Loading...
2005 01-06 Meridian Plannina and Zonina Meetina Januarv 6. 2005. The regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:00 P.M. by Chairman David Zaremba. Members Present: Chairman Keith Borup, Commissioner David Zaremba, Commissioner Michael Rohm, Commissioner David Moe, and Commissioner Wendy Newton-Huckabay. Others Present: Bill Nary, Jessica Johnson, Anna Canning, Bruce Freckleton, Josh Wilson, Ted Baird, and Dean Willis. Item 1: Roll-Call Attendance: Roll-call X David Zaremba X X Wendy Newton-Huckabay X X Chairman Keith Borup David Moe Michael Rohm Zaremba: Good evening, everybody, and happy New Year. We will open this regular scheduled meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission, the first one for this year, January 6, 2005. Those of you who attend these meetings regularly will notice that we have rearranged a little bit. Last year Mayor de Weerd asked all commissions and boards and volunteer groups in the city to establish a procedure to rotate their officers, chairmans, and vice-chairmans and stuff and for that purpose last December Chairman Borup held elections and I was elected to be the chairman for this calendar year. I would like to comment that all of the time that I have served on this Commission Chairman Borup has been the chairman and I feel an excellent example. These meetings often go smoothly, but occasionally there is items that get a little emotional or a little contentious and Chairman Borup always handled them with decorum and patience and sometimes a sense of humor, at least he maintains his own sense of humor and that's some big shoes to fill, so I have an excellent example to follow and I hope you will all bear with me as I'm learning this process, but I just wanted to thank Keith for his example and leadership and his continued service as a member of the Commission. Borup: Thank you. You'll do a good job. Zaremba: Okay. Let's proceed with a roll call. We will see who is here. Zaremba: I failed to mention that at the same I was elected chairman, Commissioner Rohm was elected to be the vice-chairman, so congratulations to him also. Rohm: And we are not going to let Dave miss any meetings. Meridian Pianning & Zoning January 6. 2005 Page 2 of 54 Zaremba: I will try not to. He will take over if I do. Before we proceed also, our city attorney Bill Nary would like to make a comment. Nary: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I just wanted to take a moment. We have our new deputy city attorney is sitting in our meeting tonight, Ted Baird is sitting there with the rest of the staff and not all of you had an opportunity to meet him prior to the meeting and, eventually, within the next month or two, he will probably be attending one of the meetings, I'll do one meeting, he will do one of the meetings, so you will see him more regularly. But I just wanted to point him out to you. Zaremba: Excellent. Welcome, Ted. Newton-Huckabay: Welcome, Ted. Moe: Good to have you. Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda: Zaremba: Next item on the agenda is the adoption of the agenda. Do I hear any objection to the order of the agenda? Consider it adopted. Item 3: Consent Agenda: A. Approve minutes of December 2, 2004 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting: B. Approve Minutes of December 16, 2004 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting: Zaremba: Consent Agenda. We have minutes for the meeting of December 2, 2004, and December 16th, 2004. Are there any comments? Newton-Huckabay: I have none. Moe: None. Zaremba: I'll accept a motion to accept the Consent Agenda. Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I move we accept the Consent Agenda. Moe: Second. Zaremba: It's been moved and seconded. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Meridian Planning & Zoning January 6. 2005 Page 3 of 54 Zaremba: Thank you. Let me make one further comment, if I may, on a procedure item. The last couple of chairmen and maybe even longer than that, have made the personal decision to vote only when they were being a tie breaker. That is a personal decision and my personal feeling is that I'm uncomfortable with my vote being any more or less equal to the other members. I'm chairman for the purpose of keeping the meeting running smoothly, but it is my intent to vote along with everybody else when they vote and, actually, if we are all five here there shouldn't be a tiebreaker. So, I would comment that I will change that procedure. That does not mean that I'm establishing a precedent for future chairman, we will let each chairman make that decision for themselves, but my intent is to vote. All right. Now, we are ready to move into the public hearing part and let me discuss that a little bit. Nary: Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Yes. Nary: One point -- and maybe you were going to raise this. We did have two deferral requests and I know sometimes we have had members of the public that are here and don't realize that there has been request for deferrals and you're certainly welcome to take that up when they come up in the agenda, Item No.5 and item No.9, but in case there are members of the public, I just thought you might want to mention that up front, that that has been requested, although you may take it up later, but -- Zaremba: Thank you. We will actually deal with those in order, but the point is we are likely to continue both Item No.5 and Item No.9 without much discussion tonight. So, if there is somebody that's here specifically for one of those as a hot topic, we will continue them. The one for the fifth has been requested to move to February 3rd and the one for ninth is requested merely to delay and I suspect we probably will move that to January 20th. So, if anybody's here for those, we probably aren't going to talk about them tonight. So, let's -- Item 4 will be the first one, but let me make a comment about the procedure. On each of these items the applicant, of course, has spent a great deal of time with the city's professional staff. When we open the hearing, the first thing that we will hear are descriptions of the application and any issues that are still remaining to be resolved presented by our city professional staff. The applicant will, then, have an opportunity to discuss what has been said by our staff and make any additional points that they want. The applicant and anybody that the applicant brings with them are limited to 15 minutes in their discussion. The reason we have asked for people to be concise and go to time limits is that we end up often having so many items on the agenda that we are sometimes here until 1 :00 o'clock in the morning and we don't all do our best thinking at 1 :00 o'clock in the morning. In line with that, we ask the public when you have comments to make, if you will limit your remarks to three minutes individually. And if somebody has already made the point that you want to make sufficiently, saying I agree with Mr. Smith helps us know that we have, you know, some support on that subject, but you don't necessarily need to repeat everything. Brevity is always appreciated and I'm the worst person for not being brief, unfortunately. We have some lights here and, as I recall the procedure, the white one means that you have plenty of Meridian Planning & Zoning January 6. 2005 Page 4 of 54 time to talk. If the yellow one comes on with 15 seconds left to go or 30 seconds? Thirty seconds left to go -- Newton-Huckabay: Not very many. Item 4: Continued Public Hearing from December 16, 2004: AZ 04-029 Request for an Annexation and Zoning of 8.58 acres from RUT zone to C- G zone for Cottonwood Lane by Tom Holliday/Cottonwood Lane Partners - 985 East Freeway Drive: Zaremba: Yeah. And the red one comes on when we would like you to conclude with your next breath, please. That helps us all. Okay. So, I would like to open the continued public -- reopen the continued Public Hearing from December 16th, 2004, for AZ 04-029. This is a request for annexation and zoning of 8.58 acres from RUT zone, which would be a county zone, to C-G zone for Cottonwood Lane by Tom Holliday, Cottonwood Lane Partners, 985 East Freeway Drive. We will begin with staff comments. Canning: Chairman Zaremba, Members of the Commission, I'm pinch hitting for Craig today and if I'm too brief in the presentation, I'm used to presenting at Council after you guys have worked out all the details, so if you need more details, please, let me know, because the applications we have tonight all present straight forward, but if I miss information that you would like, let me know. This property is a L-shaped property, as you can see. It has frontage on both Freeway Drive and -- on the south and, then, Wells Drive on the west of the property. The request tonight is just for an annexation and zoning for the property to the C-G zone and it is designated as commercial on the Comprehensive Plan. You can see there is one existing house on the property. Over the past pass few years two hotels and multiple office buildings have been constructed near this parcel and they are not showing up on the aerial, but as you know, they are along Freeway Drive, the hotels are, and the applicant has presented a conceptual site plan. Let's see. I'm sorry, but it threw me for a loop for a moment. The property actually goes here. So, there is the L-shape. This is another property. That's another hotel. And, conceptually, they have proposed a hotel and/or restaurant toward the south end of the property, some commercial office uses kind of at the bend of the Land, then, multi-family on the western portion of the property. And as we go through, staff is recommending approval of this project, but we are recommending that only the southern portion be C-G and that this northern portion be zoned L-O and that would accommodate the offices and the multi-family. The multi-family currently are not an allowed use in the C-G. And, then, I'll skip forward to the special considerations that Craig pointed out in his staff report. The first one is just kind of a platting issue. There is -- in the original plat for this subdivision -- it is a recorded lot in the subdivision. They specifically stated the setbacks on the plat, so those setbacks, technically, would still go forward and they are 25 foot front setback, 20 foot side setback, and, then, a 25-foot rear setback. How you determine that on this piece of property is a good question, but we did want to point out to the applicant that there were those recorded setbacks on the original plat. The multi-use pathway at Five Mile Creek -- you can see the bend of it Meridian Planning & Zoning January 6,2005 Page 5 of 54 here as it comes through the property. That is the actual creek. And, then, the flood plane encompasses almost alf of this area just south of it and, then, it extends into the property as well. They will have to - we are recommending that they - that the city enter into a development agreement with the developer, so that we can make sure we get a pathway along Five Mile Creek. Landscaping, Craig just pointed out what the various landscape buffers are required between the different uses and we would expect to see that on any future development. And, then, the conceptual site plan future uses, we did evaluate the site plan and it does comply with our codes, but we understand that this was just conceptual, but we just wanted to reiterate that this - the conceptual plan was not approved with this application. And, then, the existing residence would not be allowed to - if the zone changes, the existing residence could not be altered or changed without conditional use approval, because ifs no longer an allowed use in the zone. The only comment of - the two comments of note, one was that Craig, at the bottom of page eight, he's noted at least ten days prior to the City Council hearing he would like the applicant to submit a new legal description to the Planning and Zoning Department, one fOr the C-G portion of the lot and, then, one for the L-O portion of the lot, just so we make sure we go into the City Council hearing knowing that we have those - the proper legal description. And, then, the other condition of note is with regard to the development agreement and as you see on page nine, Craig has detailed those out. Applicant will be responsible for any cost associated with bringing sewer and water service to the area. No alterations, expansions, reconstructions to the existing single- family residence. All future development must be in accord with the city standards as we have talked about before. And the applicant will be responsible for the multi-use Pathway construction along Five Mile Creek. And, then, any other conditions that the Commission and/or Council may want to place on the project. So, with those conditions, staff is recommending approval. You will see comments from the other agencies. Those are just kind of a heads up to the developer that this is what they will be expected to meet when they do come in for future development, but, again, this is just a straight rezone, so we do not have conditions of approval, other than the improvements we are asking for in the development agreement. With that I'll end staffs presentation. Zaremba: Commissioners, any questions for Director Canning? Would the applicant care to step forward and comment, please? I failed to mention that in all public testimony, when you come up to testify, please, begin by stating your name and address for the record. Thank you. Bowhecker: David Bowhecker, 334 South Bitterroot in Boise. I'm the agent for - real estate agent for Tom Holliday, he's from out of state, and the applicant is in agreement with the staff report. Zaremba: Specifically you - you were in agreement with calling it two zones, L-O and - Bowhecker. Yes. We will do - yes. And we will do the legal description. We'll get a surveyor. We have not contacted a surveyor. We think we can meet that deadline, but that will be what we have to do, get a surveyor to get those legal descriptions. Meridian Planning & Zoning January 6, 2005 Page 6 of 54 Zaremba: Commissioners? Rohm: Wow, that's pretty simple. We have got to complicate things a little bit. Borup: And, Mr. Chairman, that was the only question I had, if the time frame is okay for you. Bowhecker: Yeah. That -- if you can tell me when that date is. I don't know the date of the -- Zaremba: We don't know when the City Council hearing is going to be, but ten days before that is when they are asking to have the final -- that's a standard request. Canning: Generally -- Commission Zaremba -- or Chairman Zaremba, excuse me. Generally, the time between the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council is just about a month, so you would have about 20 days. Bowhecker: We will make the call tomorrow. Should be able to get that. Zaremba: And let me express appreciation for providing a concept plan. That does help everybody decide whether the zoning questions are correct and we do try and treat them just as a concept plan, not etched in stone. But we appreciate having them. Thank you. Bowhecker: All right. Thank you. Zaremba: Is there anyone else who cares to testify on this subject? Moe: Mr. Chairman, I move we close the Public Hearing on AZ 04-029. Borup: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second to close the Public Hearing. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: The Public Hearing is closed. Is there a motion for-- Moe: Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to City Council recommending approval of AZ 04-029, to include all staff comments, conditions of the staff memo date -- Public Hearing date January 6, 2004, transmittal date January 3rd, 2004. '5. It says '4 on the sheet, actually. End of motion. Zaremba: Is there a second? Meridian Planning & Zoning January 6. 2005 Page 7 of 54 Rohm: Second. Zaremba: There is a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? That motion passes. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 5: Continued Public Hearing from December 2, 2004: PFP 04-008 Request for Preliminary/Final Plat approval for 4 building lots on 8.02 acres in an I-L zone for Nola Subdivision by Bergey Land Surveying - SWC of East Pine Avenue and North Nola Road: Zaremba: The next Public Hearing is Item 5 and we'd like to reopen this continued hearing. Again, this is PFP 04-008, and, again, there has been a request to continue this until February 3rd for further information from the applicant. Anybody care to make that motion or do we need some staff discussion on it before we do that? Wilson: Chairman Zaremba, Members of the Commission, the only staff comment I have is that we do request that you advise us what you would like us to do if we do not receive the information requested ten days in advance of the next hearing. The options being prepare a recommendation for denial or continue it another month. Moe: We haven't opened it -- Newton-Huckabay: Can I ask a question? Zaremba: It is open. I believe I reopened it. Newton-Huckabay: Has this one been continued three times? Borup: No. Newton-Huckabay: Two times? Borup: I believe it's the first continuing. Wilson: It was continued at the December 2nd hearing, so this would be the second hearing. