Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOctober 16, 2003 P & Z CommMeridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 16, 2003 Page 5 of 114 Powell: Chairman Borup, forgive me for this, but did you adopt the agenda and, if so, there was -- we did want to request a slight modification to it. Item Number 11, we do have Mike Reno here to talk about it, so we were hoping to move it forward, so -- in deference to -- Borup: Okay. I was not aware of that request, so did that get -- Powell: I was going to talk to you before you -- Borup: Right. Why didn't you do that? Powell: You were rather fast today. I'm sorry. Borup: Okay. Zaremba: If it requires a motion to rearrange the agenda, I'd so move that Item 11 be considered next. Rohm: I'll second that. Item 11. Public Hearing: CUP 03-047 Request for a Conditional Use Permit to demolish existing home and rebuild one single family residential dwelling for caretakers quarters on lot 2, block 2 of Observation Point Subdivision in a R-4 zone by RF Construction - 500 East Victory Road: Borup: Motion and second. We will look at Item Number 11. In doing so, we'd like to open Public Hearing CUP 03-047, request for a Conditional Use Permit to demolish an existing home and rebuild one single-family residence for a caretaker's quarter in Lot 2, Block 2, of Observation Point Subdivision. As I said, the Public Hearing is open and we'd like to start with the staff report. Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. Planning and -- this is Craig Hood, Planning and Zoning. The applicant R.F. Construction has requested approval of a Conditional Use Permit to replace an existing single family home with a new 1,125- foot -- square foot -- single family home on a 1.8-acre site located at 500 East Victory Road. The subject site was recently annexed into the city and zoned R-4. In 2002 a plat was recorded that included this property as Lot 2, Block 2, Observation Point Subdivision. A note was placed on the face of the Final Plat restricting the issuance of Building Permits for this lot until a sewer line had been constructed to serve the site. Further, a note was placed on the face of the Observation Point plat that required all single-family lots to contain structures being a minimum of 2,100 square feet. The applicant is proposing to construct a single family home utilizing the existing septic system. The applicant's proposal requires a Conditional Use Permit, because connect to the municipal water and sewer systems of the City of Meridian is required in an R-4 zone. Further, Meridian City Code requires only single-family detached houses in the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Mee[ing October 16, 2003 Page 6 of 114 R-4 district to contain at least 1,400 square feet of living space. Due to the findings listed in the staff report, staff is recommending denial of the applicant's proposal to utilize the existing septic system on Lot 2, Block 2, Observation Point Subdivision for new single home as requested and as was brought before earlier, Mike Reno from Central District Health is here to answer any questions that the Commission may have and the applicant is here as well. I will stand for any questions you may have. Borup: Yes. Questions from the Commission? Would any of the Commissioners like to hear from Central District Health on this point? Centers: Read his notes. They are very clear. Borup: The only question I had is whether it was going to be relocated, but maybe the applicant can answer that, so let's -- would the applicant like to come forward? Sheffield: I'm Elliott Sheffield, RF Construction Borup: You have heard the staff report, so we would be open for any comments you would have and anything else you'd like to say. Sheffield: Okay. We looked into a couple of different options we could do with that. We called Briggs Engineering, discussed some preliminary estimates, what it would cost to put a lift station and an individual sanitary sewer across the lot and tie into the existing system at Observation Point. It does not come across the canal currently. The price on that was started at 7,000 dollars and up, depending on how much it would cost to bore the canal. I haven't priced that yet, I'm not sure what the canal people would charged for -- to have us go under the canal, what type of casing or whatever we have to do on that. It felt like that just really made it almost cost prohibitive to do for a single family home. What I have not had a chance to talk to Mike about is that we do have a septic system there now that was put in I believe two years ago, so it's a new working system and what we propose to do -- we don't want to keep it forever, we don't want to keep it for any length of time, other than as soon as sanitary sewer is available we will tie on that day and we would be happy to do that, we just don't want to go through the extra cost incurred right now to tie onto the sewer that's in Observation Point. Zaremba: There was a suggestion that you orient the garage in such a way that it can be connected to the future subdivision to the west of you. Have you reconsidered a new configuration? Sheffield: That's not a problem. We can do that. We'd still like to keep the Victory access for now, if possible. To orient the garage and try to bring a bridge across the canal at this point would be -- I think it started at -- well, they said 40 to 50,000 dollars to do that, so that -- there, again, that put it cost prohibitive for a single family home. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 16, 2003 Page 7 of 114 Zaremba: I, actually, wasn't thinking of bridging across the canal, I was thinking whenever the property to the west of you or what would be left on that map, that you orient that direction. Sheffield: Okay. Can I point to the map? Zaremba: Yes. Take that microphone with you, please. Sheffield: What I had thought of doing is take this same house and orient it so that we could have either a side entry garage or the garage could come in on this other side, so that at some future date when we do have a subdivision here, if this does get developed in Victory Greens and come in from this area, that the garage could come into the other side. The garage is almost symmetrical, so we would be able to go either way with it. Zaremba: And if that's the case, does it meet the set -- it would, then, be a side setback, eventually, right, and it would meet -- that landscape buffer could be completed across this property and would it, then, meet the setbacks? Hood: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, that's correct. That's kind of what the staff report had outlined in some of the findings, that if this were to be approved and a new residence were allowed at this time, if the garage can be oriented so in the future access can be taken internally, then, that would be a side setback or a street side setback and not as restrictive as if the garage were coming in off of Victory Road. Borup: Okay. I had some of the same thoughts. I mean we -- I don't think we should be approving a structure that's going to cause a future problem with meeting this setback when it's developed, so we need a plan for that, so if that can be done. Mr. Sheffield, did you say you were planning on utilizing the existing septic system and drain field or were you planning a new one? Sheffield: We would like to use the existing one, if possible. It's less than two years old, it's a new system, a new tank, and everything was all brand new. We'd like to use that system until sewer is available. Borup: Okay. Sheffield: We do have city water available. Borup: Right. I understood that. Sheffield: Okay. Centers: Mr. Chairman, would it be safe to assume that that property was annexed when Observation Point was? Borup: Yes, it was. