: And depending on how the design comes out. Rokovitz: Okay. So, right off the bat, there is a considerable increase of traffic flow there. One of my major concerns is, granted, this is a location near schools and part of that is my big concern. I'm currently a father of two children and the kids do walk that street v ery h eavily m ornings a nd a fternoons. I f y ou h ave 15 t o 2 0 c ars coming a nd going from a single alleyway of that nature, besides the possible congestion, that's 15 to 20 cars additionally coming and going in and out of that alleyway. Borup: Is the alleyway where the -- is there access to the school site there? Rokovitz: To the school site? No. The sidewalk that comes down along Pine Street on the side of the -- Borup: Okay. I think I understand. I thought maybe the school might have had a gate or a fence or something. There is a little button on the side. Rokovitz: Okay. So, the sidewalk that is actually on the side here -okay. They are actually -- I don't know if they have closed it off at this point. There was one on 2nd. Okay. That one is closed. So, at this point just the sidewalk here. Well, you have got children that live all throughout this whole area and this is one of the main feeders coming down this sidewalk to all the children that do walk to school and it is fairly heavily traveled in the mornings and at nights, the kids, you know, they walk to school and walk from school and we are looking at, you know, a considerable amount of traffic, potentially, coming in and out of this alleyway, which could get considerably congested as well, because it only allows for one vehicle coming or going. Borup: So, the school doesn't have any access on any of the other stub streets? Rokovitz: Currently right now there is a fence running solidly all along here and all along here, which this is the actual playground area. They have limited -- there is one access at this back corner and, then, the other accesses are right at the school area. Other than that, it is a solid fence. Borup: Where was the other access? Rokovitz: There is one back in this area. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 20, 2003 Page 41 of fi4 Borup: Back there? Okay. Rokovitz: And, then, of course, you know, there is some over on this side and, then, right here, which this is, actually, approximately, a parking lot for the school. So, the kids do definitely -- you know, this is the main -- one of the main feeder routes that kids that are walking to school do travel, my kid included. So, you know, I do have a pretty good concern about the increase in traffic flow in and out of that alleyway with the kids. Depending on how the issues are resolved, we also have, you know, potential for increased traffic here. Currently, a lot of traffic flows into here, because they think it is a through way. People just don't notice it. They come -- they come in here fairly fast and notice, oops, dead end, turn around, pull back out. Borup: Is there a dead end sign on that? Rokovitz: There is, actually, and, believe it or not, people don't read. So, that's -- and it is a fairly small tum around there, so one car getting in there, they actually -- they cannot physically tum around. They have to go in, turn a little bit and back up, and, then, turn around, you can't just by just turning in one cycle. So, it is kind of a narrow road, in and of itself. You know, I would have additional concerns about the flow. If you get even half the cars -- you know, five or ten people showing up at one time to drop kids off, which I would think would be fairly reasonable, that potentially this whole back area where the proposed lot is going to be is going to be packed. This way it's going to get congested and, then, you're looking at people will -- they will do whatever is necessary to drop their kids off, so they potentially may look at parking on the street, coming up into 3rd, and we have already had a considerable problem in the past with congestion on 3rd Street. This opening needs to be -- there used to be a gate here, which allowed for people to come and go. You know, ball games, soccer games during the summer or whatever, this was open and they, actually, closed that off, because there was such congestion, people would literally park there, block our driveways so we couldn't even get out of our driveways half the time without having to try to hunt people down or potentially even revert to more drastic means to get them to move their cars, so we can just live. Those are just a couple of my concerns. Mainly, just the congestion and that people will do what they need to do in order to drop their kids off to get to work and also the fact that there is a main safety issue, I feel, due to -- due to the amount of increase in cars coming and going out, that there is not going to be any traffic crossing guards here. There are no traffic lights there. There is nobody that is going to be able to be doing it, other than the drivers themselves. Down here at the school crossing, of course, we do have a guard, even just across this little area to drive into their lot. I just kind of wanted to make that a concern. Borup: Thank you. Any other questions, Commissioners? Centers: Yes. I had one question. I'm sure you can tell me, because you live right behind the subject property. I keep hearing an alley. Is there an alley behind the subject property? Meridian Planning & Zoning March 20, 2D03 Page 42 of 64 Rokovitz: Right here. Borup: On the side? Centers: Oh, on the side. On the side. Rokovitz: Right now currently between -- here is my property and the subject -- there is currently a dirt lot. Centers: Do you use that alley? Rokovitz: Do I? Not frequently, only on occasion. Centers: Do those other three houses use it? Rokovitz: Off and on, but not a lot. Basically, ours is for like during the summers when you have yard work to do, hauling out stuff of that nature. Other people have used it to access the back of their property, cable companies, and things of that nature do access that as well, because that's one of the main