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Borup: Mr. Chairman, that's a question I had. At that meeting there was discussion of continuing it to the 16th and they thought that might be a little tight and that this meeting would be plenty of time -- Meridian Planning & Zoning January 6, 2005 Page 8 of 54 Zaremba: My recollection was that the issues weren't all that complicated and -- Borup: It needed to be surveyed, I believe. Basically. Zaremba: Would we want to give the sense to the Commission that we will continue it to February 3rd, but if it's -- if staff does not have what they need ten days before that -- Wilson: Members of the Commission, I would also mention that the applicant is kind of wavering on whether or not they will go through with this. So, that's just something to consider. Moe: Mr. Chairman, I guess I would wonder why we would want to set a date at all. I'd like to see them get the materials and, then, we could set a date for this, as opposed to continuing it. Zaremba: Well, the legal technicality is we have a noticed open Public Hearing. Moe: Good point. Zaremba: And you can only continue it to a date certain. The attorney was rising to say something and I may have said what he was going to say. Nary: Mr. Chairman, technically you're correct, your best off setting it to a date certain. You're not obligated to, but you would have to notice the hearing if you didn't. So, you're technically correct, you're best setting to a date certain, specifically, and, then, taking action. Zaremba: I would entertain a motion continuing PFP 04-008 to February 2nd, 2005, and instructing the staff to prepare denial if they do not have the required materials ten days beforehand. Rohm: That sounds perfect. So moved. Wilson: Chairman Zaremba, it's the 3rd of February. Rohm: The 3rd of February. Zaremba: I was looking at the 3rd of February. If I said something else, I'm sorry. The 3rd of February. Rohm: Does that work, rather than restate it? It doesn't need to be said again, I wouldn't think. Anyway, I so move. Borup: Second. Meridian Planning & Zoning January 6. 2005 Page 9 of 54 Zaremba: Keith Borup seconds. Okay. We have a motion and a second to continue to February 3rd, 2005. All in favor? Anyopposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 6: Public Hearing: PP 04-042 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 18 commercial building lots on 33.1 acres in a C-Gzone for Boise Valley Commons by Boise Valley Commons, LLC - 2200 East Overland Road: Zaremba: Item No.6 is the next on our agenda and this is a Public Hearing. I'd like to open the Public Hearing for PP 04-042, request for a preliminary plat approval of 18 commercial building lots on 33.1 acres in a C-G zone for Boise Valley Commons by Boise Valley Commons, LLC, 2200 East Overland Road and wewill begin with the staff comments. Canning: Chairman Zaremba, Members of the Commission, this is just a straight preliminary plat. They have not asked for any reduction to city adopted dimensional standards, so there is no planned development with this one today. The property, as you see, is currently zoned C-G and it has 1-84 on its north boundary and, then, Overland Road on the south boundary. It's currently vacant, but not really, because there is a building with walls that are going to go up any day now under construction. The subject of the subdivision is actually three different tax parcels, one of them being a 13.9 acre piece that was divided off through reduction in platting requirements, this large parcel here, and that's where the new theater for Meridian is being constructed. So, that -- one of the conditions of approval was that it be included as part of this plat. So, they are meeting that condition. The property is shown as mixed use regional on the Comprehensive Plan and the zoning is consistent with that. They have not asked for the zoning, they already have the C-G zone. And as I mentioned before, up to the north is Interstate 84, to the south are the professional medical offices of Resolution Subdivision, as well as the high school, Mountain View High School, all owned L-O. To the east is vacant property, all zoned CoG, and to the west is the commercial tractor sales and, then, Playground Subdivision, which is also zoned CoG. I'm going to move forward to the special considerations listed on page four. Several of the properties do not have direct access to a street. We have got two streets coming in. We have -- wait a minute. Did I get them right? We have streets coming in here and, then, I believe this will be Cinema Drive coming here, so it will be a third street, but as you see towards the north end of the property, they don't have direct access to a public street, so we have required a cross-access agreement across all the properties, so that they have that ability to get through. This is Millennium and, then, that's Celebration. There we go. And, then, the fire marshal has provided a memo for tonight that I believe just got handed out to you. These conditions do need to be added to this project, and, basically, what the fire department wants the applicant to do -- there is a drive aisle noted on the plat that goes to here, across and down, so that will be a common drive aisle for the parking lot. The way our ordinance is structured, they would not be able to call those a private lane or a get private street name on those, so all the addressing will still be off Cinema Drive, so the fire marshal has asked that they just place monuments -- I believe Meridian Pianning & Zoning January 6, 2005 Page 10 of 54 he wants one in the -- at the entrances here to the drive aisles and, then, on each property, just indicating the address of that property, so they can get there quickly. It's particularly for medical reasons. When a building's on fire, they can usually see it. When there is just someone having a heart attack, it's hard to spot them. There were some deficiencies in the landscape plan, so Craig has pointed those out and just what's necessary for the final plat landscape plan when that's submitted. There is also several existing easements on the property. You can see some of them on the east boundary and, then, there is another one here, I believe. There is some little ones across the property. We can't just vacate those with the new plat, they have to actually go through the vacation process, so the applicant will need to submit separate vacation applications for those easements. And, again, this is -- I'm not just being brief, there is really no outstanding issues on this subdivision, it was a pretty clean application. So, with that I will end staff's presentation. Zaremba: Commissioners, any questions for the director? Moe: No. Borup: None. Zaremba: Just one. And you mentioned it, but clarify it for me. One of the other options that the fire chief suggested is to provide a private street, which was, actually, the thought I had while I was reading this packet and you seem to say that the private street was not possible or practical or something. Can you clarify that? Canning: Yeah. It's not practical from the applicant's standpoint. He was -- he read the memo just a moment ago and he said, sure, I will do a private street, but, unfortunately, the way our code is written, the private street would have to be 42 feet in width, with the sidewalks -- a five foot sidewalk on each side, so you're going from a 30 foot drive aisle to, basically, a 50 foot right of way and, yeah, built to ACHD standards. So, it's really not what's necessary in this instance. I think one of the things as staff that we will look at is moving more towards like what our neighbor to the east does is they only allow private streets, basically, on commercial and situations like this and that drive aisle does become a private street and, then, you can get the addressing that the fire marshal needs and he was very supportive of that when I mentioned it to him. So. I think we will look at changing our private standards. They don't get used much. I think in the last two years I think we have had one private street come through, it was on light office property that needed the frontage, so I think it's a way we can move toward getting better addressing of not only commercial properties, but also multi-family residential has become a big property for the fire marshal as well. Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. We are ready for the applicant to provide information, please. Hallett: Good Evening. My name is Ray Hallett. I'm the general manager of Landstar Northwest, one of the co-applicants on this application, and I'm here to answer your Meridian Planning & Zoning January 6. 2005 Page 11 of 54 questions, I think, but we concur with the staff, that we like option two better than option one, because didn't have the room there to make it a public street, but we are intending to sweep the access to the 30 foot drive aisle in a city street fashion, so it's not going to be like your coming out to a curb cut and monument signs at the end of the road and along each parcel, an obvious benefit to the lot owners, as well as to the public. I think that pretty well covered it and I will be glad to answer any questions that you have. I don't have anything else that I need to add. Zaremba: Commissioners? Rohm: I just have a question on this drive aisle. Are you going to stripe it in such a way that it will be obvious that it's not additional parking as -- Hallett: Yes. In fact, we have several plans in that regard. One is we have worked out with the city fire department to post signs at the beginning of each of the drive aisles that will specify the drive aisles are fire lanes and that no parking is allowed and that they will be towed and the destination to which they will be towed, similar to the signs that are used at Edwards 21 theater complex, the whole Spectrum property, and we will be painting the curb edges red with fire -- no parking, fire lane on the curbs along those drive aisles to make it obvious it's not additional parking. And there will be a center stripe. Rohm: Good. And the center stripe is really what I was looking for on this. Hallett: Right. There will be a center all the way around. That's the horseshoe-shaped portion there that goes up to Cinema Drive, up across and back down, is what we are talking about. Rohm: Right. Hallett: I guess there is a pointer here, so -- oh, we got lots of pointers. Too many pointers. Starting right here. Starting right here and going up to there -- it comes across and comes back down and those are already recorded -- on this portion, at least, the description of those are already recorded as part of the deeds for the original theater parcel and on the other side there will be the legal descriptions on the plat, so public access drives. Rohm: Okay. Zaremba: I had one question on a note that appears in your file that I have not seen in any other file before and it's from the Idaho Transportation Department warning you that there is noise from the freeway and requesting that you either do something about buffering the sound for yourself or write a letter back to ITD saying that you have heard their warning and you're not going to do anything about it. Do you have an opinion about that? Meridian Planning & Zoning January 6. 2005 Page 12 of 54 Hallett: Well, as the developer of the theater building, I can tell you that that's not a concern, the theater is sound proof inside between every room and so that's not a problem for the theater, and we would be more than happy to provide a letter to the ITD, if they are worried about that, so that these three lots are on public notice. We already are on notice by our deeds that we don't have access to the freeway and that the freeway exists. That's part of the -- building of the interstate system 20 years ago. So, I don't think it will be a surprise to anybody, but I understand your concern is that jet overflights were a problem with the other theater and maybe they got complaints about the interstate and jake brakes or something, but we are not worried about it. We will be glad to provide a letter, if that's what they'd like. Zaremba: Well, that was their request. I just wanted to make sure you were aware of that. Hallett: You bet. Zaremba: Okay. No further questions? Thank, Mr. Hallett. He, actually, is the first one signed up to testify. He would have anyhow. Next on the list is Gene Schaffer. Schaffer: My name is Gene Schaffer. My address is 250 South 5th in Boise. I am the architect on the project. Basically, we have no exceptions and, basically, would indicate that we fully support what the applicant has submitted. Any questions for us, I'll certainly answer those. Zaremba: Commissioners, any questions? Thank you, sir. Kevin -- is it Kingston? Pardon me if I'm not reading it correctly. Okay. Subject covered. Thank you. Bill Curt I think it is. No further comment? Supporting the previous comments. Okay. And even though those are the only ones signed up, if anybody else cares to comment, we would accept your testimony. It sounds to me like all issues are covered and resolved. Commissioners? Moe: Mr. Chairman, I move we close the Public Hearing on PP 04-042. Rohm: Second. Zaremba: Motion and second to close the Public Hearing. All in favor say aye? Any opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Moe: Having said that, Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to City Council recommending approval of PP 04-042, to include all staff comments and conditions of the staff memo dated -- Public Hearing date of January 6th, 2004, which should be 2005, and transmittal -- received date by the city clerk January 3rd, 2005, with the following change -- or addition, I should say: Let me get back to the page. Under the site specific conditions on page eight, I'd like to add another paragraph 12 to .include -- to provide Meridian Planning & Zoning January 6. 2005 Page 13 of 54 monument signs at both ends of the 30-foot wide access easement and at each curb cut where a given lot intersects the access drive. End of motion. Rohm: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Anyopposed? That motion carries as well. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 7: Public Hearing; AUP 04-016 Request for an Accessory Use Permit for a home occupation for a family day care for five or fewer children in an R-8 zone for Marina Galushkin by Marina Galushkin - 2843 North Wolverine Avenue: Zaremba: Thank you all. Okay. We are ready for Item 7. Ladies and gentlemen, I will open the Public Hearing for AUP, Accessory Use Permit, 04-016, request for an accessory use permit for a home occupation for a family day care for five or fewer children in an R-8 zone for Marina Galushkin by Marina Galushkin, 2843 North Wolverine Avenue. And we will begin with the staff presentation. Wilson: Chairman Zaremba, Members of the Commission, as you stated, this is an accessory use permit application for a family child care home for up to five children at 2843 North Wolverine Avenue in the Finch Creek Subdivision. The property is zoned R- 8 and it's located approximately a quarter mile south of Ustick Road and one half mile west of Locust Grove Road. Some quick background on the accessory use permit application. The -- there is only a Public Hearing if we do receive letters of objection within a set 15 day period. Within that period we did receive three letters of objection -- of objection and we have received three since then as well. The applicant has provided a site plan. As part of the accessory use permit, no detailed site plan is required. Staff does need to be able to evaluate the -- the provided drop-off and pick-up area and parking and also that there is screening on the property and we were able to confirm that from the site plan provided and the comments provided in the application. Staff is aware that a daycare has been operated at this home since this summer. It is procedure when somebody comes to us that is operating a use like this without a permit and are working proactively with us to remedy the situation, then, we do allow it to remain open while the application is in process. I would add the condition -- one of the concerns from the neighbors was the presence of a sign on the property. Meridian City Code does have a couple of conflicting areas when it comes to signs with home occupations. However, the more stringent rule does apply, which in this case would mean that signs are not allowed with a home occupation, so I would just like to add the condition that any signs on the property be removed upon approval of the accessory use permit. A comment that this will be a decision, not a recommendation to City Council. You are the only body that will hear this application. With that I think I will end staff's comments. Meridian Planning & Zoning January 6. 2005 Page 140f54 Zaremba: Commissioners, any questions? I would ask one clarification. We have had daycare and child care facilities before and I lose track of at which point they need a license and when you count the resident's children or don't count the resident's children and what actually counts towards children. That I understand is not just who's physically there at the moment, but throughout an entire day. Wilson: Correct. Zaremba: Even though they may leave, they count towards the total, but I'm still confused on whether -- when the resident's children count and whether they don't. Wilson: Chairman Zaremba, the -- according to the state of Idaho's website, the threshold for licensing is six children for a state licensing. Zaremba: Six non-residential children or six children, including resident's children? Wilson: Six non-resident children. At no time are the resident's children included in the five allowed or for state licensing the six. Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. Okay. We are ready for the applicant. Galushkin: I'm actually going to speak in place of Marina. She doesn't -- she speaks Russian, so a lot of this she doesn't understand, so -- but her husband is here to translate for her. But my name is Brandy Galushkin and I, actually, was doing daycare with Marina, but I had to withdraw from the daycare, because she can only have five or fewer and you can't have employees. But myself I didn't consider an employee, just because we were doing it together, but I guess Planning and Zoning considered it an employee, so -- but the reason why we were doing this daycare in the first place, before getting the use permit, is Health and Welfare didn't tell us that we had to do that. I actually had this daycare here prior before this and never had a problem with it and at Health and Welfare they didn't tell us that we had to get a permit, they just said that you can watch -- because with Health and Welfare standards you don't have to have a license -- you can watch six or fewer kids without a license and so -- and that's per person in the house and so like if I were helping her, we could have had six -- me, I could have six and she could have six and so that's of kind what we were doing until we wanted to get Marina a state license, so that she was licensed by the state, and we could get the food program through her and so we went to Planning and Zoning and they told us that we had to have an AUP. So, that's why we are here and trying to get that for us. But a couple things with the neighbors next door is, you know, we did -- we have had this since June of 2004. I have done daycare prior at my home in Nampa and I live at 25 South Honey, I forgot to state that, and I brought it over that we could do it together, because we wanted to combine our income and we wanted to open a bigger daycare later on and so we went to Planning and Zoning and told us, no, we could only watch five kids and at first I guess they thought I lived there, but I don't, and so we went ahead and we paid the money to get the permit and we were -- we went around -- because we wanted to do a Conditional Use Permit also, we were going to do that, just Meridian Planning & Zoning January 6. 2005 Page 150f54 so that we could have up to 12 kids, because they told us we had to pay more fees in order to get more kids, so we wanted to do that, and told us that it would be a good idea to go get signatures, so we went around and got signatures from the -- you know, all the residents and almost everybody signed it and we informed them that, you know, we wanted up to 12 kids there and that what we were doing there, you know, were just watching kids and we didn't see a problem with, you know, noise, anything like that. All of our kids are under the age of four, so they really don't make that much noise and they are always inside with us. And so we went around and got everybody's signature, but, then, a neighbor next door, she came to us and said, well, I think my husband is going to object to it now that I signed the paper and I said, okay, well, you know, then, we have to have a hearing and so kind of that's where we are. But I just want to clarify a couple of things is they -- you know, they took some pictures of the yard and, you know, we have lots of family in this area and tons of family come and visit that home. It's not just daycare. And all of our daycare parents, they know they have to park on the side. They know that they can't block anything, they can't park in front of the neighbors' yards, they know all of this. We have informed each parent of that. And this picture that they did take -- and I don't know if you guys have it. This is my sister-in-Iaw's car and she doesn't -- you know, we don't tell them how to park, you know, they are family. We don't tell them how to park. Which I know maybe they shouldn't be parking on the street, but we have tons of family and they can't all fit in the driveway, you know, and there is family gathering quite often. But my main thing is I just -- this is Marina and my main source of income and I know now that I can't be there, you know. Marina calls me for questions, I come over, you know, I offer her the help. But these -- you know, I don't see a problem. The kids aren't noisy, we have had it there since June, there has never been a complaint and nobody ever knew that we had a daycare there, because we didn't make a lot of noise, there wasn't a lot of traffic. We have two families that drop off their kids and the other two kids I bring to Marina, because they are from Nampa. I brought them from Nampa. And so traffic is -- I don't see that as a problem. I don't know why that they are saying it's a problem, when I only have two families and they drop off at separate times, completely separate times, and it's not like they are all crowding in at once, come and get their kids, and rushing off, you know, driving crazy, that kind of thing, you know. We are responsible. We are -- you know, we want our daycare to be good for people and we want them to -- you know, a lot of kids to come to us, but in that aspect, you know, we want the community to be also happy for it, you know, we don't want to, you know, hurt anybody in the mean -- you know, in doing this. But also we have a statement saying about property value. Her brother wrote a statement saying that it hurts their property value by 12,500 dollars. I have called the Idaho -- the Ada County Tax Commissioners about that, just because, you know, if it's going to hurt the value that much of somebody's house, we definitely don't want to do daycare next to them, because we know how hard it is to buy a home. We bought a home ourselves, you know, so we don't want to hurt anybody in doing this daycare. We were actually just trying to help the community in giving them, you know, a good daycare to bring their children to, so that they are, you know, happy with the daycare. That's all that we want is to be able to be home and be able to, you know, support our kids and be able to be home with our children, at the same time still make income, because neither one of us wants to go to work and have to, you know, take our kids to Meridian Planning & Zoning January 6. 2005 Page 160f54 somebody that has to raise our kids for us. We want to be able to raise our own kids at home. And that's the only reason why we want the daycare there. And, eventually, we do want to open a bigger daycare and we do plan on moving it to commercial, because we know that we have to do that in order to have a bigger daycare, but that's in the future. It's not, you know, right now. But right now, you know, we at least want the five or fewer kids. At least for Marina. I'm -- you know, I can't be there, so -- I wish I could be, but I can't be there anymore. We do want to later on come and get the Conditional Use Permit, but if the people behind us don't want us to have it, there is no sense in us paying 375 dollars in order to do that, because we would be wasting our money. So, I just want -- I don't know what else to say. Rohm: I think you have done a good job. Galushkin: Okay. But just -- I just want everybody, you know, just to know that we are not trying to be mean, we don't want a fight between neighbors, that's not what we are trying -- wasn't what we are out here for. We just want, you know, to help the community also and help -- knowing that, you know, they have a good daycare for their kids in the area. That's it. Zaremba: Thank you. Questions from the Commissioners? Moe: Yes. A couple things. How many are being taken care of in the house now, then? Galushkin: Five kids. Moe: Five? And, then, she has hers as well? Galushkin: Right. Moe: Okay. Just going through the paperwork and whatnot, there was a notation that it is possible that that house will be selling? Galushkin: Well, there is the possibility, yes. Alex and Marina, they were building a home, but they aren't sure that they are definitely moving yet. Nothing is set in stone. That is up in the air right now. Alex, he was working, now he's not, so it's up in the air right now. They aren't sure that they are going to be able to. Newton-Huckabay: The accessory use is issued to them -- isn't the accessory use permit issued to Marina, so if she moves -- Galushkin: It will no longer -- yes. Unless we do -- if we go for a Conditional Use Permit, yes. Which we would have to do that prior. But we haven't really talked about that yet. Meridian Planning & Zoning January 6. 2005 Page 170f54 Zaremba: A follow-up question to that. Since this is an accessory use, that's secondary to it being a residence. There was some question among some of the people that wrote in about whether they would move, but continue to have the daycare there, and you realize the accessory use permit is not valid for that. Galushkin: Right. Zaremba: It must be there. Galushkin: Yes. Yes. And we do definitely abide by that. Zaremba: Okay. Galushkin: So -- but like I said, if anything, if we do want to keep the daycare there, we will apply for the accessory -- I mean the Conditional Use Permit before anything happens, so -- and that's a couple months or so down the line. Zaremba: I would clarify one thing. You seem to excuse parking across the sidewalk, because it was family members. Are you aware that that's not legal regardless of who does it? Galushkin: Yes, I do. Yes. Zaremba: Okay. Galushkin: And we told them they can't do that. Zaremba: Okay. Borup: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to expand on Commissioner Moe's question on the number of children. It sounds like previously you were doing 12 children there, then? Six apiece you said? Galushkin: No, we never had 12 kids there. Never. Borup: Okay. You thought that was what you -- Galushkin: Yes. Borup: -- would be able to -- Galushkin: But see -- and we know, too, that fire -- the fire department has to come out and they have to let us know, even if we do the Conditional Use Permit, they have to determine how many kids that we have. We can't just say that we can have that many in the house. They determine that. Meridian Pianning & Zoning January 6, 2005 Page 18 of 54 Borup: And you stated there were two families that were bringing children now? Galushkin: Yes. Borup: And, then, you're bringing the others? Galushkin: I bring the other two to Marina, yes, because they are from Nampa. Borup: Okay. So, you do come everyday, then? Galushkin: I bring -- not everyday. The kids only come Monday, Tuesday, and every other Wednesday. Borup: Okay. Galushkin: But it's not me staying there and baby-sitting. Marina does it. Borup: Okay. Then, you stated they were having a home built. That sounds like there was a pretty firm commitment there, if they were -- Galushkin: They were, but now Alex is not working. Borup: But they were -- they do have a contract, though? Galushkin: Yes, they do. Borup: Okay. And have not voided the contract yet? Galushkin: Not yet. Borup: All right. Galushkin: They're trying to figure out if they can afford the home. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Zaremba: Thank you. Next on the list is Alex. AGalushkin: Alex Galushkin. 2843 North Wolverine. Husband to Marina. Brandy did a really good job. I really wanted her to speak for us. And, basically, we -- this is our only source of income right now. I'm trying to find a job, trying to -- I used to work for Micron. Lost my job there. So, we are in the look out for more income right now. We do have house built, but we haven't broke the contact yet. If everything goes well we will be moving. It would be two to three months from here. Then, like Brandy said, we will be applying for a Conditional Use Permit, if we move out of this house. Everything else she covered pretty good. Meridian Pianning & Zoning January 6,2005 Page 19 of 54 Zaremba: If you move your application would apply to the new property, not this old one; is that correct? A.Galushkion: It's-- Wilson: Chairman Zaremba, it would not apply to the new property. Zaremba: The new application for the new CUP, you wouldn't make that on a property that you have moved out of; is that -- Newton-Huckabay: Well, I understand if he is applying for a Conditional Use Permit -- A.Galushkin: If we move out, we would apply for the house that we'd still have, to have it -- continue to have daycare there. That's what -- Zaremba: State your name again, please. Galushkin: Brandy Galushkin. My address, too? Okay. They -- if they do -- if they do decide to move, we do want to keep the home they have there and we do want, if possible, to keep the daycare there and get a Conditional Use Permit, but we aren't modifying the home to where it's not residential or anything. It's only until that we can get a commercial building. That's what we want later on is to do a commercial daycare later on. But, in order to do that, we have to be sure that we can make that income and support that building before we can even move. So, we have been talking to see if they are going to keep the home, if they are going -- if they are going to move, we want to try to do the Conditional Use Permit, yes, and see if we can keep the home and have the daycare there at the same time, for at least a few months until we can get the commercial building later on. Rohm: And I think we cross that bridge when we come to it. Galushkin: Exactly. That's what I thought, but like -- you know, like we told the neighbors before is we are honest people, that's why we - that's the only reason why we told them everything and that's why we are here now today is because we told them our future plans. They were okay with the five kids, they didn't mind, they said that five kids were okay, but because they say that this -- if we get this AUP, that's the first step of going to the Conditional Use Permit and making it a commercial building. That's not what we want. We don't want it to be a commercial building, we want it residential. Alex in the future wants to sell this home, but because he has a really good deal on the home, he doesn't want to sell it right now and he may have to, just because of his situation right now, but in order -- if we can keep the daycare there, that will help them out, so that we can keep that home for him. That's our intention. But the only reason we are here is because we were honest with them and we told our future plans. No modifications whatsoever. No walls are being broke down, nothing. The house is staying as a residential home. When you walk in it looks as if somebody lives there. Meridian Planning & Zoning January 6, 2005 Page 20 of 54 And they are living there now. But even in the future, if we were to -- you know, if they were to move, it would stay residential. It wouldn't be -- Rohm: Thank you. Zaremba: Next on the list is Marina. Do you care to add anything? Okay. The last is Hope. The first name is Deloy, I believe. Hope: Deloy Hope, 814 East Finch Creek. Thank you for letting me speak. I only have one objection. I don't want a business in my neighborhood and that's it. Rohm: Do you consider the five as a business or do you -- or would your objection -- Hope: I consider five a business. I consider 12 a business. I consider 24 a business. Rohm: Pardon me? Hope: I consider five a business. I consider also what's going to be increased there, too, a business. Rohm: Yeah. I think that that would be a separate application entirely from this application. So, if this moves forward, would not set a precedence for any additional consideration. Borup: I understand, Mr. Rohm, but I disagree with the whole proposal from the first step. Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Zaremba: Redge Benson. Okay. Nothing further to add. Okay. David Tolman. Newton-Huckabay: Was Mr. Benson for or against the daycare? Zaremba: He's marked as being against it. Tolman: My name is David Tolman, I live at 2944 North Mule Deer, just four houses to the north of where this proposal is. I guess my initial objection to this was the fact that the proposal coming forward I didn't understand that it was the separate different -- to do a 12 or multiple ones coming forward. I am opposed to that. As long as they live in the residence I guess my opinion right now is while I'm not in favor of a daycare in the home, I guess I don't have a very -- a strong objection for them keeping to the five, but anything more than that c- particularly if they move out, I am definitely opposed to that piece. Rohm: Thank you for your comments. Meridian Pianning & Zoning January 6,2005 Page 21 of 54 Zaremba: Elizabeth Olacsi. Olacsi: Elizabeth Olacsi at 2827 North Wolverine. I live right next door to the Galushkins and I had a whole bunch of stuff I wanted to say prepared, but I -- there is so much I want to comment on what they brought up. The first is Mr. Galushkin not having a job. He is gone everyday throughout the day -- when I moved in a year and a half ago, I was not told he worked at Micron, because my husband works at Micron, I was told that he fixes cars and that's why he continually brings cars home and has like chalk written on the top and -- you know, on the windshield and that he fixes up and works on, especially during the summer months, that many neighbors actually complained about, and that's -- but we all believe that he has been doing all this time. So, parking is like that everyday. It's -- I know they have a very large family, but this is what parking is like everyday and in - there so many cars out there all the time. So, I don't -- you know, I don't think their family is visiting them, you know, every morning and every evening at the same time. And, then, also Brandy is there everyday from 10:00 to 6:00 o'clock. I see her car out there everyday. So, I have a hard time seeing that she's coming and going and she's just dropping off the kids and, then, comes back and picks them up, because her car is there throughout the day. I stay at home and I peek through my window and I see that. We -- I was aware that something was going on over the summer when there were children all out in the backyard and my kids thought there was a party going on everyday, but I just assumed it was their large family. When they came around saying that they wanted a preschool, five or fewer, they really emphasized the fewer. We were never told that it would be -- that they wanted to eventually have 12 or more. It was after their children -- you know, and they had mentioned that they were going to be moving, I started asking questions and that's how I found out that it was going -- what their future plans were going to be. But my husband works nights and there is a lot of other night workers and day sleepers in the neighborhood and, you know, when you can't control the noise from children who live in the homes, you can from a business right next door. My husband was wondering what all the noise was, you know, over the summer and we just thought, well, you know, there is kids and now we know it was a preschool that was keeping him up and it's very imperative the people who are working their jobs be able to get an adequate sleep to perform, because that can affect their ability to support their families and to. you know, do a good job at work. Another thing is traffic. We have a walking path on one house -- next door, next door to me is a walking path and children are always coming and going on their bicycles and to and from school and I'm really worried about the cars, the parents who are in a hurry to drop their children off at day care, skidding down, coming around the corner, and all these children we have walking to school, riding their bikes, who kind of come out and go in the street a little bit, I'm worried about accidents with children. And also the cars blocking the sidewalk. There is cars there all the time, there is no place for someone to park. And not only are the cars blocking the sidewalks, there has been occasions when they have blocked my driveway. I can still get out, but there is still a car blocking part of my driveway. Also is when they drop off their children they are leaving their cars on and all the exhaust is coming right on over to our house. My husband had to be hospitalized with pneumonia a couple years ago, he has horrible asthma, he's on three different medications, and that's part of where our heating and Meridian Planning & Zoning January 6. 2005 Page 22 of 54 airconditioning system is set up, it's like alongside theirs, all the exhaust, especially with this inversion we are having, is just terrible. And, again, we are really concerned with property values. How many people want to buy a home where there is a daycare right next door? Not many people. And you have to decrease the amount you're asking for your home in order to find a buyer and that's what we are really greatly concerned about. Zaremba: Can I ask you to conclude or turn the rest over to your husband, if you -- Olacsi: Okay. Sure. Can I just like say goodbye? Zaremba: You're making progress. That's why I'm tolerating a little bit of that. Olacsi: Sure. I would like to ask the Commission to, please, deny the Galushkins their AUP for the overall good of the neighborhood of Finch Creek and its homeowners. Thank you. Zaremba: Any questions from the Commissioners? Thank you. Byron Olacsi. B.Olacsi: Byron Olacsi. I just want to say that I agree with everything that she said. Thank you. Zaremba: Thank you. Barbara Barbey. Barbey: My name is Barbara Barbey and I live at 5461 North Hondo Lane in Eagle, Idaho. I have purchased -- my husband and I have purchased in that subdivision four homes, two of which are located pretty much directly behind the home in question that wants to be a daycare and we purchased these homes specifically in this neighborhood, because we believe it to be a quiet, nice residential neighborhood, and which it is. However, there have been a series of daycare centers being opened up, one of which has been opened up on Cougar Creek. We just purchased two other homes in that subdivision in Cougar Creek, one right down the street, and our home in Cougar Creek, right after we moved a tenant into it, was commissioned to be a daycare center and our tenant has expressed their disapproval of living across the street from a daycare center and has asked to have their rent reduced and they also had a mailbox knocked over, which they told us was probably from the daycare center, people pulling out, knocked into the mailbox. There is no way to prove that, of course, but it sounds very logical to me. I am concerned about this daycare center, because I do believe that tenants are less likely to want to move into an area that has a daycare center next door or around nearby and I believe that we won't be able to rent it for as much as we would like when tenants find out that there is a center nearby and this will affect Our retirement income, because that is what we bought these houses for. And so I'm very concerned about the encroachment in this nice, beautiful residential neighborhood of what basically is a commercial business and I am expressing my just disapproval for it and I really would like to see that these neighborhoods be kept the sweet neighborhoods that they are, where children are free to come and go and not -- not have to worry about hazards and Meridian Planning & Zoning January 6, 2005 Page 23 of 54 traffic. It's like we are from California, it's like moving back in time, you have -- you have here this wonderful community and I would like to see it stay a wonderful community. I realize there is a need for daycare centers, but I believe that they belong in a center somewhere, not in a residential neighborhood where families are trying to abide. Thank you. Zaremba: Thank you. Any questions? Okay. Thank you. Tom Stewart, please. Stewart: Tom Stewart. I live at 775 Finch Creek. First of all, I didn't even know they had -- was keeping kids for the last six months. If I knew that, I would have had a problem. I work night shift. I sleep all day and I have an objection for them keeping kids and especially if they are planning on moving out and having a daycare. That's another objection I have. Thank you very much. Rohm: I have a question for you. Stewart: Sure. Rohm: If you didn't know that they had kids there over the last six months, then, it couldn't have been too big of a problem. Stewart: Well, I can see the traffic - they had ten times more traffic in their house than anyone else in the neighborhood, cars coming and going all day long. So, it's definitely a traffic issue. Rohm: Well, a traffic issue, I can see what you're saying there, but as far as noise and that, if, in fact, it hasn't bothered over the last six months, by the fact that they are making an application to make it legitimate isn't going to change that any. Correct? Stewart: Correct. Rohm: Thank you. Zaremba: Okay. Sandra Cook-Stewart. Cook-Stewart: My name is Sandra Cook-Stewart, I live at 775 Finch Creek Street also. We have been there about six years and I think what my husband was saying about the traffic, we just knew they had a large family, so we just assumed all the traffic was family. Where you saw our subdivision at the beginning there, the other picture, it's like a little cul-de-sac and, of course, yeah, we are the corner that has no parking at all. Rohm: There is a pointer right up there. There you go. Cook-Stewart: Let's see. That's us right there. So, you can see our driveway is the only parking in front of our house and so we can't complain about parking, because we have none. But that little black pathway that goes right there, there are a lot of kids that Meridian Planning & Zoning January 6. 2005 Page 24 of 54 come and go through there. Like I have always just thought most of the traffic back there knew that it was family and they knew that there were a lot of kids back there, so I just wanted to make sure that it was safe. I didn't know for the last six months, you know, we just thought it was family, we didn't know it was a daycare running. So, I didn't notice a lot of noise, I just don't want it to get worse and more of a commercial area. I mean I understand moms wanting to stay home and make a little money and take care of their kids, too, but we have been there for six years, I just want it to stay quiet and safe and, you know, we knew they had home businesses going on, but I just figured let people live, as long as it doesn't hurt us. But if it's going to start hurting our property values or start making more noise and stuff like that, I didn't want that to happen. So, that's alii have. Moe: Before you -- I do have a question for you. If, for the last six months, they have been running a day care there and it really hasn't -- you really have not noticed it, are you basically stating that as it is now you don't have a real objection, because it's five children and you just don't want to see it expand anymore? Basically, tonight what we are dealing with is the auxiliary use permit to have no more than five and so I guess I'm just wanting to make sure that I understand your position, because, to me, when I'm listening to you, it sounds like you don't really have an objection as of yet. Cook-Stewart: Well, I don't live right next door either and it's been winter right now. I mean I do work full time, I'm not at home during the day. My husband is trying to sleep, so we just always keep things on loud in the house to try to drown out noise, so I'm not really there all the time, like a lot of the neighbors are. During the summers there is a little park right there. If you walk the black path, that's all a little park. So, I mean I think we are used to a lot of kids playing and running back and forth, so we definitely don't want any traffic back there. I hate for me to be the one to say, no, I don't, when I'm not home all day long, you know. Moe: I wasn't putting you on the spot, I just wanted to make sure I understood your position. Cook-Stewart: Okay. Moe: Thank you. Zaremba: Jodi Rhodes is next. Rhodes: My name is Jodi Rhodes, I live at 1318 West Roberts Place in Nampa. My two children are the ones that Brandy so graciously takes from Nampa into Meridian every day. A couple of points I want to make, just after hearing everybody else talk. I, too, work nights. I live in a quiet neighborhood in a cul-de-sac. There are several children in my neighborhood, I know that there is noise, people mow their lawns in the summertime in the afternoon when I'm sleeping, I can't object to those noises. People make noises, they live, and so I just really -- you know, I just don't see that that's a real big issue. You know, there is ear plugs, people, you know, drown out the lights, there is Meridian Planning & Zoning January 6. 2005 Page 25 of 54 just things that you can do, I guess, to accommodate for those things, because there is noise no matter what you do. Secondly, I want to make a point about a center daycare. I am a mother of three, my oldest is 12, my youngest is two, so I have a lot of experience, I guess, in daycares. A center daycare, I guess, for me is not what I want for my children. I have to work, I'm a working mother, and I want my children to be in a loving environment with the same person. In a center daycare you go through employees like crazy and so to me that's an issue. I want consistency with my children and I want my children to feel loved in a home, you know, and so for me a home daycare is a must and I would -- I don't accept center daycares for my children for that reason. It's hard to find good daycare, especially in a home daycare, unfortunately, because it's not monitored I guess as closely as a center daycare is -- not that a center daycare is all that great either. But I found that here. My kids have been going with Brandy, they have been with Brandy for over a year now and I have nothing but wonderful things to say and she's very up front and she is a very honest person. So, that's alii have to say. Zaremba: Thank you. Any questions? Okay. Stephen Barbey. S.Barbey: Good evening. My name is Steven Barbey, I reside at 2659 Salisbury Court in Eagle. I submitted for the review of the Commission a letter stating the -- a potential reduction in value should the Commission elect to grant the AUP and I wanted to provide, first, the opportunity for the Commission to ask any questions in that regard. Newton-Huckabay: Yours is the one from the realty -- S.Barbey: Correct. The great thing of an AUP does become an adverse material fact for the homes immediately surrounding the home in question, so we are -- Elizabeth Olacsi or the neighbor to the other side or the neighbor to the rear, elect to sell their home while there was a working business in place that had an AUP in place, but allowed that business to occur, the seller of that home would need to disclose to all potential buyers that there was a business in the immediately adjacent home and, as such, that adverse material fact would result in a negative impact to the property values. That is one of the reasons that Elizabeth Olacsi noted in her objection of the AUP. Any questions on that? Moe: Yeah. What if it was a family of six that needed daycare that bought the house? You can argue that point quite a bit. S.Barbey: No, I disagree, because there is a difference between a -- the integrity of a community in which there are families of different sizes, you might have a family of two children, a family of zero children, a family of ten children, and there is what happens naturally and there is a balance in the community of different size families. When you begin to artificially increase the amount of individuals that are at a residence during the course of a day, that artificial increase upsets that balance and, therefore, does have an impact. Meridian Pianning & Zoning January 6. 2005 Page 26 of 54 Borup: Are you basing this statement just on your belief or do you have any -- do you have any concrete -- S.Barbey: Sure. Adverse material facts take many forms. Borup: No. I mean have you got any concrete sales and et cetera to back this up or is this just your opinion? S.Barbey: No. This information was provided based upon concrete information. This is not an arbitrary, off-the-cuff assessment. This information was based upon real market data. Borup: From where? S.Barbey: From the multiple listing service. The multiple listing service and the -- in our community is the Intermountain Multiple Listing Service and that service keeps track of all sales prices of homes that are sold through real estate agents in our community. Borup: And it keeps track of every home that has a daycare center next to it? S.Barbey: No, that's not true. What it does do, though, is it allows agents and others who have access to that information to make individual market assessments based on individual scenarios. So, if I were to look at a home that had a -- that had been converted to a daycare and I were to assess the sales values of the homes in the immediate area -- and when I say immediate, I really do mean immediate. Many of the -- permit me a side bar, if you will. Many of the folks that have spoken this evening in opposition to the -- to the granting of the AUP have wavered a little bit and you will notice that that wavering occurs as the geographic area grows larger away from the subject home. Those in most opposition are right next-door or right behind and the homeowners two doors away for four doors away have less impact and, therefore, are willing to be a little bit more forgiving and that makes sense. But the greatest impact does occur to the properties of immediate adjacency to the subject home and that would be evident in a market analysis in looking at property values. Borup: So, you have done that market analysis? S.Barbey: I have. I have done it both for -- if you look at homes that are in the entry to a subdivision, for example, that are subject to more traffic or homes that have a power line behind them or a home that has a commercial property behind them, they do sell at a discount, as opposed to homes that are more nestled in a subdivision. Borup: But that's not what we are talking about here. S.Barbey: No. I'm drawing similarities. I'm not saying that they are exactly the same, I am saying, though, that if -- I mean probably the closest similarity would be a home that had a business behind it, some type of commercial operation. Yes, the dilution factor-- Meridian Planning & Zoning January 6. 