The URL can be used to link to this page

1996 05-14MEF~AN PLANNING & ZONING COM~ION AGENDA TUESDAY, MAY 14, 1996 - 7:30 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING HELD APRIL 9, 1996: (APPROVED) TABLED APRIL 9, 1996: REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR THE RANCH SUBDIVISION BY WESTPARK COMPANY: (TABLED UNTIL JUNE 11, 1996) 2. TABLED APRIL 9, 1996: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE RANCH SUBDIVISION BY WESTPARK COMPANY: (TABLED UNTIL JUNE 11, 1996) 3. TABLED APRIL 9, 1996: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A SENIOR CITIZEN BOARDING/LODGING COMPLEX BY WAYNE 8 KAREN FORREY: (APPROVED FINDINGS; RECOMMEND APPROVAL TO CITY COUNCIL) 4. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST FOR A PHOTOGRAPHIC PORTRAIT STUDIO BY BERTON S DEANNA SPENCER: (APRPOVED FINDINGS; RECOMMEND APPROVAL TO CITY COUNCIL) 5. TABLED APRIL 9, 1996: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A VACATION OF A PORTION OF GEM STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY BY WILD SHAMROCK PARTNERSHIP: (PASS ON FAVORABLE RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL) 6. PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED FROM APRIL 6, 1996: REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR HONOR PARK NO. 3 SUBDIVISION BY WILLIAM HON: PASSED ON FAVORABLE RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL) PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A CHILD CARE CENTER BY JERRY COBLER: (CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW) 8. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A REZONE FROM R-15 TO C-C BY EVERETT 8 ROEN WILSON: (CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW) 9. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING TO C-G BY JAMES 8 DONNA HASKIN AND MAYME ELLEN GREEN: (CITY ATTORN~O PREPARE FINDINGS OF FA~ND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW) 10. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING TO C-G BY RICHARD JOHNSON AND LAMONT KOUBA: (CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW) 11. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN RECREATION AUTOMOTIVE USE BY LAMONT KOUBA: (TABLED UNTIL JUNE 11, 1996) 12. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN AUTO SALES LOT,AUTO REPAIR SHOP BY ADVANTAGE AUTO SALES, INC.: (CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW) MER~AN PLANNING & ZONING COMC~ION AGENDA TUESDAY, MAY 14, 1996 - 7:30 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING HELD APRIL 9, 1996: ~i,tc.t~~ ~, 1. TABLED APRIL 9, 1996: REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR THE ,, RANCH SUBDIVISION BY WESTPARK COMPANY: ~/L~Iy{;~~ ~~,~,~; j 2. TABLED APRIL 9, 1996: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. FOR THE RANCH SUBDIVISION BY WESTPARK COMPANY: .~~ ~,G;.r ~ t C~ti~~' ~ l,vr~ I i , I `~i `r C-c' 3. TABLED APRIL 9, 1996: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A SENIOR CITIZEN BQARDING/LODGING COMP,~EX BY WAYNE 8~ KAREN FORREY: ~ ~ ~y ~ 4. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF I~XW FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST FOR A PHOTOGFjAPHIC PORTI~IIT STUDLQ BY BERTON 8~ DEANNA SPENCER: ~-pp~w~ (~!-/C ~ ; ~1t~-?~ c"~~~ 5. TABLED APRIL 9, 1996: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A VACATION OF A PORTION OF G STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY BY WILD SHAMROC PARTNERSHIP: ~~r,..,.` w~~J\ ~~ 6. PUBLIC HEARING CONTIN EO FROM APRIL 6, 1996: REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY P T FOR HONOR PARK N0.3 SUB MSION BY WIL~IAM HON: ~-~2~ ~~ ~~-~--~°Y'"-~'~-~-~ c~ -}-~ L L, 7. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A CHILD CARE CENTER BY JERRY COBLER: C:~}~ ca~"~.r•.c.~ ~, ~,~~ F~ /C L 8. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A REZONE FROM R-15 TO C-C Y EVERETT & ROEN WILSON: Cc~-ti ~~ '~U ~"`~-~ ~~ j ~ i_ 9. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING TO -G BY JAMES 8 DONNA HASKIN AND~IA~AYME ELLEN GREEN: (~~i~ 10. PUBLIC HEARIN(i~ REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING TO C-G BY RICHARD JOHNSON AND LAMONT KOUBA: ~~,,.~ ~ ~~ ~~GL 11. PUBLI~H ARI G: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN RECRE,~4TI N AUTOMOTIVE USE BY LAMONT KOUBA: ~ Cx,~y~, ~~1 ~ i i , 1 `i 9 (~ 12. PUBLIC HEARIN :REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN AUTO SALES LOT,AUTO REPAIR SHOP BY ADVANTAGE AUTO SALES, INC.: (;,~.~~~ ~~,sti~ ~Z 1" ~t'_~ t'~`~ l C L MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MAY 14 1996 The regular meeting of the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission was called to order by Chairman Jim Johnson at 7:30 P.M.: MEMBERS PRESENT: Tim Hepper, Greg Oslund, Jim Shearer, Malcolm MacCoy: OTHERS PRESENT: Wayne Crookston, Gary Smith, Shari Stiles, Anna Doty, Carla Olson, Don and Greg Crow, Roen Wilson, John Shipley, Stephen Sherer, Berton Spencer, Patty Reed, Becky Notari, Elmora and Rod Johnson, Craig Bissell, Diane Boyd, Brian Iverson, Mike Caven, Richard Johnson, Lamont Kouba, Karen Gallagher, Becky Bowcutt, Jerry Cobbler, Helen Cobler, Dale Ownby, Bob Daugherty, Rick Zamzow: MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING HELD APRIL 9, 1996: Johnson: Are there any additions, deletions or corrections to these minutes? MacCoy: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion that we approve the minutes of the previous meeting of April 9. Hepper: Second Johnson: It is moved and seconded that we approve the minutes as prepared, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #1: TABLED APRIL 9, 1996: REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR THE RANCH SUBDIVISION BY WESTPARK COMPANY: Johnson: This is a preliminary plat. Crookston: It was tabled because we had not received Ada County Highway District's comments. Johnson: Right, it was tabled according to the minutes by Commissioner Oslund until our next meeting until we have time to consider more information and received some information that we had asked for. ACHD specifically we hadn't heard from. Oslund: Mr. Chairman, I had a chance to discuss this issue with Dave Schplitz over at ACHD, my concern was the developer was showing on their application what amounted to a culdesac it was highly irregular and really not a culdesac at all. It resulted in very small frontages, 30 foot wide, 35 feet wide. Apparently, what I gathered from Dave that whole area, ACRD required that they rework the design in that whole area and he did send a fax and from what I have seen it satisfies by concerns. They put in a full culdesac with Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 14, 1996 Page 2 a landscaped island. Johnson: You say they sent a fax who sent the fax? Oslund: Dave Schplitz at ACRD. Apparently the Johnson: I don't have a copy of that fax do you have a copy of it? Oslund: Not with me it is at my office. Johnson: Did he send it to the City or did he send it to you? Oslund: He sent it to me, I work with Dave on other issues and I brought it up. He did say that the ACHD Commission has acted on it and has approved that. Gallagher: Mr. Chairman and Commissioners we have not received the preliminary plat with only the west half of this development. I understand that you received ten copies of the plat, the revised plat. None of which have made it to our office. So at this point in time we are working with the developer to and I understand there have been some revisions and we are not even aware of what revisions have taken place since the original whole design compared to just this half that we are looking at at this point in time. So the culdesac that we are looking at we did address that when we looked at the whole plat. I don't know what it looks like at this point in time. So we are working on a revised traffic study if that is needed. We sent the letter over to Will and that might not have made it over, it might be in the mail at this point in time, stating that once we get a copy of the plat the electronic disk of that and if we need a revised traffic study we would then forward our comments onto you. So I am not sure if we are looking at any revisions that would affect what you are acting on tonight. Our preference would be and our recommendation would be that you table it until we have had the chance to look at it and to comment on the revised plan. Johnson: Thank you Karen, any questions of Karen Gallagher? Thank you, Oslund: Mr. Chairman, I move that we table this item until the next regularly scheduled meeting which is June 11. MacCoy: Second Johnson: It has been moved and seconded that we table this item NO. 1 the preliminary plat for The Ranch Subdivision until our next regular meeting which is June 11, 1996, all those in favor? Opposed? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 14, 1996 Page 3 MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #2: TABLED APRIL 9, 1996: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE RANCH SUBDIVISION BY WESTPARK COMPANY: Oslund: Mr. Chairman, I move that we table this item as well to the June 11th meeting. MacCoy: Second Johnson: It has been moved and seconded to table this item also until the June 11th meeting, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #3: TABLED APRIL 9, 1996: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A SENIOR CITIZEN BOARDING/LODGING COMPLEX BY WAYNE & KAREN FORREY: Johnson: We do have the findings and facts as prepared by our City Attorney at this time, is there any discussion, any comments regarding the findings of fact? There are a couple of small typographical errors, page 2, paragraph, it is just a punctuation. Page 25, paragraph number 17, second sentence, should say an allowed use. Are there any other corrections? These findings of fact and conclusions of law are quite lengthy and somewhat confusing and there has been an additional or supplemental letter submitted by the City Attorney as well. Whether or not you have had time to read that since it was received today 1 don't know. There are some options presented by the City Attorney, two spec~cally that we could act on. It might be best that we move this forward to the City to the City Council, that might be one of your considerations. What would you like to do? Hepper: Mr. Chairman, I move the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission hereby adopts and approves these findings of fact. MacCoy: Second Johnson: We have a motion for approval of the facts as prepared by Commissioner, seconded by Commission MacCoy, this is a roll call vote. ROLL CALL VOTE: Hepper -Yea, Oslund -Yea, Shearer -Yea, MacCoy -Yea MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 14, 1996 Page 4 Johnson: Is there a recommendation you wish to pass onto the City? Hepper: Mr. Chairman, I move the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council of the City of Meridian that they answer the questions presented in these findings of fact and conclusions of law and if the council determines of the use is a general planned development and such is allowed in an industrial district that the application be approved and conditions placed on the use and development as found just~ed and appropriate by the City Council. That the applicant and property be required to meet the requirements stated in the conclusions of law adopted by the City Council. If the use is determined to be a residential planned development let the application be denied. Shearer: Second Johnson: We have a motion and a second for the decision and recommendation for the City Council as stated, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #4: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR CONDITIONAL US PERMIT REQUEST FOR A PHOTOGRAPHIC PORTRAIT STUDtO BY BERTON AND DEANNA SPENCER: Johnson: Any comments or discussion regarding these findings of fact and conclusions of law? Oslund: Mr. Chairman, I Move that the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopt and approves these findings of fact and conclusions. Hepper: Second Johnson: The motion is second to approve the findings of fact and conclusions of law as prepared by the City Attorney, roll call vote. ROLL CALL VOTE: Hepper -Yea, Olsund -Yea, Shearer -Yea, MacCoy -Yea MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Oslund: Mr. Chairman, I move that the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council of the City of Meridian that they approve the conditional use permit requested by the applicant for the property described in the application with the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 14, 1996 Page 5 conditions set forth in the findings of fact and conclusions of law. Hepper: Second Johnson: We have a motion and a second to send a recommendation onto City Council as stated, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #5: TABLED APRIL 9, 1996: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A VACATION OF A PORTION OF GEM STREET RIGHT OF WAY BY WILD SHAMROCK PARTNERSHIP: Johnson: We have a request from the applicant that we deal with this as late as we can on the agenda because of a priori appointment. I have agreed to that so we will skip from item 5 and go to Item 6. Do we need a motion to change that on the agenda or not? Crookston: Yes Johnson: I would entertain a motion to consider this later in the meeting. Shearer: I so move Oslund: Second Johnson: It has been moved and seconded that we address item 5 later in the meeting to accommodate the applicant, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #6: PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED FROM APRIL 9, 1996: REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR HONOR PARK NO. 3 SUBDIVISION BY WILLIAM HON: Johnson: This is a continued public hearing we will be taking testimony and applicant's and people testifying need to be swom. I will now open this public hearing again and continue it. Is the applicant or representative here that would like to address the Commission at this time? Becky Bowcutt, Briggs Engineering, 1111 South Orchard, was swom by the City Attorney. Bowcutt: We appreciate the Commission deferring this item from the last agenda. Our Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 14, 1996 Page 6 client was out of town and we needed his guidance to address some of the comments made by staff. This is a continuation of the Honor Park development or I-84 Business Park as some people call it. This is Meridian Speedway, the first two phases that we platted along Watertower Lane are right here. Then this is what we are asking for approval on this L-shaped piece, this is Franklin and this is Stratford Drive. Originally we requested 19 lots, these are commercial lots, it is a C-G zone. It is on 21.64 acres. After we met with the Highway District they allowed us three approaches onto Franklin Road for these lots. We needed to have shared approaches and we needed some alignment with 3rd and we needed to stay west of 5th or align with 5th but no closer to this intersection. So we have since reduced the seven lots we had fronting on Franklin to five and just enlarged them. Made for a little bit better lots because of the shared approaches. This particular lot here is the only lot that will be allowed to take access on Stratford Drive. These lots are intended to take access internally. What we are proposing is a, this is a lot in itself, it is 40 feet wide and then we have mod~ed this fora 50 foot radius and these we are proposing to be private. The reason being is Mr. Hon has indicated that he doesn't know who his users will be, they may end up wanting a larger portion other than say just a one lot user, maybe they want 3 lots therefore that would function more as a driveway into a commercial facility versus like a public street. They are quite short, they are only about, I think they come in about 400 approximately 400 feet or a little bit less than that. We have reviewed staff's comments, Stan McHutchinson addressed the comments and made the changes and that was sent back this week. I think that is about it, we have sewer and water available, we stubbed to these lots on Stratford because there are no cuts allowed on Stratford Drive. We have an existing sewer main running along the rear here. Staff has asked that these sewer lines be put in separate lots. In Mr. McHutchinson's letter he has indicated that we will comply with those but the owner Mr. Hon did disagree in putting the existing line in a separate lot since it runs down the far perimeter and it wasn't in a lot originally it has been in an easement for a period of time. Do you have any questions, that is about it, pretty straight forward commercial plat. Johnson: Questions of Ms. Bowcutt? Hepper: Is there going to be some landscaping along any of the streets? Bowcutt: Yes, staff indicated they want a 20 foot landscaping area along all of the lots on Franklin Road because it is one of the view corridors. We do show the 20 foot landscape easement along the front, I talked to Mr. Hon based on the Planning and Zoning Commissions past concerns about landscaping and doing it in a piece meal fashion I told him it would be imperative in his covenants to set forth standards and that they maintain that landscaped area. I also indicated that the Planning and Zoning Commission in the past has not looked favorable on each lot doing their landscaping as it goes in but on the fact that when the first lot goes in then the developer has a responsibility of putting in all Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 14, 1996 Page 7 that landscaping in. So we have one continuous landscaped