power poles is actually right here. Borup: What was your comment on the dirt lot? I didn't catch -- Rokovitz: Oh, it's just right now currently -- this right now is just a -- it's a dirt lot on the back and my property is right here. Borup: Okay. Rokovitz: And, then, this is the alleyway right there. Centers: I got that after we were talking. Thank you. Borup: Do you have any comment on the buffering between properties? Rokovitz: I do. Borup: You're the only -- you got the only property to buffer from, so I would be interested in your -- Rokovitz: Right. And this is my backyard here. My house. I'm kind of concerned -- like the staff report said, you know, no significant increase in noise, traffic, pollution. I really don't -- I s aid t his i s m y b ackyard. T his i s m y h ouse r fight t here. I f i t e nds u p i n a parking lot, you're going to have cars coming and going all day or definitely during certain times there will be heavy traffic flow. Cars there -- you get that many cars together, there is -- you know, my kids are going to have to be back here playing with these cars coming and going, the exhaust and the sound during the summer, you know, Meridian Planning & Zoning March 20, 2003 Page 43 of 64 the' exhaust, the sounds of them early moming. I don't know what their hours are planning on the operation, but -- Centers: When did you read the staff report? At break? Rokovitz: We read it prior to the -- prior to this meeting, yeah. That's when we finally saw it. We haven't seen it prior. Centers: Thank you. Rokovitz: So, I do have a considerable, you know, concern about the noise levels, the pollution from -- you know, the exhaust from that many cars coming and going, people getting in and out of their cars, you know, just everything that's associated with it, the kids disembarking. Even with the school ground next to us, there is a big buffer, because even the staff at the school do not allow the kids to come right up to the fence and play right there at the fence all day long. They actually -- they add in their own buffer, they do not allow the kids to be right there at the fence line, so that they can monitor them, keep them away from the residences, etc. And this is going to be right in our backyard. Borup: Well, the staff report recommends increasing the buffer to ten feet and, then -- and to go the entire length of the property and with some increased landscaping accompanying that. I assume those are all things that you would like to see? Rokovitz: Absolutely. As a minimum. Yeah. I mean anything that's going to basically try to cut down on the issues that that back buffer would do, we certainly want to see, you know, just for peace of mind in living there. Centers: What hours of operation would you expect them to have? Rokovitz: Just from my experience? Centers: Yeah. Rokovitz: Well, I'm a working dad. Most day cares -- they open as early as 5:00 in the morning. Centers: So, you would expect them to have that? Rokovitz: I honestly don't know, but I would imagine if they are going in the day care, I would expect something that early, because they are basically catering to people that start, you know, fairly early in the moming, roughly 5:00, 6:00 o'clock into the evening is just the norm and that's saying they are not looking at, you know, even additional hours. Some places are 24 hours. But normal ones do open extremely early and, to be honest, I work night shifts -- or at least swing shifts, so I'm sleeping, you know, 5:00, 6:00 in the morning, I'm trying to get my rest. Sometimes 8:00 or 9:00, because I may Meridian Planning & Zoning March 20, 2003 Page 44 of 64 not get home until 2:00 in the morning and you start getting a bunch of cars coming in there, doors banging, kids getting out of the cars, not exactly good peace for me to get my rest as well. Centers: You got to get to work? Rokovitz: Plus, my kids, you know, are sleeping. Yeah. Centers: Do you? Do you have to get to work? Rokovitz: Do I have to get to work? Tonight? No. I, actually, traded the shift and worked very early this morning, so I could be here, so -- Borup: Because the normal we have seen has not been that early, it's usually 7:00 -- usually 7:00 to 6:00, you know, time to get, you know, an hour before work and an hour after. Rokovitz: I'm just going off of what I had to check into from my job purposes and most of the ones I found were as early as 5:00, 6:00 -- one even more. At least by 6:00 in the morning. Borup: Okay. Anything else you wanted to comment on? Rokovitz: I believe that pretty much was my concerns. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Anyone else like to come forward? Come on up, sir. Crispelle: My name is Bob Crispelle. I live at 306 West Pine. I'm on the west side of 230 Pine Street. And I -- I have lived there for 11 years and I'd like to keep it a residential neighborhood. I don't know if you have acopy -- I'm sure you do have a copy of my small petition. Borup: Yes, sir. Crispelle: And, first of all, the four things, the safety of the children, especially walking to and from school on Pine Street, the congestion at 230 West Pine is right next to the elementary school is already congested, the third, traffic and noise impact and keeping this a residential neighborhood. Now, what I did when I got the notice of -- on the rezoning is I got some signatures together, I got 12 signatures, ten of those are homeowners in the immediate area on all sides, east, west, north and south, that oppose this day care center. And afterwards I got the mail out list, in which there are 32 mail outs, people notified, and according to my calculations 12 of these are out of town addresses or out of state. Borup: Twelve of the 32? Meridian Planning & Zoning March 20, 2003 Page 45 of 64 Crispelle: Twelve of the 32. And I presume a lot of those are rentals and there is three other probable rentals there on the list that are in Meridian with Meridian addresses. And my patio is across 3rd Street, is about 40 feet away from 230 West Pine and, you know, we have -- we had -- like Darrin was