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 16, 2003 Page S of 114 Centers: It couldn't be a holdout parcel. I figured that. How do you address the problem where you want to build a 1,125-foot home with a restriction for 1,400 square feet in an R-4 zone? Why don't you build 1,500 feet? Sheffield: We would go up to 1,400 feet. We would be willing to do that. We talked about it today and said that if it was necessary to go to the 1,400 feet, we don't have a problem doing that. Centers: When you were annexed two years ago and you had the property there, did the city inform you at that time that if you ever needed a building permit on that property you would have to hook up to sewer? Sheffield: I believe -- I believe it was addressed. I don't know. Mike Coven was taking care of it at that time and I wasn't involved. Centers: How do you propose us to address the Central District Health comments? Have you read them? Sheffield: I did. Centers: How do you want us to address those? Sheffield: Well, I guess what I was looking for was a Variance of some sort on Central District, if we could have just a Variance from Central District to hook up to the existing system until sewer is available. From what I understand, from talking to -- from Tammy de Weerd, she said that sewer was planned to go down that road in a short amount of time, shouldn't be long. I would just like to use the existing system until sewer is further down. Centers: Well, I think you should have talked to the Public Works Department, rather than someone like -- other than --and that brings up a question I had for Mr. Freckleton. Is there a definite date that sewer will be available for this home? Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Commissioner Centers, we don't have a definite date. It is planned for the future, but as far as having a date on the calendar, we don't. Centers: Because, you know, I look at it like other scenarios where we could approve it if we had a date down the road and give them one year and, then, extend it for one year if something were to happen, but if we don't have a date, then, you can see where our hands might be tied or at least mine. Sheffield: Sure. I understand that. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 16, 2003 Page 9 of 114 Centers: You know. Yet, I have sympathy for the operation. Let me keep talking. The Building Department would also have to issue a permit if he remodeled the home, too; correct? Freckleton: Correct. Centers: So, he's stuck. Even if -- and from what it looks like there, you don't have much of a home. Sheffield: It's in a sad state of disrepair. Centers: Yes. You were informed two years ago that you would have to hook up to sewer. I think you admitted that, if you did anything there. Sheffield: Okay. Powell: Chairman Borup? Borup: Yes and I --did you read the minutes from City Council? Centers: Yes. It didn't make much sense to me. Borup: Okay. The reasoning at the time was the city did not want this piece to be developed without sewer, whether it was a neighborhood commercial or any other residential or whatever, so that was the rationale behind that restriction. Yes. I'm sorry. Hood: Members of the Commission, I just had a couple more things that I'd like to clarify that had -- on the history of this a little bit. When the original Observation Point Subdivision was submitted to the city, this specific parcel was left out. It created an illegal split and so the developer was required to include this as a lot and block within that subdivision, so that's kind of how this specific piece got included. It had to go through the subdivision process and also with that approval the landscape buffer that is along Victory against the built out part of Observation Point, if you will, has been constructed, but this was -- this whole landscape buffer was left out of that requirement, so that landscape buffer hadn't been -- so it was kind of -- it was platted, but it wasn't treated, really, as one of the lots in that subdivision and, then, just tc follow up kind of on what you have touched on, the City Council had determined that the square footage that the applicant was requesting and not hooking up to city services and being plate note violations, that just this was the best means to get anyone from the public that may want to come and testify, give them the opportunity, if they had any concerns with both of those, to come before you and voice those concerns as well. Borup: Thank you. Then, the other -- the other comment I had was on the Central District Health denial comment. One, they were -- they had mentioned no septic or well. A well is not proposed. It is going to be hooked to city sewer -- city water, I mean, and then, I'm not sure if Central District Health was -- and maybe we can get some Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 16, 2003 Page 10 of 114 clarification on that, whether they were considering putting in a new sewer system or using the existing tank and drain field that were there. I don't know if that would make a difference also. I think when you're done we'll get some -- anything else you wanted to add, Mr. Sheffield? Sheffield: I think that pretty well covers it. Borup: Okay. We may have some questions for you at the end. Sheffield: Okay. Centers: Thank you. Borup: Yes. If -- could you clarify that a little bit? Reno: Commission Borup, when that -- Borup: You need to get on the microphone. Your name for the record. Reno: Mike Reno with Central District Health. When that plat and the application came before Central District Health, it was based on all lots would be served by city water, city sewer, and that's the way the sanitary restrictions were listed. At this time, even if they wanted to use the existing septic system, I could not approve a new dwelling going on that -- approve a conditional use for a new dwelling to go on that lot connected to that septic system, because sanitary restrictions were listed based on city water, city sewer. He would have to connect to city water -- city sewer. The only way around that