area. Hepper: So is that what you propose to do? Bowcutt: Yes, that is what he indicated we would be acceptable. Hepper: Who would be responsible for the maintenance? Bowcutt: In the easement each land owner would be responsible for the maintenance unless this body thinks otherwise. MacCoy: Becky, one of the things that I recall (inaudible) since it backs up to Storey Park I thought we asked for a buffer or a fence along that division line in there. Bowcutt: I think Ms. Stiles' comment was that there should be a fence along there in that perimeter. I think her, on item 13 she said temporary perimeter fencing should be provided prior to obtaining building permits to contain construction debris. You are talking about a permanent fence, I don't think anybody has addressed that. MacCoy: I think one of our concerns was that since it was backing up to Storey Park which is a park that the City uses (inaudible) should be a division there between industrial type buildings and that of a park system. Bowcutt: I agree with you. MacCoy: Shari where did that go to? Stiles: Commission MacCoy, Commissioners, Storey Park already had a chain link fence the length of that property. MacCoy: That is a six foot high fence? Johnson: It is actually in excess of that. MacCoy: What do you think of that Gary as being the only fence we have between an industrial unit? Smith: Commissioners, I guess my concern is primarily in that northeast corner of Storey park where the baseball diamond is located. I know for a fact there are a lot of fowl balls hit out of the fenced area of Storey Park into the Hon property. Right now they just hop the fence and go get them. But we talked about at one time some way to access that area for Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 14, 1996 Page 8 that reason. I don't know if that is feasible or not. MacCoy: I wouldn't think so with having the thing owned by industrial people their own control that we could ask people to go look for fowl balls in their backyards. I would like to see some type of, I guess what I am asking you to do Becky is take it back and ask them about a division line between their building complex and the park system. Bowcutt: What would you recommend for some type of buffer? Do you have something in mind? MacCoy: Generally, no I don't really. Bowcutt: Are you looking for something sight obscuring like a sight obscuring fence or a berm. MacCoy: If you have a sight obscuring fence I think that would be up to your owners, they may want that for their own reasons not to have a park living in their backyard or their lessees or owners in that area. So I think it kid of falls back into your court in one sense. I have raised the question that it would be beneficial to your clients that you have such a barricade or a break line or something like that from the park, the kids somewhat. Bowcutt: I will take that recommendation back to my client. Shearer: If there is a six foot chain link fence there they can put slats in it if you want to obscure it. Smith: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, I think I have mislead you a little bit on that fence. I think the fence that 1 am thinking of is the fence along the baseball diamond. There is a fence am I not right Mr. Chairman? Johnson: No, there is a fence on the dividing line on the property line. Smith: Because when you are chasing the fowl balls they just crawl through a farm fence to go from the park into the farm field. Johnson: Not any more, it is chained and the gate is closed most of the time. They open it when they go in after the balls is all. It is a substantial fence, it is a second hand fence is the problem that it was moved from another location so it is not in the greatest state of repair. It is close to the back stop and significant number of fowl balls go back there every ball game I have been at, hundreds of them. The only way I can see to eliminate that would be construction of some huge netting or something. It would have to be 50 feet tall Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 14, 1996 Page 9 almost to stop the fowl balls. And I am sure Mr. Hon is aware of that, he has had the property for a long time. Anybody buying that property is going to be realizing that they are going to be next to a -ighted field that plays at night with a lot of kids and that is just the proximity of the thing. That is the way it works out. MacCoy: I was thinking more of the visual type of thing from the standpoint of your client. Bowcutt: Well on one hand the park is kind of a pretty little amenity to have next door. The clients I guess if I was putting some type of an office building or something I would like to be able to view the park. (Inaudible) Bowcutt: If I could address the fowl balls, since we are putting these sewer lines in a separate lot that can't be fenced or obstructed therefore Gary couldn't we create a corridor for them to come back and get the balls? Smith: Well, the fowl balls in the lots I would expect those lots will be fenced and once you get, you could of course access the street from that sewer corridor but getting access into the backs of those lots is where the baseballs will be located. Bowcutt: If they had a secured area. Smith: If they were fenced off and locked off then the balls would be lost to the property owners. Bowcutt: Maybe we should put a note on the plat that each lot owner will return all fowl balls (inaudible). Johnson: I think that Malcolm's point is he wants everybody to be aware of the fact that the park is there, it is operational it has been for a long time and only operates for a few months a year. They start baseball in March and they virtually end it the first of August. Bowcutt: I will stress that to Mr. Hon and indicate that whoever looks at that these lots to make sure they are fully aware of the ball field and the ramifications that go with being next to it. MacCoy: I am glad you made the change in your lots along Franklin that was a concern of mine. I was hoping that ACHD and your client would come to an agreement on that because I thought there was going to be a problem. We noted that at the time. So I commend you for that one. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 14, 1996 Page 10 Oslund: I have a question, I am not familiar with the property on this east side, and where is what is the limit of the developed park, does it go all the way out to your property line? Bowcutt: This is the park right here (inaudible) Oslund: And you are proposing general commercial? Bowcutt: It is zoned C-G currently and we are platting it. Oslund: I guess my concern, what I, I just don't see much of a compatibility between the park, I guess I would like to see something more than a fence. Johnson: If I can interrupt, part of this is already development and we (inaudible). The southerly side, what Mr. Hon is doing is developing the westerly side (inaudible) finishes his property. Oslund: And we didn't require anything of the applicant in terms of say a berm or landscaping between his development and the park? Bowcutt: Right here, no not to my knowledge. Johnson: Nothing, there is nothing there. Oslund: Are those, the lots on the south have they been developed? Bowcutt: Some of them and all the roads and all the utilities are in and he put Stratford in here too. Johnson: (Inaudible) the lot that is utilized right now temporarily for speedway parking which is directly across from the visitors center are you familiar with that. And then (inaudible) new buildings in there now that are partially rented or leased and a couple of lots are still for sale there. Hepper: I have somewhat the same concerns as Greg and Malcolm if it was limited office space the back of those buildings would just be maybe just a building with some windows. But where it is C-G commercial there could be storage yards in the back, if there was for example a plumbing shop and they have a storage yard in the back where they keep their supplies. Johnson: I think that is a strong likelihood that is the type of tenant they will get there. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 14, 1996 Page 11 Hepper: Not so much from the tenants looking out on the park but from the people in the park looking back the other way they are going to be looking at a bunch of storage yards potentially. There is nothing wrong with storage yards, but I think we need to have a screened in fence rather than a chain link fence something to screen off those storage yards and I believe that is part of the city ordinance too if there are storage yards Bowcutt: With that type of an intensive use yes I would recommend it be screened. Hepper: I don't know if that is a City ordinance if all storage yards need to have a screened in fence if we need to make that a condition of this or if that would only have to apply in these cases where they would be a storage yard. (Inaudible) Hepper: There may only be one or two across there or there may be several of them, it would be hard to know at this point if there are going to be any or not. If it was the back of a building with maybe just some windows and landscaping there chain link fence would be fine but if was a storage yard or a vehicle storage lot or something else of that nature then I think a screened fence. Shearer: A lot of those have to have a conditional use to go in there don't they? Bowcutt: Some are principle permitted uses that could go in without going through a review. I would probably recommend that you add a condition that it be addressed the differences in the uses as far as the more intensive uses should provide some obscuring fencing. MacCoy: Igo back to the fact that your client may find that very good to have that (Inaudible) Oslund: That concern, we don't have any parks anyway, we only have this park that is it. As hard as we try to get other parks maybe that will happen and maybe it won't. I tell you if we allow a development to come in and at this point it is basically going to surround our single park on three sides it seems to me it should be attractive and there should be some screening. The last thing I would like to see is a park surrounded by commercial tilt ups 30 feet high and you (inaudible) So I don't know if I like the idea of kind of piece mealing it either depending on what kind of development it is. It would be nice to see some kind of consistency throughout. Even if we missed the south side, that is a small portion, what we are considering here is three times longer what has already been approved as a perimeter around the park. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 14, 1996 Page 12 MacCoy: I agree with you Greg because I have driven up into that site and actually walked that site and the lower section down here is not a problem but you can see in the upper section there it will be a problem there. I don't want to see it piece meal, if they are going to do it do the whole thing. I think it would look tacky to do it piece meal. Hepper: If we do require a fence are we looking at a 6 foot cedar fence? Shearer: We have already got a chain link fence there. It would be a lot easier to just slat the fences there and take care of both problems at once rather than having two different kinds of fences. Hepper: I am not really Crary about a six foot cedar fence over a period of time they bleach out and the boards warp and twist and they break. Within several years you are going to have a real expensive eyesore along the park there instead of something that is going to be maintained. MacCoy: It is easier to maintain than one of these with the chain link and the slats in it then it is the board. Hepper: And maybe the vinyl slats rather than the cedar slats. Something like that would maybe be more appropriate. Oslund: Can't we consider landscaping? Just keep the chain link fence where it is at, but provide some landscaping buffer on this development side. We have a 20 foot sanitary easement already, if we made that a little wider and not, provide so that there is still room for the easement to get access to maintain that sanitary sewer but provide enough room in there also for plants and trees for instance. Bowcutt: We would have to be careful about the times of varieties we plant with the sewer line being in there. Oslund: But if we move the sanitary lines over closer to one edge of the easement they have a 20 foot easement. MacCoy: It is already in. Oslund: Well then describe the easement in such a way that you have enough room to put in some landscaping. Just saying that there are many ways to do it. You have a line out there establish your line put your 20 foot easement or 30 foot easement on it and use that as a common easement of landscaping and a sanitary easement. It is not often that you have to maintain a sanitary line or dig it up. But the plantings could be in such a way that ! ~ Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 14, 1996 Page 13 if it was needed to be dug up it wouldn't destroy the landscaping. As far as I am concerned the fence wouldn't be that big of a deal a six foot fence is not going to screen that much anyway. Johnson: That fence is 8 foot tall, because we put 7 foot 7 inch panels on it and it didn't reach to the ground. Shearer: I think it would be adequate if we require them to screen storage yards etc. and not ever, not the entire thing. they would have a storage yard and screen it and I would think they would want to keep the rest of their project attractive or a commercial use. MacCoy: Then you have a checker board affair. Shearer: Well you are talking if you have an eight foot fence along there or seven or whatever it is that could be slatted or they could put their storage yards out to the side and fence them and screen them with landscaping. MacCoy: And then looking down the road rf you get a client today and he doesn't need the slatting and they don't slat it he'll lose out a few months from now or maybe years from now. Shearer: That would be part of the, could be made part of the plat when they buy the property to be committed to that. MacCoy: Well the reason I give it back to Becky to give back to the client. Johnson: I would like to hear a couple of comments from staff regarding the road system designed and also those 50 foot wide culdesacs, do you have a comment regarding that Shari? It is different then what was proposed initially. Stiles: Chairman Johnson and Commissioners they have revised the plat so it shows a 50 foot radius on the culdesac, they have left the drive way itself 40 feet. Staff's concern was this would not be wide enough particularly because we don't know what the uses will be. 40 foot is less than has even been approved on private residential drive ways. I guess that will be up to the commissioners and could whether they will allow these to be private streets. I wouldn't have any problem with them being private streets but I would like to see them developed to an ACHD standard. When they have to record these as public streets and they they later want to go in and reconfigure the lots it makes it very difficult for them, it is very time consuming to go through the City and Ada County Highway District and then vacate those streets. So I can understand that reasoning but I think it should be to a commercial standard. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 14, 1996 Page 14 MacCoy: What is our requirement for fire trucks? We don't have one? Bowcutt: A 50 foot radius is what they have always indicated to me. MacCoy: Yes that is true for the 50 foot but I was thinking for the length of the street? Bowcutt: Uniform Fire Code requires a travel surface minimum of 20 feet. That is when they are talking drive ways. MacCoy: I was wondering what we require the City. Smith: Commissioner, I am not sure in the commercial zone, it seems like we have had 60 foot right of ways in our commercial subdivisions, industrial subdivisions. I believe the last phase of Winston Moore's project on the north side of Franklin Road basically across the street from this one they had 50 foot right of ways plus a five foot road easement on each side of the first phase. On the second phase they I believe went to a 50 foot wide street. I don't recall a diameter on the culdesac. I feel that this 40 foot width for a commercial subdivision is with the addition according to the letter from Stan McHutchinson of the no parking signs along the sides of the street. That is a problem in my mind because we still have an enforcement issue to deaf with. It is a private street, who enforces it, I don't know that the City police are in the position to enforce that. If they don't who is going to. So I think there is a problem with the 40 foot private street in the commercial subdivision. I have another comment that I would like to make concerning this sewer easement. First of all I want to make it a matter of record that I appreciate in the past dealing with the Hon brothers. They have always been receptive to granting easements for the City of Meridian for extension of sewer and water line across their property. We have appreciated that in the past and I wanted everyone to know that we have appreciated it. The second issue though that I have right now with sewer lines in easements is their accessibility. Even though as Commissioner Oslund mentioned you don't have to very often get into a sewer line. This sewer line serves a large area. It serves all of Meridian Greens, it serves all of Sportsman Pointe, it serves Salmon Rapids, Los Alamitos, the Playground, it is a big service area. I don't want to put our maintenance people in a position of having to cut gates, cut chains, whatever