speaking, we had a real problem before the school put in the fence and they gated the ends -- I think 3rd and 2nd Street, because you couldn't park in your parking space before, people going off to ball games and all this, so we got that settled a few years ago. They just built a fence in it. But, anyway, I'm opposed to this, for obvious reasons. I like the residential aspect. We do have a business across the street a few doors down, Dr. Rutz's office. I don't see too much else in that area of Pine Street that's commercial within a block or so. There might be a -- you know, a hair styling place or something like that, but it's really still a residential area and also on this application summary, which I just saw this evening, use of 3rd Street for access parking, etc. That will really create a problem, because I know you people have been out, probably, to look at the property, but if you have lived there like I do, you get probably 10 to 12 turn grounds a week, dead end, and all kinds of loading and unloading and I think it would be a real problem. Anyway, I thank you. Centers: Sir? Crispelle: Yes. Centers: You did some numbers, too. I get 18 absentee owners. Crispelle: Yeah. I would think -- Centers: One of which -- Crispelle: Excuse me. Centers: -- is a foreclosure, it appears to me, because the letter went to the department of HUD in Santa Ana, California -- or Irvine. Crispelle: Uh-huh. Centers: You can look at it both ways, though. Crispelle: That's right. Centers: That, you know, you have absentee ownership, you have rentals in the neighborhood, and, possibly, it would be nice to not see the neighborhood continue to decline and you would have a property that could sustain itself and not become another rental. I think it's probably been a rental. I'm just guessing. That even if it weren't -- so see the other side of it? Crispelle: Yes. Yes. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 20, 2003 Page 46 of 84 Centers: And that's what I look at and I looked at 17 absentee owners. Seventeen. And, of course, they are not here, they don't care. Crispelle: And I figure a percentage of them -- or a large percentage might be indifferent to the whole thing, just because they are absentee, but -- Centers: Yeah. You're right. You're right. But, then, you look at the neighborhood and rentals -- don't get me wrong, there are places for rental properties, there are, but that one that went to the HUD in Irvine jumped out at me, because that's probably a foreclosure. Crispelle: I'm might add, too, that this -- this 23Q West Pine has been -- being used for a day care center, as far as I know. Is that not -- no? Well, it was for the last two years before these folks moved in, because I going -- not 30 people, but maybe three for the last three years. Borup: Any other questions? Centers: No. live there and I see a lot of cars coming and or four kids -- taking care of three or four kids Borup: I've got some pertaining to comments on the traffic and -- which is one of my concerns here, too. I'm going to ask this to the applicant also, but I wonder what -- if there was an access from 3rd Street to the alley where they could drive through, do a drop off, and drive out, there would not be any backing up and trying to turn around -- you said it's hard to turn around and -- do you think that would be a better traffic flow situation? Crispelle: Well, no, I don't. I'm against using 3rd Street, for the obvious reason it will become parking and not just because there will be people that won't want to drive in there and they will just park on 3rd Street and we are right back to where we were when the school didn't have the fence and it was pretty bad. People just going off to the game and leaving their car parked in front of my neighbor's driveways, both of them. Borup: No. I mean for the day care. Crispelle: Yeah. Do I see a problem in using 3rd Street? Is that what you're asking? Borup: Well, I think that would help the traffic situation. Crispelle: Well, no, I think it would make it worse, because people are going to do what they are going to do. I mean if there is parking in front, they are usually in a hurry, they will probably park in front. But I certainly don't want to see -- Borup: What would prevent them from parking on 3rd Street now as it is? Meridian Planning & Zoning March 20, 2003 Page 47 of 64 Crispelle: Well, nothing, except there is not a lot of room to park on 3rd Street. Borup: Exactly -- Crispelle: Well, it's a dead end street and Ihave -- I have a camp trailer, I have two or three registered vehicles I park there and -- Borup: I guess that was my thought. If there was adrive-thru, there would be no necessity to park there and they wouldn't have any -- Crispelle: Well, in theory) would agreewithyou, but, in practicality, I thinkitwould become a parking access. Borup: Well, I think that's probably all we are doing is talking theory here. Crispelle: Okay. Borup: Thank you. Centers: And, sir, you live here? Crispelle: That's correct. Centers: Right there? Crispelle: 306 West Pine. That's correct. Centers: Okay. Thank you. Crispelle: Thank you. Borup: Is there someone else that would like to come forward? Come on up. Price: Richard Price. I live at 821 West 2"d. Could I use your - I live -- I live right here. The problem I have with this going in there --Ihave been fighting ACHD -- I bought this house -- I was a partner as a - I was originally going to use it as an investment and after living in the neighborhood for awhile, I decided I'm going to turn around and fix it up and sell it, but I couldn't sleep nights. I committed myself to make it a safer neighborhood. It's absolutely nuts down here. From this street -- from this area right here you literally have, I kid you not, hundreds of moving violations a day. If you drive 25 miles an hour down the street, you're going to have people tailgating you. What they are doing is they are coming down this street and they are cutting through here, they are going down here, they are cutting like this, they are going all different ways