2005 Page 27 of 54 or the reduction in property value would be less -- if there was a home with a commercial property behind it, the discount might be 15 percent. A home with a daycare -- Borup: No. I understand what you're saying. S.Barbey: -- might be five percent. Borup: But you're saying you could provide us with a written report? S.Barbey: I'm not prepared to do so this evening, but would it serve the Commission, I would be willing to do so at a later date. Newton-Huckabay: This is the resource, I assuming, that you use when you prepare to sell a -- or list a client's -- house for a client? S.Barbey: That's correct. If I were to meet with a client and prepare for them a comparative market analysis, one of the lines of the questions that we would have to pursue was is there anything of concern that you feel would be appropriate to disclose to a potential buyer and one of those -- and I would pursue that. We need to make sure that all sellers disclose adverse material facts to buyers, so we really have to push them, because that's a liability not only for them, but as their agent it's a liability for the agent, so -- Newton-Huckabay: So you own property in the subdivision? S.Barbey: I own industrial property in the Meridian area. Newton-Huckabay: Are you with the Barbey that owns the property behind the house? S.Barbey: That's correct. There is a relationship and as a licensed real estate agent in the state of Idaho I have an obligation to act with integrity and to act in good faith and my statements made this evening are being made with that very clearly in mind. Any other questions? Zaremba: Any other questions? Thank you. S.Barbey: I would ask only that -- I know that it's a difficult situation for everybody and I'm certain everybody that's spoken this evening and all the Commissioners are sympathetic to the specific situation that the -- excuse me -- that you're in and it's difficult, there is never a winner for everybody. What I might propose would be the -- would be some sort of middle ground. These folks have said that this is their only source of income and it would be difficult for me, even if they were operating a brothel, to say, you know, hey, you know what, go away, because it's people, you know. Bad example. But it's people and it's hard to take away their income. So I would propose, perhaps, that the Commission grant -- and I don't know if you have this in your power, Meridian Planning & Zoning January 6, 2005 Page 28 of 54 but potentially grant something that would have a termination date, perhaps an AUP of five children or less that would last for a period of three months or six months and protect the long-term interest of the surrounding homeowners and also provide the folks here with the opportunity to transition, find another source of income or other locations to operate the business and I think that would be a fair compromise that would serve the interests of all parties that have presented their case this evening. Any additional questions? Thank you for your time. Zaremba: Thank you. That's the end of the list of those that have signed up. Anybody else care to offer testimony? Again, I failed to mention it earlier, but, traditionally, at the end of all public testimony there is an opportunity for the applicant to respond if they can clarify any issues that have been raised and I suspect that Brandy would speak for the applicant again. And this is usually limited to five minutes. Galushkin: Okay. I'll hurry. Brandy Galushkin again. Zaremba: I'm sorry. Ten minutes. Galushkin: Oh, ten minutes? Oh, good. Okay. Marina does want to speak. She'll try to gesture what she can to you. But a quick thing I have is with them saying about the property values, again, I talked with the Ada county tax commissioner -- or assessor and those are the people that actually do tell you what the value of your home is and your land, that kind of thing, and Tim there said that if you guys wanted to really clarify that it does not hurt your value of your home by 12,000 dollars. It doesn't. He said that who -- you know, this real estate agent shouldn't have a license because of the fact that he stated this on real estate paper. He said there is no way that it will depreciate your house at all that much, even much of anything. They said that -- he said the only thing is, like he said, a power line or something, and a commercial business. This is not a commercial business, we only want five kids or fewer right now. Later on if we do do the Conditional Use Permit, so be it, they can fight with us about it again, because, you know -- but I don't -- you know, five kids or fewer is not a commercial business. And also another real estate agent I called about that and an appraiser and I have all their names and phone numbers if you guys wanted to speak with them about that also. They said they would have came, but it was short notice, because I talked to them yesterday, but they said that they are willing to stand in place with us saying it does not hurt the value of your home at all to have an in-home daycare. It doesn't. But also another thing -- quick thing is about sleeping at night. I know he works nights at Micron and, Alex, he did work nights at Micron in Nampa, there is a Nampa Micron and there is a Boise Micron, so he did work at Nampa. And my husband also works at the Nampa Micron. Them sleeping at night, they were sleeping in the bedroom, in the master bedroom, where -- with all of these kids in daycare and never heard them. They performed their job perfectly, no problem, it's the individual. And living next door, I don't think noise from a four year old is going to carry to the other side of their home and with closed doors and windows and the fact of the kids screaming and yelling and they heard the noises, the kids in the summertime, I don't agree with that at all, due to the fact that, you know, during the summertime it's very hot, if our kids ever did go outside, they are Meridian Planning & Zoning January 6, 2005 Page 29 of 54 four year olds, their voice can't carry that much into a home. And, for another thing, is they weren't even outside maybe 30 minutes due to the fact that it's very hot out there, they can't -- they can't stand to be outside that long, you know. And most of our -- the kids that are with Marina, the age limit is no more than four and if she does take any other kids, the age limit is seven. So, it's not, you know, that kids are just going to bank up and that kind of thing and, you know, they do have two kids and a baby on their way, you know, how is he going to sleep with a baby crying, you know. Is he going to tell his wife to take the baby, you know, three blocks down the street, because she's crying or he? You know, that's -- you have kids, you have to deal with it, you know, and, I'm sorry, I don't want to be mean, but, you know, they are kids, you can't control them completely, you know, but we do keep them quiet and they are always in the house and they are not yelling and screaming, so -- Rohm: The first time you got up you didn't present a petition, but alluded to -- that you had actually talked to a number of neighbors. Galushkin: Yes. Rohm: And I'd like you to talk about that just for a moment and I think what happens in many of these public testimony environments is the people that are in objection will come out in force, but the people that are in support of a particular project, as long as they have signed off on it, they are less likely to show up for public testimony. So, if you could just speak to that for us, I'd appreciate it. Galushkin: Okay. Newton-Huckabay: Would you like that submitted as a public record? Galushkin: I would like to, because the people that did speak in objection, I have all of their signatures here. Everyone of them that are here that objected to this, I went and we talked -- Marina and I took the time out of our evening with our family to go door to door to show them and say, hey, you know, we are the ones that want to have this daycare and when we did this -- this is actually -- we were -- we were advised to get signatures for the Conditional Use Permit, so they were aware that it was for 12 -- up to 12 kids, because we specified to them that it was up to 12 kids. We were working on a Conditional Use Permit for up to 12 kids. So, when we spoke to every one of these people, they knew it was for up to 12 kids. We didn't do this for the five kids or fewer, we did for a Conditional Use Permit and we have all of their signatures. Rohm: Well -- and I'd like to see that list if we could and just have it entered into the public testimony. Nary: Mr. Chairman, since she's made a reference to it as part of her testimony, we should probably have the exhibit as part of the record. Rohm: Okay. And you just need to bring it up. Meridian Planning & Zoning January 6. 2005 Page 30 of 54 Galushkin: Okay. Do you want the list of all the people -- I have the list -- because they gave me everybody within 300 feet, not just neighboring people. We had to go clear on the other side of the subdivision in order to get signatures and we got them also. The only signatures we didn't get were people that were renters, some renters said we don't feel that we should, because we don't own the home or they were moving. Rohm: That wasn't my point. My point was that there is not a consensus that this is an objectionable inclusion in the neighborhood. But if you will bring that up to the clerk. Zaremba: I would comment while we are doing this, just to clarify, there has been discussion of a couple things that may happen eventually, which are that they may move out of the house, that there may be a CUP applied for 12, but I want to clarify for you and everybody else, the issue tonight is solely -- Galushkin: The five or fewer. Zaremba: -- an accessory permit that they must live in the house, they cannot have more than five non-family children, and if they move that expires. Galushkin: Exactly. Zaremba: I want to clarify for everybody, even though you're warning us that the other subject -- Galushkin: Yeah. No. And we know that, too, because we have read the rules and regulations and we know that if they move, that it's completely -- they are going to revoc the license, if we don't do the conditional -- Zaremba: It becomes invalid automatically. Galushkin: If we don't go further with it. So -- and right now we have been discussing it just if we should even worry about it or if we should look for our commercial building, you know, that kind of thing, because we are looking, it's just -- it's hard to find one and a good one, you know. So, that's just -- you know, we know that it is going to -- if they do move we don't have a Conditional Use Permit and we have -- we know it's gone, we can't watch kids, we know that. Yeah. And we will abide by that, too. Rohm: I have another question about the home auto repair and I know that that's not part of this application, but I want to just comment to the public that this application is not related to that, but if, in fact, there is something of that nature going on, there would have to be an application made for it as well and if there is not -- Galushkin: Correct. Rohm: And so I'm just putting on record that you need to not be doing that, if, in fact -- Meridian Planning & Zoning January 6. 2005 Page 31 of 54 Galushkin: Right. And, Alex, he knows that and -- I mean he does have a dealer's license and he does buy cars from auctions for other people. That's why there are extra cars there sometimes, because he has to have them transported there, but there is a business -- his -- our brother-In-law -- well, my brother-in-law, his brother, has a business where they do transport the cars later on and they do work on them there at the business, so -- in the auto business, yes. Rohm: Okay. It's just that this application for the childcare is separate and aside from issues associated with the auto repair, but it's -- Galushkin: Okay. Rohm: Thank you. Galushkin: Yeah. I understand. Thank you. Borup: Mr. Chairman, just one final question. Mr. Barbey brought up the idea of having a time limit. Do you have any thoughts on that? Galushkin: Well, you know, I really don't, because -- I mean, like I said, in the future we do want more kids and -- but we just haven't decided if we really want to waste our money of 375 dollars that we have worked for in order to do the Conditional Use Permit, because I know we are going to be right back here in front of you again and we don't know if it's worth it, because we can put that 375 toward a different building. So, that's kind of -- I think, you know, as long as Alex and Marina are living there and that, you know, we have this -- we are able to have the daycare there, I don't feel that there should be a time limit. There is the daycare right behind us that has been there for years and there has never been an issue. Houses have sold greatly there, their property value has never been negative toward that. Nothing. Moe: Excuse me. This is the first I have heard of this one. Galushkin: What? Moe: The daycare behind -- Galushkin: There is a daycare behind. In fact, I didn't know that either until the homeowners association lady, we talked to her this morning, and she advised us that there is another daycare center in the subdivision directly behind us a little ways down and -- Newton-Huckabay: Could you point out that property? Galushkin: You know, I don't exactly know. It's on -- off of -- well, I don't even know where we are at. Meridian Planning & Zoning January 6, 2005 Page 32 of 54 Newton-Huckabay: You're the one that's edged in black. It's about dead center right there. Galushkin: Oh, we are right there. Okay. So, she's told us if you take this little walkway right here, that daycare is right here somewhere. Right directly behind us. Newton-Huckabay: By the park. Galushkin: By the park. And, in fact, I'm pretty sure -- I think it is this home here, because when we went and got signatures, she signed for us, so it's either here or on this side, one of these homes here, because I know the lady did mention that she did have a daycare -- she did daycare and she watched children there, so -- but there is another daycare directly behind us, but there has never been an issue with -- I can get that address and give it to you guys if you guys need that for sure. I can get that address. Okay. Newton-Huckabay: And I believe Mrs. Galushkin was going to testify, but she changed her mind. Zaremba: I would ask Brandy one more question. I'm sorry. You got away. And, again, this is partially from your knowledge of the neighborhood having walked around and this is probably just a wild guess off the top of your head. Among the residences maybe within 10 or 15 houses either direction, do you have any idea how many children live in the -- along this street or in this block or -- Galushkin: In this block? There are a lot of children that live there. I don't know exactly how many. Zaremba: Okay. Galushkin: But-- Zaremba: So, the children in this home are not the only children in the neighborhood? Galuskin: Oh, no. No. Not by far. Yeah. In fact -- let me see where we are at again. These people here down this road here, there are a ton of kids. In fact, this house here -- I believe this one or this one, they asked us to bring their kids to our daycare. They said it's great. They said I can't believe, you know, that I'll save myself time, you know, to bring my kids just next door, because they have to take daycare clear over to Kuna, because that's the only other daycare that they know, you know, that is a good daycare. So, she asked if she could bring them and I told her that we were involved in doing this, so we weren't able to take any kids right now, so -- but there are a ton of kids in that subdivision. It's not just the ones that -- that Marina has. And she has three kids of her own. Meridian Planning & Zoning January 6. 2005 Page 33 of 54 Zaremba: Thank you. Galushkin: Uh-huh. Zaremba: Commissioners? Rohm: I think it's time to close the -- Newton-Huckabay: Close the Public Hearing. Rohm: Yes. Mr. Chairman, I move that we close the Public Hearing on AUP 04-016. Moe: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Okay. Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: Commissioners, any discussion? Rohm: Well, I'd like to have a little discussion here. I'd like to just encapsulate what I think that I have heard here on both sides of the issue here and I think the primary objection initially was based upon the fact that they were going to move forward and try and expand it into 12 and there was less opposition to the fact that it was five, but it kind of escalated as the testimonies were heard and, then, the fact that the petition had a number of names on it in support of this, but they didn't -- they didn't come, because their signature in and of itself lends the support. So, even though a significant amount of the testimony that we hear at the Public Hearing is in opposition, I don't believe that the opposition is as great in the whole from the subdivision inclusively. So, that's -- I'd just like to spread that just a bit. And I think that it's -- it's something that we need in our community and it's -- I think I'm in general support of granting this myself. Zaremba: Do I interpret from your comments that the five children, while they live in the house, sounds like it's acceptable and that shouldn't give them any confidence that a further CUP for 12 is going to be acceptable? Rohm: I would generally say that a Conditional Use Permit would probably not receive the same support. Borup: I know that definitely would be my position. Zaremba: I would feel that way myself. Rohm: I think that conditional use permits, whether you're talking about for a daycare or for any other Conditional Use Permit, is just that, it's upon condition and we have a Meridian Planning & Zoning January 6, 2005 Page 34 of 54 greater responsibility to address those objections for a Conditional Use Permit, I believe, than we do for an AUP. That's my position on that. Zaremba: Does staff have anything to add? Wilson: No. Rohm: With that being said, Mr. Chairman, I move that we approve the AUP 04-016, including all staff comments for the hearing date January 6, 2005, received December 29th, 2004. End of motion. Newton-Huckabay: I'll second that. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor, please, say aye. Any opposed? Borup: Nay. And just mainly because I want to emphasize the point that would not be in favor of expansion. And that's maybe a way I could express that. Zaremba: Okay. Newton-Huckabay: Now, wait a minute. Borup: It's a pass anyway. I realize that's not part of the motion,but-- Newton-Huckabay: Well, I have a statement to make, then. I didn't know that was an option. Borup: What? To vote no? Newton-Huckabay: No. That you're making a point that should have been made before the motion, is it not? Zaremba: Well, it's actually been stated several times-- Borup: Yes. Commissioner Rohm already made that point and 1-- Zaremba: What he's reinforcing for the applicant is that there is very little chance of a CUP for 12 children. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Well-- Borup: That's alii was saying. Newton-Huckabay: I mean I would voice my concurrence with that, but -- Meridian Planning & Zoning January 6, 2005 Page 35 of 54 Rohm: Well, we all have -- Borup: It really doesn't have anything to do with this application. I realize that. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Sorry. Zaremba: The motion for the AUP for five children was carried four to one. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES, ONE NAY. Zaremba: And we have had a suggestion that we have a short break and I think this is probably a good time. We will take about five minutes and we will reconvene. (Recess.) Item 8: Public Hearing: PP 04-040 Request to amend the Preliminary Plat (PP 02-006) to add six additional building lots in location that were previously platted as storm drainage ponds for Tuscany Lakes Subdivision (Amended) by Tuscany Development, Inc. - south of East Victory Road and west of South Eagle Road: Zaremba: Ladies and gentlemen, all Commissioners have returned and we will reconvene the meeting and go on to Item No.8, which is a Public Hearing on PP 04- 040, request to amend the preliminary plat, which was originally PP 02-006, to add six additional building lots in locations that were previously platted as storm drainage ponds for Tuscany Lake Subdivision Amended, by Tuscany Development, Inc., south of East Victory Road and west of South Eagle Road. And we will begin with staff comments. Wilson: Chairman Zaremba, Members of the Commission, the application before you is for Tuscany Lakes Subdivision preliminary plat to amend it to add six additional building lots. Some background. On August 13th, 2002, the Meridian City Council approved the preliminary plat of Tuscany Lakes Subdivision, with 455 build-able lots, with a gross density of 2.4 units per acre, 38 common lots, and one school lot. The subject property was also granted a Conditional Use Permit for a planned development. That included reduced frontage requirements, block length modifications, and modifications of sidewalk requirements. This property is designated medium density residentiai on the Comprehensive Plan map and this new -- this revised preliminary plat does include six additional lots, which range in size from approximately 10,000 square feet to 29,000 square feet. Some special considerations of the application were the amount of -- that the amount of open space not be reduced to such a point that it was below what was required. The approved preliminary plat that went through City Council had a total of 18 acres of open space, which was approximately 9.4 percent of the gross acreage. This preliminary plat -- and you will have to excuse me, these numbers are off of a previous lot configuration and the applicant has submitted a new lot configuration for one of the lots. Numbers will be slightly larger. They, actually, increased the open space a little bit with those revisions. But the calculations that I did at the time, they were reducing the Meridian Planning & Zoning January 6. 2005 Page 36 of 54 open space by approximately .9 acres. So it's actually -- they are actually reducing it by a little bit less than that now with the revised plans and maybe the applicant could speak to some exact numbers. But the amount of open space still remains well above the five percent minimum required. Another concern is the amenities for the subdivision, since it was a planned development. They do provide a tot lot with active open space on Lot 53, Block 1, and there does not appear to be a loss or a reduction in the neighborhood amenities as part of this revised -- this revised preliminary plat. I think I will go into maybe some specifics about a couple of the areas. The area on the screen now is Lot 53, Block 1. This is the one that was actually reconfigured by the applicant. There is some concerns with this lot as far as visibility by the police department. They don't like blind corners in open space lots like this and, as you can see, there are a couple areas that the police department would have some difficulty seeing, being this rear corner from this street here, that's a -- kind of a blind corner there. And from this street here they would also have some difficulty seeing back into there. Because of this -- and this did not make it in the staff report, but a condition that we are recommending is that those two property lines -- north property line on Lot 54 and the south property line on -- I believe that's Lot 38, be restricted to transparent wrought iron fencing to help the police department with those visibility concerns back into those blind corners. And also that Lot 53 would be designated un-build-able due to inadequate street frontage. You can see that it has very minimal actual street frontage there and does not meet the requirements, so it would be designated an un-build-able lot. The second section here, it's a little bit more difficult to see, but -- let's see. I believe if I can find a map I can read here. Sorry for the delay. Concerning Lots 22 and 23 -- and those are Block 7. And also Lots 7 and 8 -- the applicant has reconfigured the lot that is adjacent to the -- to the -- I guess the Ten Mile Lateral to reconfigure the lot to plat a build-able lot and also leave some open space there and, then, the couple of lots further to the east has actually changed configuration there to add a couple of lots as well. This drainage lot that's being reconfigured is quite a bit more straightforward. It was one large rectangular lot and is proposed to be divided into the three lots here. I think Bruce might speak a little bit to the specifics of the drainage, but the reason for the platting of these lots that were formally drainage lots -- platting them now as residential lots, ACHD has changed their policy in what type of drainage is allowed, going from drain - storm- water retention ponds in these locations to a drainage system that consists of swales along the subdivision streets. It's my understanding that the wet ponds were determined to not be an efficient means of draining this property and that these swales along the streets will do a better job of handling the drainage for the subdivision, which, apparently, is a little bit problematic in this area of the city, it has a high water table and some drainage problems. ACHD has given approval for the applicant to have one tree within these drainage swales at each property line intersection, which can be -- it's a little bit hard to describe that in words, but, basically, where each property line intersects the ACHD right of way here, they are allowed to have their one tree at that intersection and we would recommend that as -- and it's part of the conditions of approval, that those trees be limited to class one or class two species due to concerns over size and ACHD's concerns for maintenance of that dedicated right of way. And with that I will end my comments and see if Mr. Freckleton has anything to add. Okay. So, with that one staff comment -- Meridian Planning & Zoning January 6.2005 Page 37 of 54 Zaremba: Commissioners, questions? Rohm: Could you expand on that -c what was that last comment, the species one or two? Wilson: Yes, I can. The City of Meridian in our landscape ordinance adopted -- I believe it's a publication by the city of Boise in regards to tree species that are appropriate for planting, broken into class one, two, and three, three being extremely large trees that -- the largest oaks, maples, and beeches and things of such that they become extremely large, would pose maintenance problems and in the limited space of the right of way are not appropriate, so the class ones and twos, would recommend it be restricted to those. Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Zaremba: I would appreciate a clarification. You made the comment about some ACHD requirements. The only thing I have from ACHD in my packet is their November 9 letter where they clearly state that their staff is not approving roadside swale and go on that there needs to be a further application. Or are you referencing something later than November 9? Wilson: The ACHD approval I referenced was just the trees and the drainage swale, you know, and that was a conversation with the director of the design review of ACHD. I guess I wasn't actually aware of ACHD's comments that you just stated. Zaremba: I assume we all have that in our packets. Borup: Well, my understanding is that the letter is not the approval, that there needs to be a formal process for the approval, which we don't have. Wilson: I'll let the applicant address their conversation with ACHD as far as what ACHD is requiring from them. Zaremba: Okay. Any questions at the present time from the Commissioners? Okay. Let's have the applicant come up, please. Brown: For the record, Kent Brown, 1800 West Overland, Boise, Idaho. I guess a little background. After our approval we started through the process of start getting different phases of the final plat approved and trying to get those on as the demand required. When we came to Messina Hills 2, if you could show the overall, Josh, I'd appreciate it. Messina Hills 2 is the portion that's on this drawing - basically, it's everything that's located in Messina Hills 1. This is one and two of Village One and it's the remaining piece on the east side of the Ridenbaugh Canal. As we brought that to the City Council, the Council discussed with us what's on your revised drawing as Lot 53 and that portion of 53 and 54 where we were trying to take that storm draining pond, as we discussed Meridian Planning & Zoning January 6. 2005 Page 38 of 54 with the City Council, that layout, we informed them with our original approval we showed that being a wet pond, we would do everything possible to make it not a wet pond, but it looked like it was going to be a wet pond and we wanted to make them aware of that. We mirrored the approval with Public Works Department for sewer lines and water lines for their street approval and, then, got called in by the highway district that they wanted to talk to us about our pond and that they didn't want to approve a wet pond and they are the ones that suggested to us that we use this roadside swale. It's a new policy that they have had, they use it almost on every development that they do in Star, for example, in a couple over there. Their entire subdivision in and around there, Steven Springs is a good example of that one just recently went in, where every street in the subdivision has these roadside swales and the reason is because of the high ground water. The other place that the highway district allows these is in .areas of the basalt. So, in the Kuna area they would allow them and they are also allowing them in what we would consider a rural or estate type densities. Their problem of the past has been with these roadside swales is residential builders filling them in, landscaping them, and, then, not having a swale. And they believe that they have a mechanism for this. I think that when it proves out, realistically, I think this is the trend of the future. What you end up with not having concentration to one spot by channeling in your curb and gutter and taking water, making your streets go up and down to move the water throughout the development. The city of Nampa has adopted the roadside swale and mandates that you put it and you have to ask special permission not to do it in Nampa. And so it's a common practice. Rohm: Those are just small collectors? Brown: It's just -- what we would, growing up, call borrow pits, but they are -- they are not as deep, they are -- basically, what they are is eight foot wide at the top, three feet down, and they are requiring -- you can see on our preliminary plat drawing the cross section that shows the swale there. The thing that makes this really work is that there is a continuous gravel trench that runs through the whole thing and each builder has to deposit 500 dollars -- actually, the developer deposits 500 dollars and upon the occupancy of the house, the developer or the builder can get that money back when they are assured that they haven't filled it in, because of the previous problems. After we went through this and it literally cost us a month of time, because we had to redraw the plans, get the sewer laterals deep enough to go underneath the swales. I think the Public Works department did their efforts to try to make this happen, but it was probably one of the first ones that they did. The Messina Meadows -- or the Messina Hills property number two, they are constructed, they are in, and they have signed off on that -- the highway district has signed that plat. The only reason I haven't recorded that plat is the modification that we are here today trying to get that one extra building lot and so it's constructed. They signed off on it, which is typical, because they are using it all over the place. One of the things that we have done -- when you look at this area right here, we are trying to get this as a building lot and, then, leave the rest as open space. Where we are taking this area that was going to be a pond here, we are adding a clubhouse and pool. I have an elevation drawing showing this is what they are looking for the clubhouse and the pool would sit behind and the parking. If you look at this Meridian Planning & Zoning January 6, 2005 Page 39 of 54 really close on your drawing, you can see the clubhouse right up here in the northwest corner, the pool sitting behind, and some parking. That's an added common area lot that wasn't there before that we have added to the development. We have tried to -- in changing what we have done is we have tried to provide more active space than what this passive space that we had before, hoping that the ponds would be dry and that they have multiple uses. So, what we have provided is where we had a large rectangular pond on Lot 54 and 53, now we have a tot lot that would be an active space. We are providing a clubhouse. The other two areas that are up here, they were active, but they also had ponds in them before, now the active part is the pedestrian trail. With our original approval we provided a trail system that goes along our ponds and comes through here, walks down, and, then, along the Ten Mile. You can do loops in there on that. That was a part of our original approval and we are retaining that by the open space that we leave in there. Moe: Well, what are you anticipating doing with Lot 23, as far as access into the lot and whatnot when you're walking path goes right through it? Is that not going to be a build- able lot? Brown: Twenty-three will be the open space lot. Lot 22 will be that one that we have added. Moe: Okay. Brown: And Lot 12 is the one that we have added. Lot 8 is the common area. Moe: Thank you. Brown: We are in agreement with all the conditions, including the wrought iron fencing on Lot 53. We have used wrought iron against the Ten Mile and against our ditches where the Nampa-Meridian's -- when I explained it to my client, he says we will put that in. That's -- we don't know that that's really going to take care of it. There is still going to be a site concern when you consider that they build a house and they build it to their setbacks, which -- I mean they always do and there is -- Newton-Huckabay: May I ask a question on that. On Lot -- we are talking about Block 53? Brown: Yes, ma'am. Newton-Huckabay: And it may not be particularly for you, but is there an option for some other amenity, other than a tot lot, something that might attract a little bit older child, rather than -- maybe like a basketball court or a tennis court or -- Brown: We have a basketball court just right up here, just to the north of that. That was what we put up there. I mean a basketball court is real cheap, we will put in a basketball court, but -- Meridian Planning & Zoning January 6. 