it takes to get to a sewer line that needs maintenance. As it exists right now it is fairly accessible because nothing is there except an open field. When we have got lot lines every 250 feet then we have a fence to deal with. I would like to have the applicant or their engineering people devise some way that will guarantee the City maintenance people access to that line at any time for maintenance purposes. I have been a stickler on it on other subdivisions on residential subdivisions in particular because the lots are a lot smaller in those cases. Right now I am dealing with a situation in a residential subdivision where the developer neglected to construct an access way that was supposed to be constructed. The people that bought the lots are faced with a situation Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 14, 1996 Page 15 that they didn't know anything about and now we have an easement that is not fenced off as it was supposed to be and we are going to be faced with people on those lots making improvements that we don't have any control over. Although there will be some because the easement language is being written to allow us some control. But it just becomes more of a headache to maintain the line when you have to deal with 6 or 7 property owners along here as opposed to having access and perhaps what we need to do is move the fence over so the sewer Tine is in the park I don't know. But, I would really like to see something proposed negotiated, whatever the word is so we have access to that sewer line. I guess that is all I have to say. Johnson: Okay Gary thank you, any questions for staff before we move on? Any further questions for Becky? Does Becky have any further comments at this time, or would you like to reserve those in the event that there is other testimony? Bowcutt: I don't have any further questions. Johnson: Okay, this is a public hearing is there anyone else that would like to address the Commission on this application at this time? Seeing no one then I will close the public hearing. (End of Tape) Okay, you have heard the testimony, what is your recommendation, Commissioners, what would you like to do? Certainly you would like to do something right? Hepper: Something, we just don't know how to put it. Johnson: Who wants to take a stab at it? Hepper: Well we are wondering if we should table this until Becky has a chance to confer with her client about some possible alternatives or if she would want us to give her some altematives or choose one and see if she can live with it. I am not really sure the best way to handle this. Johnson: It is really up to you, I personally didn't have an opportunity to review her memo that was submitted today because it came in so late. Shearer: I move we approve the preliminary plat with the requirements of screening for storage areas included in the covenants and that the owner work out an agreeable agreement with the City Engineer on sewer access. MacCoy: Second Johnson: We have a motion by Commissioner Shearer and second by Malcolm MacCoy Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 14, 1996 Page 19 with would be reviewing this application a year from now. That would be an opportunity at which you could check on that requirement if you so choose. There was also a request that the front play yard which is actually an additional play yard that is not required in any way it would be nice to have two different play yards in case you have two different age groups that wanted to be playing out doors at the same time. That front fenced playyard shown on the staff report also not required until 20 children are enrolled. Again I hope that is something you can check on when you come back in one year or update. With that I would like to close by just asking the Commission to please forward this onto the City Council with a recommendation of approval and I would be happy to answer any questions. Johnson: Fine, we probably do have some questions. In fairness to you we are in late receipt of a letter of objection to this application and I want to make this available to you. so as we continue the public hearing you have an opportunity to review that. This extra copy is here for you, I believe we didn't get this until somewhere around 7:00 tonight. Any questions of Carla by the Commissioners? Oslund: Do you have any pictures of the site with you? Olson: Photographs, no I am sorry I don't. Oslund: What is the having not been in this neighborhood what is the character of this neighborhood, how old is it? Olson: I would say it is a fairly new neighborhood, I would say 12 to 15 years old in terms of it looks like the subdivision was built around the same time. I am guessing on that. Oslund: And the structure that you are proposing this use in is, was originally constructed as a single family residence? Olson: Yes, I believe it is about 11 years old. Oslund: And your parking now, I see that you have six spaces out front but really only 3 of those are usable to the general public without being trapped for instance. Because you have 2 spaces that are in the garage and 2 spaces that are behind it and then 2 spaces in the side yard and looking at it it looks like only three of those would be really available to the public without it being very inconvenient of parking. Olson: Four would be available to the public, two in the garage would be intended for staff. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 14, 1996 Page 20 Oslund: But do you see what I am saying in terms of space number 5, if 1 pull into drop my kid off and I pull into space 5 and somebody comes in behind me and parks behind me. Olson: Oh I see what you are saying about that space. Typically the drop off and pick up time is fairly short so nobody would be trapped for very long. Also, the intent is at the time that the day care center exceeds 20 children there will probably be a necessity for a third staff person depending on the ages of the children, it depends on the formula. That space number 5 would be for a staff person. MacCoy: I had some of the same comments that Greg had I went out to that establishment and took a look at it and I was concerned the same as he was as to adding up the numbers to see how they are parked in here. Let me get this thing correct. Slot 1 and 2 and 5 are all staff slots? Olson: Well 5 would not necessarily be a staff slot, slots 1 and 2 would definitely be for staff. MacCoy: Well you say down the road. Olson: Down the road slot 5 may be needed as a staff space. MacCoy: The really only usable ones that you have are 3, 4 and 6, and I am not even sure, 6 might be, well it is a compact car to begin with. At that time 1 guess when you put in correct me if I am wrong, since you have existing paving in 3 and 4 are you proposing to put the next paving in for number 6 or 5 and 6 right away. Olson: That is the one we are requesting to put in after 20 children. We won't need (inaudible) MacCoy: That is the same with the proposed play yard out front that will not be used for a play yard until after 20 children. Olson: That is right, there is adequate space in the back for a play yard. MacCoy: The height of the chain link fence is what? Olson: The existing chain link fence is about 4 feet which is the area that parallels, that lines up with the front of the building, that is chain link. Then there is the chain link fence that is north or south of parking space five is about 4 foot chain link. MacCoy: And the other fence is how tall? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 14, 1996 Page 21 Olson: The other fence is five to 6 feet tall. MacCoy: And the age of the children that will be playing in this area are what? Olson: From the playing outside age up until probably sixth grade for the before and after school care. MacCoy: I am concerned about your four foot fence, I have gone around our neighborhoods here and looked at a number of these care centers that have four foot high fences and I have watched kids they are over the top and gone right now. So 1 realize you say you have a staff person always available but as soon as you turn your back kids are quick. I suggest that you might want to reconsider upping that height. Along the front part of the proposed play yard for the future we won't get into the fence height because you will find out by that time what you are going to need. But you say flowers and shrubs, are these shrubs to be low shrubs or are they going to be something that will be the height of four or five feet. Actually give a visual break for your neighbors and the stand point you have got now the front yard of the home the resident in that area a play yard which they have to look at. Olson: We are certainly open as to what types of or what height of shrubs you would like us to put in there. We were intending to have some put in there but we are open to suggestions as to what height you would like to see. MacCoy: Since you said (inaudible) take into consideration the fact of where you are, the location herein. If you are living across the street or next door to this you might want to think very seriously about putting in some shrubbery in there that will actually shield off that front play yard and also help the sound qualities too. For the time being that is all I am going to ask. Johnson: Any other commissioners that have questions of Carla? Hepper: I have one, is this going to remain a residence, is there going to be somebody living there? Olson: No, it is just going to be a child care center. Hepper: What would the hours be? Olson: The applicant is here, he could probably speak to the operational characteristics better than I can. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 14, 1996 Page 22 Hepper: Okay, but during the evening and night there wouldn't be anybody there? Olson: It is not my understanding that it will be an all night center, no. Oslund: I have another questions for you, in addition to getting a permit through the City of Meridian you will also need a permit through the health department, is that correct? Olson: That is right. Oslund: Have they indicated to you and I have never seen anything on this so I am trusting that you can hopefully answer this, does the State have any kind of standards in terms of square footage needed per child if you are looking at, we have had several applications some in for 12, 12 is kind of a break point I guess between the scope of these kinds of facilities. I am concerned that with 25 kids and what was originally designed to be a single family dwelling the crowding I would think is going to be incredible. Are there any standards on this? Olson: Yes there are standards and this building exceeds those standards by quite a bit for 25 children. This is a large single family home. Oslund; What is the square footage on this. You have some dimensions on here. It is just a single story? Olson: Yes Oslund: It looks like you can't be any greater than acxording to your dimensions more than 1800 square feet here. Olson: The state standard I believe is 35 square feet per child so we are well over that. Oslund: I have one more question for you, if you lived next door and you got noticed on this what would your reaction be? What I, like I say I haven't been out there so I don't know what, according to this letter there is one other residence that is doing this same kind of day care operation. It doesn't say what kind, if this is predominantly a residential surrounding and somebody comes in with an application for 25 kids what would your opinion be? Olson: Let me preface my answer to your question by reminding you that there is an elementary school across the street that has about 600 kids in it. So I am not sure that is as much a concern in this neighborhood as it might be in many others because it is across from the school. I honestly would not have a problem with this child care center going in Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 14, 1996 Page 23 there next door to me. I think, whether a child care center is detrimental or not is really depending on how it is run not on how many children are in it. If it is a well run child care center the sound of happily playing children is not a sound that I despise. Oslund: That is all I have. Johnson: Any other questions? MacCoy: I have one other, I just wanted to ask, are you planning to take care of any handicapped children at this place or is this just strictly considered normal children? Olson: That is another operational questions that 1 had better pass onto to the applicant himself. MacCoy: You are well aware that if you do you have to take a look at the code requirements in order to make it feasible for that to take place. Johnson: Thank you very much. Crookston: 1 just have a question, you are going to have up to 25 children? Olson: Yes Crookston: Do you visualize this as being a commercial use rather than a residential use? Olson: Well the zoning ordinance doesn't the zoning ordinance allowed it by conditional use in this zone. Crookston: I understand that, I am asking how you visualize it, there are not going to be any people living in the home, it is as I see it a day care center, it is not a home use in any fashion. Olson: Well again we are bound by the laws of the City which allow us to apply for it in that zone. Am I missing your point? Crookston: No, you are addressing it. Johnson: Thank you, we would like the applicant to be sworn at this time so we can ask a couple of questions of the applicant. Jerry Cobler 686 Dawson, Eagle, Helen Cobler, 1007 N. 31st, Boise, was sworn by the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 14, 1996 Page 24 City Attorney. Johnson: There were a couple of questions that were deferred to you. One was with respect to operating hours, do you have kind of an idea now of what your operating hours would be? J. Cobler: We felt it would be from 6:30 in the a.m. until approximately 6:30 in the P.M. Johnson: The other question that came up from Commissioner MacCoy was whether or not you had envisioned caring for handicapped children. Cobler: At this point we really hadn't envisioned that no. Johnson: Any other questions from the commissioners? MacCoy: I would like to move forward in that same vein if you do you are going to have to look into the code system and make your residence or the child care center so you can handle that. It is not just saying okay we will and step forward because you are going to have to do some modifications to a regular home to make it that type. J. Cobler: Such as upgrading to ramps and that sort of thing? MacCoy: Ramps is one of the things, the first thing that comes to mind, but there is also light switches, door knobs and etc. depending on where you want the child to have access to. Johnson: Thank you very much, unless you have any further comments? H. Cobler: I have a couple of comments if I may. I am Helen Cobler and I am a realtor, I have been involved in the sale of this property for the last 3 transactions so I have some history on the property and I do know some of the problems that are existing in the neighborhood. Number 1 all the residents who have lived in this house in the last 8 or 10 years that there has been heavy traffic in front of this residence. Now the school and the parents presently come up and stop right in front of this house because it is directly across from the entrance to the school. They have been very tolerant of people coming and dropping off kids. Now if you look at the property this house faces Chateau, the property next to it to the west does not face Chateau. So you have got a tremendous frontage there that is not in front of somebody's house or not visible from their windows because you have a street right of way straight across and you did not have a frontage there. It looks like you have the possibility of probably 6 to 8 cars that can stop without stopping in front of somebody's house at this location. We felt that if you pulled in and used the drive way Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 14, 1996 Page 25 and people stop and drop of their kids they usually don't get up early enough to come and spend 15 or 20 minutes while they are there. They come in and drop them off and leave. So, you don't have any extended use in those parking areas. Many of the day cares that I have seen in my profession do not have a tremendous parking area for drop off and pick up. But like I say most parents are in a hurry, they are working parents and they are stopping to pick up the kids. We do think that we will decrease some of the street parking where the kids are getting out on the street right in front of this residence right now. As far as I can see it is kind of a safety issue because the kids are getting out on the traffic side of the car and going across the street to go to school. This is happening every morning that school is in session. A lot of those kids that have other small children in the car would be potential customers in this day care would pull in off the street to take the kids inside. We have staff that would be available to walk kids over to the school when it is time to go to school. instead of having them wonder around on the street and on the corners and that type of thing. So 1 think we do offer parents an alternative to dropping the kids off early so they can get to work on time and having them milling around out there on a public street where there is bus traffic, car traffic, and there is a big potential hazard as it stands right now. I think we would improve it not hurt it. Now the house itself, if you look into what is called the play room and the nap room, that is an extremely