in here. Yesterday one of my neighbor's kids, a car came cutting down this street right here, came right around, missed him by five feet. In this neighborhood right here alone, not even counting my two kids, there is probably at least 15 kids that live right in there. The Meddian Planning 8 Zoning March 20, 2003 Page 46 of 64 traffic is incredible down here. This intersection here, you have constant traffic backed up. They are going around each other, which, as we know, is illegal, and you have people going down this street here, which is 25 miles an hour -- how do you guys keep that so steady? But, anyway, going down here, they are going 35, 40 miles an hour, they are cutting back here to get back on there, and it's the same thing that's going in here and it's this -- what I'm talking to ACHD is I want four way stops all the way down here and I want speed bumps down there, a total of 18 stop signs I'm working on. I'm meeting with them again tomorrow for like the 6th time. Borup: On Idaho you're talking about? Price: O h, I'm talking about -- yeah, I want them on Idaho and o n B roadway, even though Idaho is the one that really affects myself. But this is just -- it's just as bad down here. It's incredible that -- until this road -- and I talked to Dave about this. Until this road goes south one way and this one goes north one way, it is going to continue to just back up and you can sit out here and you can go out there -- I went out there with a video, because I was going to send it to the Mayor. I had that thing so filled up full of cars within 15 minutes it was a joke and it made absolutely no sense when I reran it and ran it back. It's just it would be - if you go in and you allow this to happen, I figure you're going to have as many as 100 to 150 trips going back and forth here and this is going to be increased -- the backing up of cars going -- and they are just going to force more cars coming in here. I'm purely here just for the traffic. I can appreciate somebody trying to start a business to make a better life for themselves, but at the expense of the neighborhood back here, whether they are renters or not -- and, you're quite right, the house back here was sold and closed within the last couple of weeks. But it is primarily renters living back in there. You have a lot of apartment complexes back in here and what they are doing is they are just -- it's not meant for this. When they put apartments back in there and the paths, in my opinion, they are making mistakes. These roads are not meant for that type of traffic. And if they'd just put stop signs, for instance, here, just on these streets, it won't work, because it's just going to continue to just go down and just scoot it right back in there. And if you're going to allow them to have this come in here, it's going to back this up. You will see from Meridian sometimes backed up to here at 5:00 o'clock and I suppose you drive out of here, you know, if you're living over here and you see the same thing and what they are doing is -- it just goes on and on and on. For some reason on this side of town they don't understand you have to yield to the right. You go to this side of town over here, you go back on those streets back there, it's just like the north end of Boise, people yield to the right, but for some reason -- I tried to get ACHD to put a sign up there, yield to the right. They don't make such a sign. The guy says at the last meeting I had, says you want me to put 18 stop signs up? Igo, yes, if that's what it takes to safe these kids' lives, it's going to happen. But you can go out there, there is no place for these kids to play, you put apartments upon apartments back in there, there are no parks in there, these kids are playing in the street and that's the way it works. They play in the alleys and they play in the streets and that's what it comes down to. If you allow this to happen, you're just going to add to the problem that's going on in there. And this is a big bottleneck that you had. It kind of reminds me of my family's ranch, you have like an eight inch pipe Meddian Planning & Zoning March 20, 2003 Page 49 of 84 and, then, you get down to six, then, four -- you know, you get the pressurized like that, and that's what we have here, we have a big bottleneck and it's risking our lives back there, it's risking my kids' lives. My kids are 11 and 14. I don't let them go outside and cross the street to play with their friends unless I'm out there. It's that bad. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Any questions for Mr. Price? Thank you. Centers: He made his point. Borup: Anyone else? Let's see if we got anybody new yet. Has everyone else had a chance -- come on up. Crispelle: Bob Crispelle at 306 West Pine. A year and a half ago the lady directly across from 230 West Pine -- as I was going duck hunting and we were talking and she was turning in some water at the irrigation ditch and she's an elderly gal and she walked across the street, looked both ways, and it was about 10:30 in the morning, a gal that was driving, because of the sunlight, didn't see her and hit her and, thank God she's alive, but 400,000 later and about two years convalescing, but it -- you know, accidents happen, but this is a very busy road. Thank you. Borup: Thank you. Centers: Mr. Chairman, I would like to hear from the applicant for the Conditional Use Permit, the spokesman for the applicant. Borup: Okay. I think she's coming. O'Toole: Good evening, my name is Sharon O'Toole and I am one of the applicants for the Conditional Use Permit for this property and I would like to address some of the concerns that I have heard. I'm hearing that there are many, many children in that neighborhood and our intention is to be a good neighbor. Our intention is to provide a place for some of those children to be. We talked about the traffic on --we live on Rosehan, which is just on the other side of Linder Road. We live in that Merrywood addition there, and I come u p a nd d own Pine Street every day on my way to work. There is traffic