would be to replat that one lot, submit a new report, and application far lifting restrictions on that lot with individual septic and public water. Once that was done and approved, then, we could approve a dwelling on that to connect the septic system and something else about that septic system that I don't know if you're aware of. That septic system was installed two years. Shortly after it was installed, when Idaho Power trenched through the lot to connect the pump house for the irrigation, they trenched right through that septic system, so we are unsure whether -- how much damage was done at that time or not, but, obviously, it's still working out, because it's not servicing anymore. Borup: Sir, would -- if they were to remodel this home, the existing service could be used, though, if they were to add onto it or -- Reno: Commissioner provided they did not add any bedrooms to it. The way we look at that, we wouldn't have to be involved in approving a conditional use. If they were adding any bedrooms to a structure, you know, that may increase the -- need to increase the size of the drain field. If the drain field size did not need to be increased, then, they could make it -- do an addition to it. Borup: Okay. Questions from the Commission? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 16, 2003 Page 11 of 114 Zaremba: Assuming the question about the damage to the septic can be answered successfully, is there any mechanism for making a temporary exception? We are not -- the applicant has already stated they will hook up to sewer as fast as it's available and we don't know how long that's going to be, but -- Reno: Without a date, Commissioner Zaremba, they would not -- we would not be able to, I don't think approve a variance without a sure date -- Zaremba: Without a target. Borup: All right. Thank you. Do we have anyone here that would like to -- anybody from the audience to testify on this application? It looks like you got no neighbors. Sheffield: I just -- Elliott Sheffield, RF Construction. I just had one other thought, talking about the date. What if we were to go with an exception and put atwo-year date on it and if services were not available at the end of two years, then, at that time we would put in some type of a lift station and hook onto the existing sewer? Just a thought. Zaremba: Yes. Do you know the condition of the septic system? Was there damage or has it been repaired? Sheffield: I know they did go out and repair. I did not see it myself, but I know that when Idaho Power was notified and, then, we had a septic person go out and an excavator go and do some repair work on it for us, so I don't know -- I didn't see it, but understand it was repaired. Zaremba: Is the house occupied or has it been occupied all this time? Sheffield: It is. It is. Centers: Is it your preference to build 1,125 feet, rather than 14? Sheffield: We'd go either way. We'd rather do the eleven. Centers: Well, what I'm thinking, you know, it's a give and take. If we required the hook up to sewer with the lift station or whatever it took, if we were able to give you an exception on the square footage of the home -- Rohm: Yes. That would be -- that would be a nice give. We had that plan and built it several times. We know what our costs are in that. Centers: Yes. Of course, you know you would have to meet the setbacks and we talked about the garage and all that. Sheffield: Right. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 16, 2003 Page 12 of 114 Centers: That's just a thought I had, you know. Sheffield: Okay. Centers: Because I think a new home, whether it's 1,125, would be a lot better looking than what we have there and -- you know. Sheffield: Well, we intend some landscaping, even in the vacant field beside, to green it up and make it look more usable, instead of the way it looks now. Zaremba: Although another 275 square feet isn't that extreme of a change, is it? Sheffield: It would help a little. Every little bit -- Centers: At 40 dollars a foot it's about 10,000 dollars, so that offsets the lift station. Then, it -- I guess it is relevant. The owner of this property also developed and owns Observation Point; correct? Sheffield: He does. Centers: In a common sense view that I have, if he wants to put 1,125, I realize it's against the R-4 zone, but he also owns and developed the property that's adjacent to it, so -- Sheffield: Right. It's his intention to keep this just like it will be finished up once we get - - and just do some heavy landscaping there and make it -- make it very attractive. Centers: Right. Okay. Thank you. Borup: A couple -- do you have -- does the owner have any -- do you know what his plans are for the rest of the property? Is he looking at commercial down the road? Sheffield: He's not. Actually, what he -- he told me that Icould -- and I briefly mentioned this to -- I think it was Bruce earlier, but he would be willing to forego any other development or building on that property if we could build this little house there for a caretaker's place and just landscape it and leave it just as it is. Borup: I'm not -- I don't know if the city is asking that or would want to that Zaremba: Actually, we would like it to go the other way around. Sheffield: I guess the way that answers is that he does not have any plans for it, he wants to leave it just like it is and landscape it and have it as a nice entry to the subdivision and also to his home across the street. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 16, 2003 Page 13 of 114 Borup: But I meant the rest of the property. The weed patch. I mean I assume he's going to do something with that some day. He's not going to just leave that there, is he? Sheffield: Well, that's what he said. He said he'd just like to keep that landscaped. They are going to green it up and just make it look pretty nice. Borup: Oh, the whole -- the whole piece. Sheffield: The 1.8 acres. Yes. Borup: Okay. Mathes: The home across the street. Sheffield: No, not across the street. This same piece beside the house that's adjacent to it. Mathes: Right. I mean his property across the street is all green, too. Sheffield: Oh. Mathes: Right? Sheffield: Yes. Yes. Borup: Okay. Well, then, that would be very nice. I thought you meant just landscape around the -- around the yard or the house, so -- Sheffield: No. We would landscape the entire -- the entire lot, too. Borup: Okay. Well, that would make a nice entrance to the subdivision, too. Zaremba: Well, I'm sorry to say, but that goes the wrong direction for me. Part of the objective would be to lose the access onto Victory and connect to whatever is going to be there and if there is no plan to have anything there -- Borup: Then why have the other. Yes. I was making the same assumption, that there would be some development to the west. Zaremba: And close the access to Victory, which I think ACHD would be prefer. Sheffield: You mean when Victory