2005 Page 40 of 64 Newton-Huckabay: I would just be concerned as a parent with young children, even with wrought iron fencing; I would be concerned about a tot lot that, you know, attracts -- Brown: My client wanted to put in a basketball court and I told him that you probably should do something a little more upgrade, but we would be happy to put in a basketball court. Newton-Huckabay: What about like -- I don't know what the rule is on that -- Brown: Basketball courts are probably the most active, other than the walking, in the developments that we have done. I agree that they are -- Borup: What about a tennis court? Brown: Tennis courts are real difficult. That's a little harder. Borup: They don't get that much use. Brown: We are going to get a lot more use out of the pool and clubhouse. One of the things that -- we have already put in one pool right here, so this will have two pools in this overall development. We have tried to kind of spread them in different places that make them accessible. I think what they told me is like 34,000 dollars for the playground equipment that they would put in there. But if you want another type of active use, sure, we can do that. Rohm: It was a good question. Zaremba: I need one thing clarified a little different than this and that is exactly where are we in the process. Are we talking about a paperwork change or has engineering already been done and grading already done and the roadways designed, so that the water flows to the existing -- Brown: Drainage swales. Yes. Zaremba: It's been redesigned so it goes to the drainage swales, not into the original ponds? Brown: Not into the ponds. Yes. Zaremba: Okay. So, I guess the reason I ask that question is that every time ACHD has a budget hearing or a five year work plan hearing, there is a couple that comes from a subdivision that I -- if I remember correctly, it's in the county and I think it's at Amity and Locust Grove or something, but, anyhow, they have a house the floods every time there is precipitation, that they discovered that it was originally platted as a drainage lot, nobody knows when somebody changed it to build-able lot, but the whole engineering Meridian Planning & Zoning January 6, 2005 Page 41 of 54 was done to send all the water onto this lot and even though they built a house on it, it still sends all the water onto that lot and my concern is if you have real stuff on the ground, roads and stuff like that, waving a wand isn't going to change where the water goes. If this is still just on paper, I think it's a good solution, but I need to be comfortable that the water is going to go where you're telling it to go and that everything has been reengineered. Borup: I may make one comment that might pertain to that. Mr. Brown's comment that this is the way of the future, it's really the way of the past. Zaremba: Coming around again. Borup: Yeah. I mean all the subdivisions that -- acre lot type subdivisions that were done in this county in the 70s had -- well, we called them borrow pits, but no sidewalk and no curb and gutter, so the water ran off -- just ran off the roads into that area and there was never any drainage problems. I always wondered why 30 years ago we didn't have to worry about drainage problems and now it is. You know, what's changed in those -- in that time and that's -- it looks to me like that's the main thing that's changed is we have covered everything over, we have got -- we have got full concrete -- I mean sidewalks, curb and gutter and we are -- rather than letting the water drain and absorb where it falls and comes off each lot, we are forcing it to these ponds. That's why -- that's why the water is accumulating in them. Zaremba: I guess my comment is I don't have an issue with this method of dealing with the runoff and drainage. My question is -- Borup: But there is no curb -- Zaremba: -- where are we in the timing. If it's already etched in concrete and it's already engineered so the water flows to the lots that we are talking about -- Borup: But there is no curb and gutter to bring the water to anywhere on this design. Zaremba: Your answer is you can deal with it? Brown: I will be happy to speak when you guys are done. I was letting you go. We have Lake -- Tuscany Lakes Two will be here, Tuscany Lakes Three will be here. This will be Messina Hills Three. Those phases are not etch in concrete. We have gone through our first paper approval with the highway district on Lake Two and Hills Three, all subject to us getting this done, we want the City Council to approve, you know, hopefully, this amendment. That's what we are hoping for with the additional lots. So, we are patiently -- some days not patiently -- waiting, trying to get this submitted and approved. And Hills Two is built and that one was built with the understanding that it wasn't going to take water to that point and when you look at the drainage swale that Josh had up on the screen and it's on the modification, what you have is you have a crown in the road with -- taking the water going either side to the borrow pit and, then, Meridian Pianning & Zoning January 6. 2005 Page 42 of 54 it's not traveling anywhere where on a -- what we could call a traditional method, it got to the gutter and, then, had to, you know, pick up enough water to carry it someplace else. So, then, you put grates in the streets and make it travel those directions. Rohm: From a maintenance perspective, who takes care of the borrow pit? Brown: The homeowners association does. Rohm: It's not part of a lot? Is it a common lot? Brown: It's the public right of way and the developer had to sign an agreement for the maintenance. This method is, actually, even a little more expensive, because of the type of mixture of soils that they have come up with. They want something to percolate, but they also want them to look nice and -- Freckleton: Mr. Chair? Zaremba: Mr. Freckleton. Freckleton: If I could maybe -- a point of clarification. On the maintenance aspect of that, Kent, isn't it true that the ACHD enters into -- they require the language in your CC&Rs for heavy and light duty maintenance and the homeowners association is responsible for the light-duty maintenance, which is the surface -- or, excuse me, the homeowners association or the property owner who fronts that area, is responsible for mowing that grass and surface cosmetic type maintenance. If the sand trench that's in the bottom of these swales plugs up, for instance, then, I believe that the ACHD is responsible for the maintenance on the functionality of that, they would go in and restore or rehab that portion of the facility. So, it's kind of a shared maintenance responsibility. Brown: Which is the same as the ponds are. The ponds have that same kind of restriction. What you have here is you have less concentration, because you're not pooling all the water and having it flow to one spot and so you have less concentration of the water. And that's one of the blessings of it. One of the other blessings of it is -- since my wife is not here we can pick on her or talk about her. She over-waters our yard. I mean just turns the sprinklers on and they are on the lawn a long time and you end up in the curb and gutter with this nuisance water that runs down the street. Well, now that nuisance water doesn't go anywhere and if someone is over-watering, the wet spot is out in front of their house. I mean it -- instead of having that run through the streets and -- I live pretty close to Woodbridge and you drive through there and we haven't had storms as much, we have had, you know, near drought, if you will, and their pond is a little wet and it's because people are over-watering their yards and it's running onto the sidewalk and across and into the gutter and so now that's just going into the swale in front of their house. Meridian Planning & Zoning January 6, 2005 Page 43 of 54 Rohm: I guess my only concern on that was that if, in fact, there is over-watering continued and that's all wet -- Brown: You have this continuous trench that takes care of that water. We have twice as much area; for example, in phase two. I did a brief calculation and took what that pond area was and, then, took the eight-foot area on either side of the road and we are almost double that overall site, because you have got eight foot on either side of the road. Rohm: I'm just curious, not growing up -- Brown: And I guess I'm not here for you to approve my storm drainage system, that -- ACHD is the one that approves the storm drainage system. Those are the conditions that are placed upon me that -- you can talk to your own staff and they can reaffirm that. My storm draining system is not what you have wanted authority to decide how I take care of my storm drainage. You have pawned that off on the highway district as part of what they are doing at the highway district and phase two told us what to do and we have taken that consideration, because they said you're going to have the same thing throughout the rest and have adopted that and are running forward with that. I'm here to get the open space that previously had and called out as common area, for you to approve it and give me six more lots. Okay. And I'm not here to have you approve -- Zaremba: My only concern was those aren't going to be wet lots and I think you have satisfied me on that. Brown: Are there any other questions? Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. Mrs. DeChambeau. DeChambeau: My name is Mary DeChambeau and I live on 2015 East Victory and I think most of the staff knows me pretty good by now. I want to thank you for some of your very intelligent observations and comments about the drainage system. I think this is more of an issue than just adding six additional lots. Do you have my brother's letter in front of you that he sent from Tucson? You should. He sent it about two or three weeks ago. Our main issue is something that you discussed this very night a little bit about something I have been wondering why the City of Meridian hasn't been doing about this drainage problem. My brother lives in Tucson and they tried these ponds, then, they tried the swales and now they are going back and digging up all the streets and directing all the water into the sewer system and this is exactly what's going to happen here in this area, I can guarantee, because you're already talking about what's going on in the future. First of all, I just want to let you know, I am not a builder, I'm not a contractor, I have absolutely no ties to the building community. I am just a concerned citizen of this area that has sat back and we are kind of questioning policies and things like that and -- because if you will bring up that other map -- stop laughing. I know this is late. Just so you guys know, my property is this, this, and this. Tuscany does not own this, okay? One of the ponds that you were -- he was talking about the open space Meridian Planning & Zoning January 6. 2005 Page 44 of 54 -- is right here. If I was to walk over my fence I would fall right into it. That is how close it is to my fence line. We are still farming, will be farming for awhile, and we have great concern -- that water -- that water in that pond right here that -- the open space they are talking about putting -- adding more additional lots in or -- is standing with water, has never -- the water has never drained from it once they dug it. Okay. I was the one that called ACHD, my family did, and said, look, we really need to re-Iook at the way that you are draining somebody else's property into someone else's property. When Mr. Smith owned that piece of property, whatever we had to get our crops off, he would not irrigate. That piece of property that Tuscany is trying to develop here has never been farmed, except for one time the guy didn't -- couldn't get his crop off. It has always been grass land for a reason. Pasture land for a reason. Our piece of property drains pretty good, because everything in this area drains this way. Okay? So, there has been a drainage problem and when this subdivision first came to light, I brought up this drainage system in 2000, I brought it up in 2001, I brought it up in 2002, talked about it in 2003 -- you guys know I have, right? Okay. Thank you. At least we are validating that. 2004 and here we are in January in 2005 and we are talking about an issue that still needs to be fixed and still needs to be talked about. The problem is I'm at a disadvantage, because I've never been able to get ahold of that particular plat thing that you all have in front of you, I'm at a disadvantage, because I don't have any contacts in this business, I have to call ACHD and hope they call me back. I have to call the DEQ and hope that they have plànned this system, so that it doesn't -- the oil and the grease doesn't run into our crops. The next time you buy a loaf of bread or buy some beef, you better hope those cows haven't been eating contaminated, you know, crops that have been grown are contaminated crops. I mean we still haven't even got to that issue yet and I found that I have been bringing up so many issues, because I just have so many questions -- and our family just wonders how -- we feel like you're jumping the gun on adding building lots -- and I don't really care much about this, because I can't -- you know, this is already, basically, done, they have a curb there and the whole thing. But I am concerned about this, I'm concerned of how this -- how your policy is that when they come in and they change these whole subdivisions, if I don't -- because I live right here and I can see it out my window, that's the only way I know that stuff is going on. That's the only way. No one notifies me, nobody ever contacts me. Tuscany Development has never spoken directly to our family about these drainage issues. They have never talked to us about covering up the drain ditch that runs right here -- right here, it goes right here, and, then, it drains in to our place. I guess they are going to tile -- I don't know. It goes right through that lot where they are talking about. We have never addressed that. They have never addressed fences with us yet. I mean there is so many issues. And when I went through all the meetings in 2001, 2002, I think it finally got approved, those ponds were right there and, then, they ended up right here, there was never a hearing about that pond, there was never a hearing about these right here. And now the City of Meridian -- I guess you know about them -- Meridian Irrigation District is having them have to concrete the Ridenbaugh -- let's see, they are concreting it -- I'm not quite sure where they are starting their little part, but they are going all the way around here and they are concreting and they are stopping it right there. The reason they are having to do that is because they had dug all those ponds and what the board of directors of Meridian Irrigation District told me, that they were just praying and Meridian PlaMlng & Zoning January 6, 2005 Page 45 of 54 keeping their fingers crossed that that water was coming through there with such force this summer they were afraid that our whole back piece of property here would be just completely blown out and thafs why they are making them concrete all of this, because there is a drainage problem back in here. I mean these are a lot of issues, I just hope you're aware of, of why I feel a liWe bit - you see my anger and my little horns are out, because this has just been a five year endurance span of people not working on it. I know that the red light has gone off, but let me mention that the City of Meridian has failed to notify my family about this sewer issue, so you owe me another three minutes here. When you voted on changing that sewer line, you did. Zaremba: I'm willing to agree to more time. We have nobody else to testify on anything else. DeChambeau: Okay. Well, I was patient. I mean this is a pretty important issue, because I think what's going to happen is - is I think this is going to be a - set a precedence for maybe the way the rest of these developers do things. You know, I think that you're looking at cost, but what is the cost to the city ten years from now when all these houses - and you're absolutely right, that house is going to be nothing but a soppy wet little mess. You know why I know that? Because I bought a house in Gresham and that's exactly what happened to me. And we tried to find the developer and the developer was gone and, then, we did the study of the land and everything, found out it was just - that was where the water was supposed to be going and they decided to close it in and build a couple more houses there. Exactly what happened. So, I already lived a dreamed, that problem. so, I don't know, I don't - and I'm at a disadvantage, because I don't - all I'm using is my common sense. I don't have any information, ifs been very difficult to get information from the city and, I'm sorry, you guys don't want to hear that, because it is, I come in and I ask for these plats and they say they haven't been submitted yet. I don't even know what Lot 53 is. All I know is I see what I see out of my back window. So, I don't know if you have any questions. Basically my brother's letter, which should be - I'm surprised you don't have it. He's from Tucson and I'm actually representing my brother, Monte Morgner from Tucson, my sister Loretta Eamst and also my sister Luann Koontz and there is four of us that own this piece of property. Just a little background. We have owned that property for 80 years. So, I know the lay of the land, I have irrigated it myself, I know which way the water flows, I'm not somebody that came in and just bought this land and wanted to develop it. The development has surrounded us. And, you know, I'm sorry, you know, I mean that's just what's happened and we are just holding tough for awhile. So, I just wanted you to know that's not - you know, I kind of know what the irrigation situation has been and I guess I'm just a liWe frustrated, because I bring this situation up at the very beginning and it's never been addressed and I'm surprised that we are this far along in the building process and we are still dealing with the same drainage