there and there is traffic every day, but I have driven by that house -- we have been contemplating this for months and I have driven by the house every single day going to work and coming home from work and I have never seen tons of congestion in front of the building. Not ever. We talked about traffic flow and you mentioned the exact time that we were talking about it, coming into the alley, arranging the parking along the back of that property against the landscaping and providing egress onto 3rd Street, which leaves an even flow so there is no backing up and there is no -- no confusion about getting in and out of the property. This is a very small facility in terms of a day care center. Thirty children is a very small facility. It is intended to be a good pre-school, a school that focuses on pre-reading and pre-cognitive skills and we expect to set standards for parents. I don't foresee a situation in which we have people dropping their children off and taking off or parking in places that are unauthorized. The Meridian Planning & Zoning March 20, 2003 Page 50 of 64 school wouldn't permit that. We would stop the parents from doing that. I don't see this as an uncontrolled situation at all. So I mean -- Centers: Are you Mrs. Sharon O'Toole: I'm Mrs. O'Toole. Yes. Sharon O'Toole. Centers: O'Toole? Thirty children? O'Toole: Thirty children is our estimate at this point, based on the square footage that we measured. We are not sure exactly what the licensing people will say about the kitchen area, because it's very open and there is -- there is a lot of space there and we are probably going to use part of that space. Not as classroom space, but it's going to be a dining area and that is considered space that children use. Cooking space is not considered space that the children can use. So, I don't know exactly where they are going to draw the line there. So, I'm expecting the licensing to come in the area of -- I'm guessing between 28 and 32. I think 32 is probably the max that we would be licensed for, so -- Centers: Well, if we do a max, it's going to be a max. If we do a max of 30, that's -- you know. O'Toole: Okay. Well -- Centers: There is not going to be any -- O'Toole: There is a state agency that licenses pre-schools and this will be a licensed pre-school and they -- they physically come in and review the space and determine what space they consider usable by the children. Centers: Yeah. We covered that. But do you intend to have children in the morning -- some children in the morning, different children in the afternoon? O'Toole: We are -- the hours that we expect to be open are 6:30 to 6:00 p.m. and, typically, most children begin to arrive at school between 7:30 and 8:30. That's the time that most people drop their children off and go on to work for a full day. I have run several pre-schools and most of the time they are open at 6:30, but most of the time there is nobody there at 6:30. That's just for the occasional parent who needs those early h ours. And there m ay b e one or t wo o r t hree c hildren t here a t t hat hour, but, typically, not much. Centers: That didn't answer my question O'Toole: Okay. What's the question? Meridian Planning & Zoning March 20, 2003 Page 51 of 64 Centers: I understand how they operate. W e have experienced them, too. You're going to have different shifts, though, maybe 15 children in the morning and, then, 15 different children in the afternoon? O'Toole: No. Most of the children -- Centers: Or are you going to have 30 all day? O'Toole: They are probably --most of the time there are mostly 30 all day. Centers: Okay. O'Toole: Okay. Centers: Mostly? O'Toole: Now, there may be an occasional child that comes in later in the day and -- Centers: And the way the permit works -- I'm going to call the children customers. O'Toole: Okay. Centers: Each child is a customer. O'Toole: Okay. Centers: If we approve it for 30, you cannot have more than 30 customers. You understand that? Most people don't. O'Toole: That's not how -- that's not how licensing works. Centers: Jump in, staff. Borup: I'm not sure that applies to this type -- Centers: It doesn't? Borup: -- as opposed to an accessory -- O'Toole: What the state license requires is that you never have more children on site than you're licensed to accommodate. Borup: Well, I think Commissioner Centers is referring to like a maximum of six and some of those were within an R-8 zone. Centers: Well, that one we had was 15. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 20, 2003 Page 52 of 64 Borup: Yeah. That was an R-8 zone. Well, let's have -- O'Toole: I guess don't understand the question. Borup: Let's go -- Centers: So, you're okay with 7:00 to 7:00 or 7:00 to 6:00? O'Toole: Sure. Centers: Okay. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, the applicant, when determining the number of children to be cared for during the day and, then, they way the definition is written, it's written for determining the type of child care facility and for a commercial child care facility you can have more than 12 children throughout the day. Let me read to you the way it's worded and I will have some comment, if needed. It should be noted that in determining the type of childcare facility that is being operated, the total number of children cared for during the day and not the number of children at the facility at any one time is determinative. So, what that basically means is that when we are dealing with a family childcare home, five or fewer, Mr. Centers, you're correct in your definition. If we are dealing with group child care homes, that's for six to 12 children throughout the day, that applies to your definition. When we are dealing with childcare centers with more than 12, that definition does not necessarily apply to that, because you're allowed to have as many children above and beyond 12 as you, as a Commission, deem is appropriate. If you'd like to place a condition saying no more than 30 throughout the day cumulative, rather than just 30 -- it's up to you, but it does not necessarily apply to -- Centers: Right. And that's what I'm leading up to, because that is -- that dictates the number of trips. McKinnon: Correct. The vehicle trips are tied at just over four vehicle trips per day per kid. Centers: Is that what you -- I was looking for it, four per day per kid? McKinnon: It's, actually, just a little bit more than four per day per kid. Borup: You're dropping off and, then, leaving and picking up and leaving? That's the four? McKinnon: That's four. Centers: Right. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 20, 2003 Page 53 of 64 Borup: That would be four per family, if you have more than one children --child. O'Toole: Right. You're counting coming and leaving as two trips. It's one car, b ut you're counting it as two trips. I'm coming to school -- Bonap: Yes. That's how ACHD -- O'Toole: That's one trip. I drop my child off, I'm leaving, that's trip number two; is that what you're saying? Borup: That's how ACHD counts it. O'Toole: Okay. There is a difference between what is called a home day care, which is what he was describing, day cares that are allowed to have five or fewer children, and a commercial day care and we are talking about commercial regulations -- regulations and commercial license. Okay. So, there is a distinction there. Like I say, in terms of day care facilities, this is one of the -- this is about as small a commercial facility as you will see. Any other questions? Centers: So -- and you can stay there. Staff, we can put whatever conditions we like, regardless of the state license? I think Mrs. O'Toole keeps referring to the state may allow 32. If we want to put a max at 32 and a max at 30 customers, we can do that. McKinnon: That's correct. Centers: Correct. So, you understand that? O'Toole: I understand. I understand. Centers:. Okay. I guess we override can state. Can you believe that? O'Toole: Sure. I can believe that. Borup: It's because it's a conditional use, so that would be a condition. Centers: Do you know the use of the property prior to -- or right now or just prior? O'Toole: I believe it's being used as a residence. At this point it's being rented. Centers: They haven't been using it as a day care or -- O'Toole: Not to be knowledge. Schmeckpeper: Never has been. Meddlan Planning & Zoning March 20, 2003 Page 54 of 64 Centers: Thank you. O'Toole: You're welcome. Borup: Any other questions from any other Commissioners? Thank you, Mrs. O'Toole. Merlyn, did you have any final comments? Schmeckpeper: Yeah. Just a couple, I will make them short and sweet. I wanted to just correct -- you asked just a moment ago if it had ever been used for a day care center the entire time -- Centers: Well, another individual referred to that, so - Schmeckpeper: And that's what I wanted to make a correction on. Definitely. No, it has never been, during my ownership, which has been approximately three and a half years. I think if you talk to the neighborhood over there, because I have had comments from many of them, prior to my purchasing that property it was a mess. I think that there is many of you that have driven by in the last few years and you can see that it is now a presentable piece of property. That's the way we keep all of our properties. So, I think it was an addition to the neighborhood, an upgrade, if I please. We purchased it and cleaned it up and presented it as it's presented today. Centers: It's presently a rental? Schmeckpeper: It is presently a single family dwelling rental. Centers: Uh-huh. Schmeckpeper: It has never been anything else in my ownership. The people I bought it from -- I think that was the owner's brother or something that had lived there for some time, but I can't go back beyond that, because I don't know. Centers: So, your only involvement, sir -- you're the owner and you're applying for the rezone and you're going to be the lessor? Schmeckpeper: That's correct. Centers: Okay. Schmeckpeper: And we will be responsible for whatever conditions have to be taken care of in the property, as far as the parking lot and things like that, bringing them up to code. Another issue I'd like to address -- and I'm sure you folks are aware of this. 3rd Street is now a dead end street. It was designed for through traffic, a standard subdivision of old day's traffic, so whatever traffic is there today is minimal, compared to what t hat s treet w as originally d esigned for, b ecause i is n ow a dead a nd. The foot traffic situation, those sidewalks are five foot and they are relatively new in front of the Meridian Planning 1» Zoning March 20, 2003 Page 55 of 64 premise and they are designed to maximum code at this point in time, as far as I am aware. So, it's very able to carry proper foot traffic or heavy foot traffic. And I think that's about all I have, gentlemen, unless you have another question of me. I appreciate your time and the opportunity that maybe we can work through the parking with the P&Z ahd get this thing on up to the Council. Thank you very much. Borup: Thank you. Commissioners, do we have some discussion? Rohm: Well, I'd like to ask staff a question, if I could? The designation of Old Town, which this piece property of falls within that area; correct? McKinnon: That's correct. Rohm: At the time that that was developed, was the logic so that you could bring in businesses of this type by that definition? Isn't that what the reason for Old Town was all about? McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Commissioner Rohm, I, actually, did address that specifically in the staff report. I don't need to refer to that. But the ability of changing the use in the Old Town is something that was brought up in the Comprehensive Plan and that was part of the intended use of the Old Town zone is for the redevelopment of existing single family to other uses, other than single family residential. Borup: Didn't the last Comprehensive Plan increase the boundaries of Old Town, though? McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, the Comprehensive Plan is right over there, I will just -- there is a large brown area and it, actually, made the Old Town area much larger. Again, when you're dealing with the Comprehensive Plan, we are dealing with a future land use, rather than existing land use. The current zoning for the property is R-4. Upon receiving the request for annexation, we had to look to the Comprehensive P Ian map to see what the future zoning d esignation for the property should be and at the time of the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan, it was felt that it should be Old Town zoned. Borup: Has it always been R-4 since -- I mean not always, I guess since -- the other lots around it don't look large enough to comply with an R-4 zone. This lot is, but a majority of them don't. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman -- Borup: I'm not saying that -- oh, wait a minute, here are the boundaries. Yeah. It looks like most of them are probably 60 -- 60 foot lots, aren't they? This one is 120. Okay. So, half the lots would not meet an R-4 zone standard. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 20, 2003 Page 56 of 64 McKinnon: Right. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission - Borup: I mean the lots that -- go ahead. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, when they determined the Old Town boundaries for the new Comprehensive Plan, they, essentially, looked at the original township of Meridian and set that aside as the area to be part of Old Town and that's where they came up with the kind of odd shape that the Old Town has on the new Comprehensive Plan map. When this was developed, it wasn't developed to today's R- 4standards and so it was developed to different standards that were adopted at the time this was developed. Borup: So, that originally was designated R-4. McKinnon: It was designated as something before it was R-4, just like all the rest of the Old Town was designated as something before we had -- Borup: They didn't have zoning, then. McKinnon: That's correct. We didn't have the R-4 zoning. It may have been an R zone. Borup: I was just wondering why it's called R-4 now. McKinnon: Probably because that was what was the closest fit at the time when they -- theyjust tried to shoe horn it into the R-4 zone. Borup: It doesn't sound like it was the closest fit. McKinnon: R-8 may have been more appropriate. Borup: Yeah. I guess it doesn't really matter. I don't know why I brought that up, but it just seemed an oddity to me that most of the lots are 7,000 feet or less or, in that range, why it was even zone R-4. Okay. Did that answer your question, Commissioner Rohm, on -- Rohm: Well, I guess it did. I guess my point was -- is if, in fact, you have a designation of Old Town and this would be one of the things that could be -- the property could be used for within that definition of Old Town, it almost seems like it falls within the intent when Old Town was created. That was where I was going. Borup: Well, I think it does. Maybe the difference here is this is more on the perimeter, it's more on the periphery of what the -- you know, previously it was referred to as Old Town. But it sounds like the present Comprehensive map plan boundaries of Old Town was, actually, the old town, hence the name? Meridian Planning & Zoning March 20, 2003 Page 57 of 64 McKinnon: Hence the name. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, just --when Commissioner Rohm just mentioned the intent, we do have in our code book the schedule of use control, which says what uses are allowed as permitted uses and which uses are allowed as conditional uses and the day care use is a conditional use in the Old Town zone. It's not permitted as of right, it's only if it makes sense in that zone and you guys sit as a quasi judicial body to determine whether or not it makes sense and whether or not certain conditions should be placed upon that. Rohm: Thank you. That was where I was going with it. Borup: Yeah. Otherwise, it wouldn't be a condition use application. Rohm: Right. Centers: Could you name some of the permitted uses? McKinnon: As of right in the Old Town zone, churches, family child care home, libraries and museums, public parking lots, and -- Centers: Family childcare home would be a fewer number of children? McKinnon: Yes. And the other uses that are permitted as of right would be home occupations, libraries, and single-family dwellings. But there is a whole list of conditional uses in the Old Town zone. Centers: Right. Thanks. Mr. Chairman, I guess what I -- you know, I can understand the applicant and time is of the essence and -- but I guess I would like to see a definite parking plan, how they intend to come in and go out and, of course, I -- you know, I'm with the staff, that the ten foot minimum buffer. I would also like to know how many kids could be allowed in that house per the state requirements, max. It's 1,450 minus this, minus that, and, then, you end up with 35 square feet per -- I'd like to know what that is and I guess I'm proposing that they come back to us with that information and with the information on the parking and get it the way it's supposed to be before we send it to the City Council. Borup: I think maybe we can get some information -- or maybe some input from the applicant on the -- well, let's discuss that, on the numbers, whether they have to have the license people come out first -- Centers: Well, they are going to have to come back if we recommend that and, then, they could have that at that time. Borup: Did you have a comment on the number of children? Sheridan: Yeah. We have -- Meridian Planning & Zoning March 20, 2003 Page 58 of 64 Borup: You need to state your name, please. Sheridan: Okay. My name is Debbie Sheridan. I would be the on-site director of the pre-school. We measured the space ourselves and we, actually, only came out to 28, so we put 30, because we weren't sure what the licensing agency would come out to. Borup: Okay. You previously said up to 32, possibly. Sheridan: Well, our measurements came out that we thought it would 28, but we couldn't be real solid on that, because the kitchen space is so open. They allow you to use some of that space. Borup: So you're figuring a minimum of 28, by your calculations? Sheridan: That was our calculation and we measured the area the first time. Borup: Okay. Sheridan: And that's, like I say, one of the reasons we chose that building and looked long for a building, was we thought it was an ideal location, because it was a nice neighborhood and we thought it was a nicer place to put apre-school than say in a shopping center where I see many pre-schools. And, yet, it's a well traveled road, but a visible building. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Sheridan: Thank you. Borup: Well, I agree with Commissioner Centers' statement. I think the buffering is important and part of that would be perhaps some increased landscaping in that buffer beyond the minimum and one of the big concerns was traffic and that would be mine, too, if we are talking about cars trying to pull in an alley and back around while another car is trying to get in, I can see some real congestion problems there. So, some type of -- you know, either drive-thru in design or an easy turn around or something, so they are not doing the backing. Is that what you were referring to Commissioner? Centers: Exactly. Well -- and I think the applicant should be prepared to come back and show where they are going to do the landscape buffer. Borup: Right. Yes. Centers: I'm just telling them in advance -- and, yet, I'm not saying you do this, you do that, that you're going to get my vote. I haven't decided yet. I want that to be made clear, so -- Meridian Planning & Zoning March 20, 2003 Page 59 of 64 Rohm: I also think that before we can really make a good decision, all of those questions have to be responded to by the applicant. How are you going to address the traffic congestion? What is your specific response to the buffer in accordance with the residential area, how will you try and maintain that ambiance. And if you can take care of those three things, then, you have at least addressed the concerns of the public and that would help a lot with this application. And we couldn't act on it without some sort of response in those three areas. It seems logical. Mathes: I have another comment on the buffer. Since you might be parking that way, you might want to put some type of landscaping in where headlights aren't going into their house, since he sleeps weird hours. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commissions, Bruce and I have been talking about that just a little bit and there may be a -- I don't know how the applicant or the -- or Mr. -- I'm sorry, I had the name written down. Mr. Rokovitz? Darrin? Sorry. A fence as part of the buffer may be helpful in reducing noise, in addition to the additional landscaping. Centers: There is just a four foot fence there now, isn't there, Dave? McKinnon: I went out and visited the site and -- correct me if I'm wrong -- Centers: Well, I think I read that on this schematic. McKinnon: I think it's a chain link fence; is that correct? Or is it a solid fence? A wire fence of some sort? Borup: So you're saying a solid six foot - McKinnon: That's another option that you have for increasing the buffer and that may be something that you might consider in addition to the additional landscaping. Centers: Well -- and just a comment to the applicant's Conditional Use Permit. Conditional. I mean it's not cart blanche. And, then, you know, you apply for the permit and you want a lot of exceptions, that doesn't fly too well. A 20-foot buffer, you want five. You can't ask for a lot of concessions when you're asking for a conditional permit. That's my view. The city has certain ordinances and they like them followed and, then, to ask for exceptions sometimes doesn't cut it, so -- Borup: Well -- and another question is how much time? Was that discussed with the staff? Okay. How much time does the applicant think you'd need to go through those items? Okay. He said probably the middle of next week. So, I guess our earliest meeting would be available -- one option would be the April 3rd. One tonight had asked about that, but we did not continue it to April 3rd, so we do have one subdivision application that night and, then, other miscellaneous applications on the 3rd. Yes, I don't see any of the others being real time consuming. We have got a full agenda, but -- Meridian Planning & Zoning March 20, 2D03 Page 60 of 64 Rohm: Well, besides that, I think that we have heard the public testimony, for all intents and purposes, and so long as the applicant responds to their concerns, it shouldn't take a long time to -- Borup: Well -- Centers: Yeah, but I would like to leave the Public Hearing open and if there is other testimony at that time we would, of course, accept it. Borup: Well, we would need to do -- we'd need to leave the Public Hearing open to receive additional -- Rohm: Or for new testimony, not the same -- Borup: Right. You're saying the testimony should be based on the new site plan or something. Rohm: Exactly. Borup: Okay. Centers: Well, with that, I think the applicant knows what we would like to see. I would recommend that we continue Public Hearing No. 9 on our agenda, RZ 03-003, and No. 10 on our agenda, CUP 03-006, continue both public hearings to our April 3rd meeting. Mathes: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? All right. Thank you. So, this will be continued to April 3rd. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Borup: And we normally put the continued hearings first on the agenda. Okay, Commissioners, a couple other items. Well, I may need some help from one of the staff members. Okay. Two -- a couple of -- Mathes: I have a question. Borup: Yes. Go ahead, Leslie. Mathes: The ACHD report on Paramount, do you have it? McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Mathes, yesterday the ACHD Planning and Zoning Commission met to discuss Paramount and noted four to one in favor of approving Paramount with staff comments. They did revise the staff comments