Greens develops, if it does, or whatever -- whatever would happens to that side. Zaremba: Our discussion earlier about which way you would orient the garage, my thought was that whatever goes in the rest of that triangle there, whether it's commercial Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 16, 2003 Page 14 of 114 or residential, that the access, then, would be through that development and not to Victor. Sheffield: Right Zaremba: Victory Road. Sheffield: And that still would be a possibility, landscaping -- Zaremba: But you're making it sound like that's way in the future -- maybe never. Sheffield: Well, I can't answer that question for him, but I know that he did want to make it a more attractive place than what it is now and was not looking at the possibility -- he, nor I discussed the possibility that Victory Greens may sell 'out and that piece develop also. Hood: Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to clarify, staff -- what staff kind of envisioned happening and understanding the applicant doesn't intend to develop this specific lot. In the future, it probably will be developed to higher densities and the idea with the Victory Greens or parcels for further to the west a stub street would be provided or analyzed, at least, for provisions in the future when that develops. When this piece does redevelop, there is an access point that this lot can build off of, rather than taking direct access to Victory Road. Even though it's not maybe this applicant's intention to develop that property at this time, we are trying to preserve that for the future and limit those access points to the arterials and collectors. Mathes: But somewhere along the line it's going to have to come out on Victory, whether it's here or Victory Greens. Hood: Mr. Chairman. Not necessarily. What could happen is that stub street could come in from the development and, then, just cul-de-sac either there or have a driveway, even, come off there and just get acouple -- maybe a couple more homes in that driveway could get closed. Maybe a secondary access for emergency services vehicles, if that's necessary, but a primary access point for either a single family home or two, three, or four single family homes. It doesn't necessarily have to come off of -- Borup: Well, I think what Commissioner Mathes is saying it would come off Victory off property and that is true, there is going to have to be some access, but right now I think the concern is from ACHD that that entrance would be so close to the other entrance and that's a concern, that this driveway is close to the entrance to this subdivision. Hood: The driveway is fairly close. I think it may meet their policy for being offset, but if a future street were constructed, you know, that's kind of what we are looking at is a street or -- versus having direct lot access and everyone have a driveway to Victory Road, rather than one street that intersects the road and they all take driveways internally. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 16, 2003 Page 1 S of 114 Centers: But the fact remains that what you have right there has been approved by all - -all agencies and you have a driveway to a home on Victory -- off Victory Road and you have Observation Point. I think we are off the point, in my opinion. What the owner of that property does in the future is relevant, but not tonight, in my opinion. Sheffield: We are really not asking for any more than what we alteady have. Centers: Right. Exactly. That's what I'm saying. You want to build a new house and you want to meet code with it, other than you don't want all the square footage, so -- Sheffield: Right. Centers: Okay. Borup: Okay. Thank you. This might be pertinent for a little bit of discussion, maybe, before we continue on. I don't know if you want to continue on what you were saying, Commissioner Centers, but I was thinking along the same line, they are not trying to do anything different than what they have already got, other than make it more attractive. Centers: Right, and what I'd like to ask staff, if -- you know, my proposal for the applicant, if we all agreed, that is, to allow them the 1,125 square feet, make them hook up to sewer, whatever they have to do. Do they have to apply for a variance when they go to City Council? I think that would cover it, wouldn't it? They would have to. Hood: Members of the Commission, Craig Hood. That's what this kind of is for, is for that nonconforming use to not hook up, so this will go on to the City Council. Centers: Well. I'm aware of that. Hood: Yes. Centers: But will they have to apply for a variance to reduce the square footage of the home in the R-4 zone? Powell: What you're acting on tonight is the extension of a nonconforming use, so the nonconforming use is not only the fact that they are on septic, but also that their house -- their current house doesn't meet minimum standards. Centers: Okay. So -- Powell: So, you're okay. Centers: Okay. All right. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 16, 2003 Page 16 of 114 Borup: And my thought was that it would be easier just to have the 1,400 feet and not have to worry about noncompliance with that aspect the zoning ordinance. Rohm: How many bedrooms are there in the existing home? Sheffield: Two. Zaremba: The answer was two. Rohm: A 1,400 square foot home with two bedrooms to get around the Central District Health requirement that they -- Borup: Yes. That's not reasonable, is it? Rohm: Yes. That's what my point is, is a 1,400 square foot home with two bedrooms doesn't seem to make much sense either. Zaremba: Well, the applicant offered to put atwo-year deadline on the septic system. Would that help with the Central District Health variance? Reno: Mike Reno, Central District Health. Commissioner, I don't know how the variance would come out. It would go to a committee after public notification and the variance committee would evaluate what Mr. Sheffield's proposing and I can't say whether they would -- they would allow a variance when sanitary restrictions were lifted for city water, city sewer only or not. I can't speak for the variance committee. Rohm: Can't seem to get around this one. Borup: Well, that's something that -- we are not going to be able to settle tonight with Central District -- Zaremba: But we continued it until that process had run its course. Borup: Well, we can still -- we can still move it on. I mean they have still got to jump through that hurdle -- Zaremba: Before it gets to City Council Borup: -- separately. Centers: Well, I think that -- I don't think that is -- should be even considered, because we heard Mr. Freckleton state that there is no definite time frame and we may be just prolonging the agony, you know, and have to address it two years from now and hook up at that time, so -- because there is no definite date. Zaremba: So, your proposal is to require the hook up and allow the smaller size? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 16, 2003 Page 17 of 114 Centers: Yes. Zaremba: Okay. Centers: Give and take. Zaremba: Okay. Centers: It's going to be a lot nicer looking than what they have got now and they are going to be hooked up to sewer. Zaremba: I could live with that. Centers: And they are nonconforming now anyway. Borup: And, apparently -- how many -- how many notices were sent out? I mean one of the reasons City Council had to come back here was so there would be adequate notice to the neighbors. There may not be any within the noticing area. I mean they still got -- they are still not in compliance with their own covenants. Zaremba: Yes. The question would be how built out is Observation Pdint and I'm not familiar with that, so there may not be anybody close enough to respond, but, clearly, the developer has -- Centers: You want to come up to the microphone? Borup: Did you get notification? Zaremba: I was going to wait until he's at the mike to ask him that. Borup: Yes. Logue: We are at 574 Observation -- Zaremba: Would you give your name first, if you would, please? Logue: Bert Logue. Borup: And was that your interest here, because of this project or are you here for something else? Logue: We have this and, then, also there is -- there is, apparently, another subdivision that's -- Borup: Okay. Yes. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 16, 2003 Page 18 of 114 Logue: -- that's going to be going in that they are asking for a zoning change, so -- our concern being -- Zaremba: Okay. You're within 300 feet and did not get a notice? Logue: Well, I believe I am. Borup: Well -- but you live in this subdivision, though? Logue: Yes. Borup: Okay. Logue: As you go into the entrance there, I'm right on the corner there where you see the bend it road on Observation -- Borup: How long have you lived there? Logue: Since February. Borup: Okay. So, your -- what would be your perspective on this? What would you like to see happen next? Logue: So, you know, (just -- it's an eye sore right now, so anything is going to be an improvement, but I would like see that -- you know, that to some degree the covenants are, you know, upheld, even through, you know, that's kind of outside of the subdivision, you know, as far as size and -- you know. Borup: But would that be a big concern to you, whether it is 1,100 feet or 1,400 feet, if the whole place was landscaped and you had spark-like setting? Logue: I don't think I'd like to see anything under, really, probably, 1,500 square feet. Borup: Okay. Any other questions, any Commissioners? Thank you. Logue: Okay. Stricklin: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, my name is Ron Stricklin, I'm a future homeowner in Observation Point, so I didn't get a notice, don't have a mailbox yet. I don't know all of the details on this situation, it kind of came as short notice, but I do believe that the residence in question is a bit of an eye sore and for future property value I would like to see something done to that and your decision tonight will facilitate that occurring and I would have more comments, possibly, after learning more about what's going on, but just from what I have heard, I would urge some action be taken. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 76, 2003 Page 19 of 114 Zaremba: Would it concern you if it were smaller than your house? Stricklin: I believe I do have some concern there, but I -- not knowing the history or the technicalities involved, I would not like to comment on that. I'd rather be informed. Zaremba: Given your choice, you'd like to have a more attractive house there than what is there now? Stricklin: Yes. Zaremba: Okay. Borup: And maybe we can clarify that a little bit. When this subdivision came in, they originally -- their intention was they wanted just to leave this section separate, but because it's all under the same ownership, it had to be annexed in. Stricklin: Okay. Borup: But they did not develop it and the house that was there was what was there for however many years. Stricklin: It's -- Borup: So, it sounds like if they get turned down, that's what's going to stay. They are proposing that they'd like to go in and tear that down and put a new home on there, even though it's smaller than what the rest of the subdivision is, so that probably might be the choices. I don't know. Stricklin: I can understand that. I don't know the full impact of the landscaping that's proposed. I would want to find out more about that before I really commit to saying anything, other than visually it's not -- I have seen a lot better. Borup: What's there now you mean? Stricklin: Yes. Borup: Yes. I think everyone recognizes that. Stricklin: So, all I can urge at this point is just I hope arrahgement can be made or a variance can be issued to at least move something forward to make it happen. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Stricklin: Thank you. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 16, 2003 Page 20 of 114 Zaremba: Let me ask staff. If we required the sewer hookup, left it the 1,125 square feet, required the garage to be orientable -- or approachable from a future connection, the landscape buffer along the Victory side they need to leave space for that to be 30 feet -- or is it 40 feet? Borup: Twenty. Zaremba: Twenty? Plus -- Borup: Twenty, plus future right of way; would that be correct? They need to allow for the future right of way of Victory, plus 20 feet. Zaremba: Okay, and then, plus at five foot side setback. Borup: Right. Zaremba: Okay. Borup: Yes. The setbacks would need to stay the same. Zaremba: If they can comply with all of that, are there any other issues? Hood: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I don't believe staff would have any problems with that. You may just want to clarify with the applicant, though -- and maybe verify with public works -- I think that's a costly expense and I understand that he's aware of that, but that sounds -- as far as staff is concerned, that sounds reasonable. I think we would be happy with that. Centers: Did staff have any landscape requirements in their report or was that ever addressed? I didn't think it was. Powell: Chairman Borup, Commissioner Centers, that's what I was going to get to, that the staff report right now is a recommendation for denial with no conditions of approval. At this point the way you seem to be headed -- not supposing that I'm going to tell you which way you're voting. It would seem that you have two options. One is to either continued it, so that the staff can do a different recommendation for you and come up with conditions of approval or if in your motions you would like to be very specific about what conditions you would like to see and direct staff to write recommendation -- or findings for approval prior to the City Council. We can do it that way, so you have a couple different options. Zaremba: My personal