problem. So, please, look at this very seriously. rm not - I know I can't stop development, but lefs do it right and lefs not infringe on the neighbors' property and make their property worse. So, I don't know. Do you have any questions for me? Zaremba: Questions? Meridian Planning & Zoning January 6,2005 Page 46 of 54 Borup: Mr. Chairman. I guess after your ten minutes of testimony I'm still confused. DeChambeau: Okay. I know you would be, Keith. I'm ready for-- Borup: You stated you did not want the ponds there. DeChambeau: No. Borup: That's what I heard you say earlier, that you didn't think the ponds should be there. DeChambeau: No, they shouldn't be there. And you know why? Have you driven by my place and seen the corn still standing? There is a reason. Borup: So, they have eliminated the ponds, but you don't want that. That's why I'm confused. DeChambeau: I know. I know. I agree. What I'm trying to say is is that the swales are probably better for us, but they are not the answer. Borup: What is the answer? DeChambeau: The answer I would say is putting this stuff directly into the sewer system. Borup: Okay. DeChambeau: I mean since we are talking oil and grease and in order for these swales to work, they have already been bringing in soil -- Borup: Okay. Then -- now I understand what you - DeChambeau: And they have to level that land out and the whole land goes like this, so they better make sure -- one of the ACHD requirement is that that land -- that water better not -- it has to go straight down, but if it's not level, it won't, it will all go down the street and it will still end up in our piece of property or down that direction and whoever is on the end. So, they have already been bringing in dirt. Borup: Okay. Thank you.That answered my question. Someone else may have some more. Zaremba: Other questions? Moe: No. Meridian Planning & Zoning January 6, 2005 Page 47 of 54 Zaremba: All right. Thank you. I would question the notice part of it. This is a Public Hearing and there are requirements for notice about that. Do we know what notice was provided? Canning: I believe the notice that Mrs. DeChambeau was referring to is when Tuscany Village, which is across -- which street? Locust Grove? Locust -- on the west side of Locust Grove, there was the issue of about relocating the sewer main. Originally, it was going to go up to Locust Grove and, then, and straight down and, instead, the developer requested to angle it. At the first hearing or prior to the hearing Mrs. DeChambeau asked to be notified of that upcoming hearing. She's technically more than 300 feet away. I made a verbal commitment to her that I would and we forgot and so they didn't have the opportunity to attend that hearing. Borup: Wasn't the property posted? Canning: The property was posted. All the legal noticing was done, it was a verbal commitment on my part that I, unfortunately, didn't get in the file and we forgot to notify her. Zaremba: I thought her complaint referred to this hearing tonight. Canning: The item was continued, because improper notice was sent out. Mary came in and pointed it out to us, my administrative assistant didn't act on it right then and so when it came to the last month's hearing or November's hearing, we realized that they had not been properly informed, we continued it to tonight, so that we could get all the proper notices out. Zaremba: Okay. And the evidence of that is she's here. All right. Mr. Brown. Brown: So, I think for the record we should state that tonight the meeting is properly and adequately noticed; correct? Canning: As was the other hearing. It was just -- it was just a verbal commitment on my part. Brown: It has nothing to do with what we are here for, so I -- Zaremba: Thank you. Brown: I guess if there is a specific question -- Moe: I just have one in regards to the lots that you're replacing the drainage with three lots for building. Has that area been tested as far as -- I mean are we going to have a problem with drainage in that area? Meridian Piannlng & Zoning January 6. 2005 Page 48 of 54 Brown: We have been moving dirt around and we have been grading. The city has a requirement that we are three foot above highest ground water elevation, so we went and dug that area next to Mary's home where we are proposing to put three lots in, now we will have to structurally go in requirement of your staff when we bring in that final plat, which is a pretty standard condition for when we are moving dirt, is that it's tested and certified that it is put back in and we can build -- obviously we aren't going to put it in the hole and so that's -- and Bruce is the one that put that condition on, so as a standard requirement we are required to put that back in and that's what we would do in those spots where we have lowered those anticipating being a pond there and tried to take that dirt and fill it someplace. Now, we will get dirt from somebody and fill that in. And we have had dirt hauled in to raise the elevation, so that we don't have that groundwater problem with the building lots. Moe: Thank you. Freckleton: Mr. Chair? Commissioner Moe, I'd like to maybe add to that just a little bit and that is the fact that the City of Meridian does require the applicant to conduct subsurface soils -- that is to establish a ground water elevation. Mr. Brown is correct, we do require that the -- there is a three foot separation to the ground water -- basically, it's a foot from the bottom of the footing elevation. Got a licensed Idaho professional engineer that's putting his license on the line when he -- he has to certify to our department in writing with his stamp on it that those elevations have been established and that they meet our criteria. So, it's in their best interest to make sure that it's taken care of. Moe: Thank you. Zaremba: Is there an established percentage of how much runoff can go -- can or cannot go onto a neighbor's property? In the ground water studies and surface water studies, all that sort of stuff, is there any rule about how much can run off onto a neighbor's property? Freckleton: Typically, for the purposes of drainage -- drainage discharge to a drainage facility, the irrigation and drainage districts will allow you to discharge predevelopment flows. So, basically, they will look at the land prior to development and based on the slope and the ground cover that's there, they will determine volume of water that historically predevelopment has flowed across the land. That, to my knowiedge, is the only way that you could ever really establish, you know, any kind of a number as to what kind of flow ran across the surface. As far as an established standard as far as -- to establish a percentage, I'm not aware of any. Zaremba: Well, I asked the wrong question and you answered the right one. Freckleton: Okay. Meridian Planning & Zoning January 6,2005 Page 49 of 54 Zaremba: So, theoretically, the end result has to be that the DeChambeau's property cannot be affected any differently than it historically has been. Freckleton: That's correct. Zaremba: Okay. Brown: And we have tested the site for many many years and it cycles like it does everywhere else in the valley. You have the Ridenbaugh Canal that's elevated on this site above the DeChambeau or Morgner property and on both sides they have had, if you will, drains that immediately pick up the water as it comes flowing out of the Ridenbaugh Canal. With the lining of the canal that we are doing, it will greatly change that. You can kind of take it two ways. You know, Nampa-Meridian doesn't allow you to flood someone else, but doesn't think very badly about the Ridenbaugh Canal noting and flooding property. Farmers in the past have been excited about getting water, the lining of the canal will stop that water from leaving their facility and to go to our property and it will change the ground water in that area by lining it. To the north up here that lined that portion and it changed that also. So, there is a series of gravel in here. The water generally flows to Ten Mile. Ten Mile has been channelized by farmers over the years, according to our soil scientists, kind of meandered around and probably very wide and probably didn't want that and I'll stand for any other questions and we agree with staff comments and hope it will be approved. Zaremba: Any further questions? Thank you. Any discussion? Moe: Mr. Chairman, I move we close the Public Hearing. Borup: Second. Oh, excuse me. No, that covered it. Zaremba: Moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on PP 04-040. All in favor? Any opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Moe: Josh, a couple things you talked about. I know we discussed the wrought iron fencing for, basically, both the north and south sides of Block -- or of Lot 53; correct? Wilson: Correct. Moe: Okay. And, then, you also -- you also talked about the -- Zaremba: When you reference that, I probably would make that a condition of the adjoining lots as well, so that that common property line has that requirement. Moe: Okay. Meridian Planning & Zoning January 6. 2005 Page 50 of 54 Zaremba: Just a comment. Mae: I'm just talking here. And, then, you also discussed the class one and class two trees. That's already within your report here, so that doesn't need to go -- Wilson: Correct. The only additional condition that I didn't mention that's not in the report is the wrought iron fencing. That's not actually in the report. Mae: Okay. I guess my next question would be does it have to be wrought iron? I mean is that -- not a non-sight obscuring fence and you want wrought iron for a tot lot? He's shaking his head that's what he wants. Okay. Zaremba: I think the applicant expressed a preference for the wrought iron. Mae: Yeah. That's what I -- that's fine. Okay. Okay. In that case, Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Mr. Moe. Newton-Huckabay: I thought Commissioner Rohm had a comment. Rohm: Well, no, I -- no. I -- not at this time. Zaremba: Okay. Commissioner Mae. Newton-Huckabay: I'm going to assume nobody liked the basketball court idea. Okay. Borup: Well, I wasn't -- yeah, I wasn't opposed to it. I'm not -- I would assume the developer would like what's going to get the most use and what is going to be the most attractive to the home buyers and I don't know how you answer that question. Rohm: I think they have good logic in suggesting that they have an alternate to a tot lot adjacent to the canal system. I think that was -- Newton-Huckabay: Well -- and it was the site, you know, you would attract a different clientele for something about -- Borup: Would it be practical -- I mean what would it -- do a basketball court and a smaller tot lot, not as many -- maybe not as many -- not as much playground equipment or something. Newton-Huckabay: I don't feel strongly either way, I was just throwing that out there. Nary: Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Mr. Nary. Meridian Planning & Zoning January 6, 2005 Page 51 of 54 Nary: Just a suggestion, maybe, Commissioner Huckabay. You can certainly just direct as part of your recommendation if you wanted to do that, that the applicant and staff work in looking at the whole site and what the amenities are. They have to provide these amenities as part of the PUD, but looking at the whole picture of the site, the applicant and staff can certainly look at whatever would be most suitable and they could probably work that out before the City Council. But, obviously, the applicant is amenable to either type of amenity, but you don't have to decide tonight if you don't want to what specific one, but simply directing that back to the applicant and staff. Rohm: That's a pretty good solution. Newton-Huckabay: I agree. Zaremba: Commissioner Moe, you're on. Moe: Boy, I was ready to go. Okay. We will try this, then. Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward to City Council recommending approval of PP 04-040, to include all staff comments and conditions of the staff memo dated for the P&Z hearing date of December 2nd, 2004, and a transmittal date of November 29th, 2004, with the following changes: Okay. Let's see here. Under site-specific conditions on page four, I would like to add a number six and that condition to -- Borup: Would it work just to add another sentence to number three, since we are talking about the same lot. Moe: I'll get to the tot lot after I get to -- Borup: Oh, I'm sorry. Excuse me. Moe: Okay. Number six would be to include the installation of wrought iron fencing at the northern property line of block -- or, excuse me, of Lot 53 -- between Lot 53 and 38 and the south property line of block -- of Lot 53 -- between 53 and 54 for that. Then, on -- under the preliminary plat special considerations, item number three, just add another sentence to read that the applicant will work with staff to -- give me a word. Borup: Well, you may want it down under site-specific conditions, rather than special considerations. Moe: Oh, I'm sorry. Where are we at? We are not -- Borup: Same page. but page three and under site specific -- number three under site specific talks about that -- that's the same motion you just made. Yeah. Only it doesn't talk about on the fence line, it talks about on the pathway. So, that number six you added restates the same lots that are mentioned in three. That's why I brought that up. Moe: Oh, I'm sorry. I thought you were working on the -- Meridian Planning & Zoning January 6. 2005 Page 52 of 54 Borup: So, probably, the amenities would be another number seven in this case. Moe: Well, I'll go ahead and add a number seven under the site specifics and that the applicant will work with staff to -- what word did you say -- determine what amenities will go in the tot lot. End of motion. Rohm: I'll second that. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 9: Public Hearing: AZ 04-033 Request for an Annexation and Zoning of 15.92 acres from C-2 and RUT zones to C-G zone for Stor-It by Avest LP - 355 North Ten Mile Road: Zaremba: Thank you all. Next we will open a Public Hearing, which is Item 9, AZ 04- 033, request for an annexation and zoning of 15.92 acres from C-2 and RUT zones to a C-G zone for Stor-It by Avest LP, 355 North Ten Mile Road and we have a request from the applicant to delay any further comment on this, so do we need staff comments or shall we go straight to a continuance? Canning: Chairman Zaremba, just a quick update. This is .another one where the applicant is reconsidering whether they really want to annex into the city at this time. So, we may end up just pulling -- they may end up withdrawing it. We are not sure what they are going to do yet, so if we just continue it for probably two hearings and, then, we will see if he's made up his mind by then. Zaremba: Okay. You're thinking February 3rd or-- Canning: Yes. I have been trying to keep your 20th agenda light, so that -- for the Compass presentation that we talked about earlier today. Zaremba: Okay. Newton-Huckabay: For the 3rd or continue it for two full hearings? Zaremba: February 3rd is the one that I think was being suggested. Canning: I think that should be fine. Borup: Did they express how much time they felt they needed? Meridian Planning & Zoning January 6, 2005 Page 53 of 54 Canning: Probably when something froze over, but at this point, no, they have not, so -- I mean if you wanted to move it to the second hearing in February that would probably be okay, too. Borup: Mr. Chairman? The other question I -- and this may be mainly just for my curiosity, but their letter stated it was unanticipated and I want -- that kind of surprises me that it would have been unanticipated. Weren't they aware of requirements -- and are they talking about the street -- Canning: The big issues were the street widening and, then, the location of a pathway across their property. Borup: So, maybe the pathway may have been unanticipated. Canning: I think that was the straw, yeah. Borup: Okay. Canning: I think they didn't realize that -- what they came to realize is if they annex now, they end up dedicating right of way. If they wait until ACHD does their road improvements, then, they are paid for the right of way and I think that that was one of the big factors. And, then, having to install the pathway was the second one. Borup: So, if they proceed ahead, they'd proceed with a county application? Canning: No. They'd have to be refused annexation by us, which we haven't done at this point. Borup: Okay. Before the county -- that's what I was wondering. So, they would not develop it. Canning: And my understanding is the county -- they are on city water and the city made it a clear condition of approval that they would not approve any additional development with city services until the properly were annexed. Borup: Okay. Zaremba: That already runs on their existing development; right? Canning: Yes. Zaremba: Okay. Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I move that we continue Public Hearing AZ 04-033 to the February 17th, 2005, date. End of motion. Meridian Planning & Zoning January 6. 2005 Page 54 of 54 Moe: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Anyopposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: I believe we need one more motion. Moe: Mr. Chairman, I move we adjourn. Rohm: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: We have adjourned at it looks like 9:55. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:55 P.M. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.) f=tt13 1~1 ~ø5 DATE APPROVED