preference on that would be to give it a short duration continuance and have applicant work with staff to solve as many things as they can and have as few left as conditions as possible. The applicant seems pretty willing to -- Borup: So, how many things are there to solve? I don't see -- Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 16, 2003 Page 21 of 114 Centers: Yes. Borup: I mean as far as landscaping, I think we just need -- I mean should be the same as the rest of the subdivision, you know, the landscaping buffer. Centers: Right. What we would be asking staff to do would be just that, in my opinion, because he wants to build a house on a piece of land that he owns, then, let's let him build it. I think the neighbors want him to build it and rather than continue it, let's move it forward. That's my opinion. Zaremba: No problem. The hearing is still open. Borup: Yes. It's still open. Smith: My name is Lori Smith, I am currently a homeowner with a home under construction in Observation Point, and we also believe that this is somewhat of an eyesore as it currently stands. However, it is also a large piece of property that is part of the subdivision and the subdivision itself, with its covenants, has far greater requirements for the homeowners as they stand, with square footage and landscaping, and it would be of significant concern to us, as homeowners, to have a small property -- building placed on a large property with no requirements or -- requirements for landscaping and also with the stated purpose of -- possibly of a caretaker's residence where you have a 1.8 property -- acre property where you could conceivably someone, you know, parking trucks and -- Borup: But it's presently used as a caretaker's house, so the use would stay the same. Smith: Yes, and it's alarge -- it's a large of piece property, but, you know, we have a lot of smaller properties within that -- obviously smaller properties within the subdivision that have far greater requirements for square footage and landscaping and -- whereas we would like to see the quality of this property improved, to have it okay to be at a much smaller -- significantly smaller square footage and no requirements for landscaping, just an approval that says, oh, we will landscape it and make it look nice and like a park, but no requirements within that use permit would be a concern to the rest of the homeowners there, who, you know, have paid a significant amount of money to live there and this is part of the subdivision and should be required to meet some of the standards of the subdivision as such. I mean we'd like to see it improved, but we don't want to see it improved as a very small building on a large piece of property that is, then, going to be used as a caretaker's facility that may be parking a lot of work vehicles and isn't subject to at least some defined landscaping limitations that keep it an improved property that is in -- that goes well with the rest of the subdivision, because, you know, it is part of the subdivision and if he -- if he developed it knowing it was part of the subdivision -- part of the subdivision, then, they should be required to at least meet some of the standards. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 16, 2003 Page 22 of 114 Borup: Well, he developed it, because he was -- I mean it was -- it's part of the subdivision, because it was forced on him. Smith: Yes, but it -- Borup: I mean it had the canal -- it has the canal separation and their original intention was that it would not be part of the subdivision. Smith: But it is. Bdrup: But it is. Yes. Smith: It is. Centers: Did you think it was when you bought your home? Be honest now. Smith: We saw the plat map before that. Centers: What did you think of the property as it is? They don't have to do anything with it. They can leave it as is. Smith: Well -- and we would like to see it improved, we just would like to see enough restrictions on the approval, not just, okay, fine, we will let you -- we will make you hook to the sewer, but you can build a nice tiny property there and we have no restrictions on -- Centers: Ma'am? Ma'am, a motion hasn't been made yet. Smith: Well -- but that's been a discussion and I simply want to say that we would, as homeowners, hesitate to see -- be approving of a situation where we are approving a smaller square footage on a property that is part of our subdivision and then, doesn't have any restrictions that at least -- or guidelines that require them to adequately landscape it in order to be in keeping with the rest of the subdivision, which is not considered a low end subdivision. Borup: Do you have an architectural approval committee for the subdivision? Smith: Yes. Borup: Okay. That's probably -- that's probably the point -- or place where that would be addressed. Smith: And I believe, you know, the owners are on the -- are the architectural committee. Borup: Okay. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Mee[ing October 16, 2003 Page 23 of 114 Zaremba: Can I ask you a question before you go? Smith: Sure. Zaremba: I'm just looking through my paperwork. I'm sorry for rustling it around here. I'm not finding quickly an affidavit that the property was posted, but I think those of you that have spoken have come here for a different issue and just stumbled onto this one. Smith: Well, it's true we didn't know that this was -- Zaremba: Okay. I see a sign on the property. There has been some notice. Okay. Sorry. That answers my question. Borup: Do you have something new? You need to come up to the microphone if you do. Lague: Just wanted to make a clarification. Borup: You need to state your name again, sir. Logue: Bert Logue. That house that's going up right there is right next to our property and I think that the owners of the development have an interest in improving that property, because those homes that are high level homes are facing that property and it's going to affect the lot sales. I think they have a genuine interest. Now, when we originally talked to them, we were led to believe -- because we asked them what was going to happen to that piece of property, we knew it was part of the subdivision, and we were told, you know, we don't really know yet. We are thinking about maybe a home, we are thinking maybe office, so we know that their intent was to develop one way or another. Centers: Well, they were honest with you, though. Logue: Right. Centers: They made no promises. Logue: And the only thing that I think, as a homeowner and buying the property from the developer, investing -- you know, it's my home there, and they led us down the right path, I don't think there was anything, you know, that isn't intentional here, but I do have an objection with the 1,100 square feet. I think that they need to kind of meet us part way there, you know, to bump the square footage up. I think it's unreasonable for us to maybe say the way the canal divides the subdivision, that there is enough of a separation there, that if they are held to, you know, landscaping within the covenants and if they are required to build a little bit bigger home, which is apparently going to be for the caretaker and I think it -- that would probably meet my interest, anyway, and, you Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 16, 2003 Page 24 of 114 know, I'm in a home that looks at it everyday, I'm not on the back side or up on the corner, you know, it's right off my porch, so that's how I feel about it and I just thought, you know, you guys need to know that before you made your decision. Centers: Thank you. Borup: Okay. I think maybe a little more discussion and I'd like to maybe have Mr. Sheffield come back up, if that's okay. Centers: Yes. Yes. That's what I was going to say. Borup: I think maybe just acouple -- just, you know, a little bit of discussion first, if that's all right. Unless everyone -- if anyone have a question for him right off? I'm thinking maybe some of the items for discussion would be the size and landscaping plan. That's kind of really, in my mind, what it's down to. Well, plus the sewer hookup, whether it's now or when service is available. Are those the issues? Thoughts from any of the Commissioners? Centers: Well, you already have my thoughts and I think the landscaping should be adhered to and I'm reading a letter from Sheffield. He states: New landscaping will be placed on the site to enhance the area and I think we could add to that: Comparable to adjoining subdivision. Borup: Well, that's the street buffer. Centers: Yes, and how -- I guess we could get help from staff on the wording in compliance with -- Zaremba: Well, he can't complete the buffer, because he has a driveway there. I mean that's his access to Victory until something else happens that he can go west. Borup: Right, and if it's -- if it's a side entry garage, they are going to need to have a -- you know, an L-shaped driveway coming in or something. The entrance would just move on down is all it would do and it would have to be blocked out for the driveway, but -- I mean that's -- that's just a -- that's just a design thing. I don't think that's abig -- big problem. I'm -- well, let me -- Mr. Sheffield, you want to come on up. Let me ask some questions and, then, maybe the other Commissioners may have some for you. It sounds like you're okay with going ahead -- as far as you understand it, the developer would be okay with going ahead and completing the landscaping buffer as the rest of the subdivision, along the -- along the same standards as -- Sheffield: We didn't specifically talk about the buffer area, we just talked about landscaping in the area, but we didn't talk about the berm and a buffer. I can talk to the owners about that. I'm not positive on that one. Borup: Okay, and, then, you were talking about landscaping the entire parcel, then. Meridian Planning antl Zoning Commission Meeting October 16, 2003 Page 25 of 114 Sheffield: Right. Well, when I'm saying landscaping, I'm saying green up the field. Borup: Right. Right. Sheffield: In other words, it will be some grasses that don't need a lot of care, you khow, something we could plant in there, keep it green, get some irrigation on it, so we don't have the dry cheat grass that's on it now. Borup: Now, is it anticipated that there would not be any more machinery or other items on the property, any more than what there is now? Sheffield: No. None. Centers: Mr. Chairman, then, maybe it would be beneficial for you to come back, because your comment earlier -- I'd have to talk to the owner on that buffer -- if we made an approval like that, you'd still have to talk to the owner, so what do you think, would you want to come back at our next available hearing, knowing the way we are leaning and what you could give us after you have talked to the owner and go back to staff or something like that? What do you think? Sheffield: I think he's probably very amicable. He would listen to anything the Commission had to say to him on this. Centers: So, if we required the buffer similar to a subdivision requirement and that type of thing, you -- you would live with it or you feel he would? Sheffield: You know I really do need to ask him about that first. That would be quite an expense incurred on top of that, that he and I have not discussed, to haul in that much to bring the buffer up that large. Centers: Of course, any requirements we make -- do they go to -- it goes to City Council. Any requirements we make, then, maybe it would be advisable for the owner to be there if he wants to appeal it. Sheffield: Okay. Centers: Right? Zaremba: Well, let me ask staff. This is part of another subdivision. Isn't it usually the requirement that landscaping around the perimeter be completed no matter what? Hood: Members of the Commission, I was not around when this was approved. However, my understanding is that this kind of was looked at as a nonbuild piece, if you will, because there was this restriction on this lat. You can't build anything, you can't pull building permits, and therefore, you don't have to landscape it like the rest of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 16, 2003 Page 26 of 114 subdivision, because nothing is going to be happening here. That landscape buffer was platted, as you can see, and right of way was dedicated with the plat, but as far as improvements on the peripheral of the whole subdivision, they weren't done on this lot and that was the reasoning for that. Borup: Well, we could still -- we could still move it on. Centers: Yes. That's -- Borup: A statement just -- you know, that the street buffer would be in compliance with -- and substantially the same as the rest of the subdivision to the east, that the whole property would be greened up. I don't know if a landscaping plan would be required for that or just saying that the entire property would be greened up is sufficient and, then, beyond that would be whether -- what we say on the sewer, whether requiring it now or -- or by my -- my tendency would be to go towards compliance with the R-4 zone, as far as the square footage and allow the sewer to be hooked up when it's available, but it would be up to the Commission. Rohm: Well, I don't think Central Health will go with that. Borup: Well, then, that's another hoop that they are going to have to jump through and so that will be a mute point, but -- Centers: Well, they would have to go back to Central District. Zaremba: They can't get the permit without the Health District's approval right? Borup: Building Permit. Zaremba: The Building Permit. Borup: Right. I don't think that's our job tonight is to worry about that. I mean to work through getting a permit, is it? Centers: That's a good point. Rohm: Well, if we have alimitation -- Borup: And maybe it needs to be an either/or. I mean maybe that's their other option is to hook up to the sewer, but -- and that's fine, too, if that's the only choice they have, but Centers: Well, yes, if you can't get the permit, then, he may have to hook up to the sewer and say I give up. Borup: Right. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 16, 2003 Page 27 of 114 Centers: Uncle. Borup: Now, as far as part of what we are trying to do, I mean we have the opportunity for a parcel to have some esthetic improvement here. Even though it is part of the subdivision, it's not much different than a subdivision that's adjoining another piece that's under separate ownership. You have that all the time around town where you have an old -- you know, an old home that's right next to a subdivision that is owned by somebody else and I've never really seen that that's a big effect on property values, it's - Centers: Well -- and what I was pleased to hear was one of the individuals state that he was not led to believe anything on that and I was really pleased to hear that, that they didn't make any promises on this, we don't know what we are going to do here, so that was music to ears. I like that thought, to make them do 1,400 feet and approve it as is with the septic tank and in order to get a permit you got to battle with the Central District Health and, then, do the landscaping per the -- Borup: That way I don't think we are really out of compliance with -- other than the -- well, would we be out of compliance with any of our city ordinances, then, with a motion along that line? Hood: I believe the only thing that -- it's just the violation of the plat notes. I mean that's pretty much -- Borup: Right. Hood: But as far as city ordinances I believe that would -- it sounds like you would be pretty close. to in compliance. Borup: The plats notes on the square footage and nonbuildable. Hood: Exactly. Borup: Yes. Centers: I suspect you'd have to hook up the sewer to get that Building Permit, but, as you say, that's not our -- Borup: And part of it - no, and part of it's still the intent of that -- of that plat note and that was this piece wouldn't be developed without the sewer system. If it would have been brought up at the time, well, what if we want to remodel that home or replace it, I think the thing would have been different but that was never mentioned. Centers: I'd like to move we close the Public Hearing. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 16, 2003 Page 28 of 114 Zaremba: Second. Borup: Motion and second to close the Public Hearing. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Centers: I'll make a stab at that motion, if we have some support. Mr. Chairman, I would recommend approval -- on our agenda it's shown as Item 11, which is the Public Hearing for CUP 03-047, request for a Conditional Use Permit to demolish an existing home and rebuild one single family residential dwelling for caretakers on Lot 2, Block 2, of Observation Point Sub in an R-4 zone by RF Construction, subject to the home being a minimum 1,400 square feet, subject to the applicant performing all landscaping and buffering per subdivision ordinance and similar to the adjoining subdivision and greening up the remaining acreage of the property, I think it's one point something acres, and the approval would be with the existing septic tank, with the applicant knowing that a building permit may not be issued until they get that resolved with Central District Health. End of motion Zaremba: I would only suggest adding the requirement that he show the garage is accessible from the west Centers: I would include that in the motion. Zaremba: And I will second your motion. Borup: Motion and second -- Powell: Mr. Chairman, does that include direction for staff to write recommendations for approval and findings? Centers: Yes. Borup: Yes. With those conditions. Is there any other conditions that staff feels should have been included in that? Okay. Rohm: Before we vote on that, I just have a question about -- the CC&R's of the subdivision are not in question as part of this motion; is that correct? Borup: That's correct. Rohm: So, if, in fact, they still have that hurdle as well internal to the subdivision, so even if we vote in to approve the 1,400 based on the Conditional Use Permit, they still have to get it passed the architectural committee within the subdivision; is that correct? Borup: However that -- I mean that's a separate issue. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 16, 2003 Page 29 of 114 Rohm: That's a separate issue. I think just for some people in the audience that don't attend these things often, they should know that this Conditional Use Permit does not necessarily override any of their -- Borup: Definitely not. Rohm: -- restrictive covenants. Borup: Right. Right. It definitely does not. The city does not get involved with CC&R's. Rohm: Okay. I just wanted to clarify that for you folks that may not attend. Zaremba: We have listed the requirement that would make it comply with the ordinances and the city does not enforce CC&R's. Rohm: Right. Right. I just thought that that was important to get that out. Borup: But I definitely feel a lot more comfortable that we are complying with the ordinances and not having to do exceptions there, too. Okay. We had a motion. Second. Discussion. Any further discussion? All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Item 7. Public Hearing: CUP 03-046 Request far a Conditional Use Permit for a branch bank facility with drive-thru lanes in an L-O zone for Idaho Central Credit Union by Idaho Central Credit Union -east of South Locust Grove Road and south of East Overland Road: Borup: Okay. Item Number 7, Public Hearing CUP 03-046 -- and thank you, everybody, that testified. Back to CUP 03-046, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a bank branch facility with drive-thru lanes in an L-O for Idaho Central Credit Union by Idaho Central Credit Union. I'd like to open this Public Hearing at this time and start with the staff report. Kirkpatrick: Chairman, Members of the Commission, this application is for a bank with four drive-thru lanes. The application is here as a Conditional Use Permit, because of the drive-thru. The property is located on Overland Road, just to the north of the new high school and just east of Locust Grove Road. It's in Resolution Business Park. Let's see, and I will go ahead and show you the site plan. Let's see, a couple things to note here. The applicant wants to later subdivide this property, so you may -- I noted in my staff report you may want to condition them to share an access easement on the southern driveway and the parking -- the parking aisle -- this is actually shown on the site plan. The parking aisle to the west will stub to the proposed new lot on the -- I guess it's the western side of the subdivision. If you -- you may want to go ahead -- the applicant may address this this evening, but they may want to go ahead and add that as