large, was originally a master bedroom with a big walk in closet at the end of it. It is a 21 foot room that was a master bedroom with an open area of almost 13 feet width. That gives an ideal area for kids to have storage mats in what is the walk in closet. It can double use as a play area when it comes to nap time they can come and take the mats out and have the younger ones take a nap. It has two big areas, both the living room, dining, and kitchen area which is all open and a vaulted ceiling so it is a nice spacious area as well as that nice huge master bedroom so that you have a separation from that to play areas. There are also two smaller bedrooms back there where they can use for changing room, baby napping that type of thing and it has tons of storage outside of those bedrooms where they have supplies already available. We have not counted any of the closets or any of the storage room in the square footage as is required by Health and Welfare to identify how many kids can satisfactorily be put in one of these day cares. We actually would qualify for more than 25 children. So, at this point we might mention that in where the proposed chain link fence is on your little plat there that was a chain link fence in that location it was a 4 foot chain link fence which also came across the drive way up until two years ago. This has always been fenced, it was probably before we started working on it and upgrading it it was probably the least attractive home in the neighborhood. It now has a lot of attraction there it has upgraded what is in the neighborhood it is much more attractive than what it was. It was a little bit of an eye sore and I have before and after pictures. So if you would like to have to come back to you we can do that. We don't think we have hurt the temper of the neighborhood because it still looks like a residence on the outside yet inside it is set up perfectly for day care use. It gives an alternative to try and keep the kids a little bit safer going and coming from school. Hopefully we can get some of the cars that are dropping Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 14, 1996 Page 26 the kids out right in the traffic flow so we might be able to pull it apart long enough to get the kids out. Since I do have a background on this property I am related to the applicant, I wonder if you have any questions because I have been involved with the property for several years. Johnson: I have a question, since you are familiar with this subdivision and the property, what do your covenants say in that subdivision with respect to commercial use, business use? H. Cobbler: I had called all three people that were on the committee that were listed on the CC&R's I talked with 2 of the three people, one is not available any more. The two that are available are working at a travel agency, I asked them if there is any existing committees, anybody that we can go through. They said that the CC&R's had not been active for quite some time. They have no committees, they have no associations fees or functions at this point. Johnson: Most covenants are written for a period of time where there is a committee to enact them and enforce them is irrelevant. I asked you about the covenants, what do the covenants specifically say with respect to this. H. Cobbler: No commercial businesses were listed as far as conditional uses of any kind were not addressed. Johnson: Do you have a copy of those covenants? H. Cobbler: 1 do but I didn't bring them with me. I can provide them for you, I do have a set of covenants that we did go through. MacCoy: One other thing, you heard my comments on the shrubs up front there. Since you are redoing the place. H. Cobbler: One of the reasons for the flowers and shrubs, I would like to say it was for the aesthetic view it wasn't it was more for child safety. Because there is so much traffic from young children that we wanted a barrier kind of between the fence and the little kids so we don't have somebody poking sticks that kind of thing through the fence. We wanted to make it attractive, in my opinion and from my experience you get two high of a barrier there it no longer looks like a residence. I think a 4 foot fence is very adequate for the age of children that you have a primary client in a day care center. I think if you make it attractive landscaping in front but have some shrubs that might even be a little stickily to keep people back away from the fence so we don't' have any trouble from either adults that shouldn't approaching the children or other children that are there for not the best Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 14, 1996 Page 27 purposes. We don't' want to encourage anything that might be adverse to the children that would be coming to the day care. The original proposal for the back fencing first was because we will obviously be work in to more and more clientele. If you need a time frame on that on a recommendation we can even meet a time frame but we would like to do some of the nice things to get it looking nice and keep it conforming to the neighborhood. First there is adding more parking and more fencing before we need it. MacCoy: I understand that I just brought the thing up as an issue. H. Cobler: Right, but if you would like to put a timing limit on it, a reasonable time limit say give us a year before we have to have this completed and have us bring back in verification if it was not completed. That would be great.. MacCoy: When do you proposed to put in the proposed play yard in front then, because that is what you (inaudible) H. Cobbler: We could have it done in the year and shall prove that we have done it, we would want to put it ourselves before we have 20 kids just so you have 2 play yards so if you have a little older children playing in one yard you have a more secure area for the little kids you will have a supervisor in both yards but you still don't have big kids running into little kids when they are trying to catch a ball and knocking over toddlers. It gives us two areas to have two different play groups. MacCoy: You have already set your timing because when you get this yard fenced that is when you do it anyway. H. Cobbler: Well I think we will have it in when we have kids enough that we need to have more separation. I am sure that will be before a year so if we had a time limit we could conform without having to be monitored by just bringing in proof. But as a business operator it is in their best interest too to have the least amount of injury and the least amount of conflict in the yard and the most protection. Johnson: I have one further question, since you are a realtor, what is your opinion with respect to the influence on the property values of a 25 children day care next door to another piece of property that is a single family residence? H. Cobler: I have more calls for a nice property with a day care in the area by young parents. The average person in that neighborhood, it is a starter home price range in that neighborhood. I have more positive input from parents because we have probably 90% of our buyers that are in that price range have children and working parents. ~ i Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 14, 1996 Page 28 Johnson: Let me rephrase the question because we are getting away from the question. The question was the home next door, do you think the property values of that home are influenced by the commercial enterprise going on next door? H. Cobler: No I do not, I think there is as much increased interest as their is decreased interest. Depending upon, if you took one of these and put it up in an area of $300,000 homes then you don't have the same buying, group of buyers out there buying the house. Some of those people are not working mothers, so it depends upon your area. In this area I think it is positive not negative. Johnson: Any other questions? Thank you, this is a public hearing, is there anyone else that would like to address the Commission on this application at this time. Patricia Reed, 2167 Jericho Way, was sworn by the City Attorney. Reed: I run a small day care and I am licensed by the State of Idaho and I am required to have a 6 foot fence. I am not allowed according to Jim Rabitt as you know him 1 can't even put a sign out to say 1 have a day care. And yet I see in our neighborhood we are going to have many children plus I feel they are going to deface the front with a parking lot. I don't know that two people would be sufficient to take are of 20 children. I know that as I have been a mother of 8 children myself. Johnson: Your location is on this sketch or layout that we have, Reed: Chateau and Jericho Johnson: Right, how many children are you licensed for and how many do you have? Reed: Five, I have five children. The other thing is as you well know we are the detour for Locust Grove, but well before the detour we have had our share of people and cars and that is not going to cease. Even though part of that detour does not affect us any more we still get many more cars then we did before the detour started. People have discovered us and we are very busy. 1 just feel that this enterprise is really going to hurt our neighborhood. When I think of my mom's coming they are not buzzing off to work they want to talk about their kids when they come to pick them up, they want to know what kind of day they have had. I think that it isn't just a drop and run situation. These parents need to stay for a minute and give instructions, maybe something happened last night or the child isn't well or if such and such happens their parking is not sufficient for the amount of children that they are going to have. I am very concerned about what this is going to do to our neighborhood. I don't think it is going to beautify it in any way. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 14, 1996 Page 29 Shearer: Doesn't the state licensing have requirements on parking also? Reed: Perhaps they do when they get a bigger amount of children then I have a license for. I don't know about that, it didn't apply to me with just 5 children. Crookston: I have a question, are you licensed by the City of Meridian for your day care. Reed: I have a business license with the City of Meridian, that is how I know Jim Rabbitt, he is the one that said no you cannot get your permit until your fence is up and it must be a six foot fence. When all of this was done and I started getting my business I said could 1 put a sign up there and he said in no way can your home reflect the fact that it is a business. He says you will have to do your advertising in the newspaper or by word of mouth. I am not allowed to put a sign out and just let people know that I am here for a day care. And yet an enterprise is being planned here that will be very obvious to all as they go by. We have crossing guards which do their very best to get the little children across the street. So as far as children milling about I don't see anyone dash over there to Chief Joseph. There are cross walks to get to do that in the approved way. Crookston: My question is do you have any type of license from the City of Meridian? Reed: Yes, I have a business permit. Crookston: Have you come before the Planning & Zoning Commission? Reed: Yes Johnson: I think she is operating under an accessory use permit is she not, 0 to 5 is an accessory use permit and that is the reason for no signage and cannot appear to be a Crookston: Thank you (End of Tape) Johnson: Okay, is there someone else from the public that would like to address the Commission on this application. Carla Olson, since you had an opportunity to review this letter of objection do you have any comments to make at this time regarding that? Olson: It looks like from this letter that was submitted by Greg Crow who is a, he owns a property there but he doesn't live there, he apparently rents it out. That he is mostly concerned about the existing traffic going to and from the grade school which I really kind of addressed earlier and I think that we are going to divert some of that traffic to the child Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 14; 1996 Page 16 all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION FAILED: 2 Yea, 2 Nay, Chairman breaks tie -Nay Johnson: Is there another motion? Oslund: I move that we recommend to the City Council, or that we approve the preliminary plat with the following addition that being including a landscaped easement between the development and Storey park for the entire perimeter of the application. Johnson: Motion dies for lack of a second. Is there another motion that someone would like to make. Is there any further discussion at this point. I didn't have a whole lot of problem with the first motion with the exception that the streets weren't addressed and that seemed to be a concern of staff. Shearer: Fifty foot easement rather than a 40? Johnson: Well I think some things need to be worked out with staff, I don't care how you phrase it, you can phase it however you want. Hepper: I move that we recommend approval to the City Council with the stipulation that a landscape buffer fora 8 foot fence be constructed along the perimeter north of the westside of the City park, that property line adjoining those two sides of the City park, the east side of the City park. Also that access to the sewer be negotiated with the applicant to the staff's satisfaction and also that the width of the streets be negotiated with the City staff. MacCoy: Second Johnson: We have a motion and a second, any other discussion regarding the motion? Shearer: I think we are developing a lot of fences that is going to be hard to do anything with. Johnson: Any further discussion? All those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: 3 Yea, 1 Nay ITEM #7: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A CHILD CARE CENTER BY JERRY COBLER: Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 14, 1996 Page 17 Johnson: At this time I will open the public hearing and invite the applicant Mr. Cobler or his representative to address the Commission. Carla Olson, 4735 East Castlewood Drive, was sworn by the City Attorney. Olson: Mr. Chairman, Planning Commission members, I am a planning consultant and I am here tonight on behalf of the applicant on this child care center. I was really pleased when I was approached by the applicant on this item to be asked for help with it because in reviewing the site and the building that it is proposed for the child care center I was really struck by what an ideal location this building (inaudible) for a child care use. In other words I was pleased that I wouldn't' have a hard sell with you tonight I really think this is a pretty easy project to sell to you. This property is particularly well situated for a child care center in that it is right across the street from a main entrance to an elementary school. It is in a neighborhood that is largely people by young families with young children who could certainly use the day care center. The fact that the school is right across the street makes it particularly well suited for people who have children in school and too young to be in school they can drop them both off at this center for before and after school care and for all day care for the younger students, children. The building is also particularly well suited. I have found in other centers that I have reviewed that it is hard to find a building that was built for a single family dwelling. In most cases it is very hard to convert them to a child care center use. That was not the case with this center, this is going to require very few, very minor modifications to turn it into a child care center. It is already blessed with large open rooms which is one of the key things when you are trying to keep track of all the children in a child care situation. In addition to the mailed notice that the City provides on this application we also notified individually notified neighbors in two different ways. Some weeks before submitting the application I made phone calls to the adjacent neighbors, all the way around this property, to let them know that we were thinking of submitting an application and to ask if they had any concerns that they wanted to be sure we addressed with the application. Also, a week or so ago 1 took door hangers around to all properties within 300 feet to let them know that we had submitted the application and gave them a little back ground about it and again asked if they had any concerns that we would happy to meet wit them and try to work those out. It is very important to this applicant that the child care center be a good neighbor, wants it to be an integral part of the neighborhood, wants the neighbors to support it, wants neighborhood children in the child care center. So any concerns that neighbors we want to make sure we provide an opportunity to work those out. Actually only one neighbor took us up on that. Had a telephone conversation with Teresa Connolly, one of the neighbors to this project who had concerns about the elementary school traffic patterns and drop off patterns along Chateau Street in front of the school. I contacted the school to try and get more information about that situation. Unfortunately I have not gotten a call back from the principle there as far as whether any plans are in the works for trying to relieve the traffic situation in front of the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 14, 1996 Page 18 school during school hours. We feel that the child care center will actually relieve more traffic concerns then it creates. This will allow parents that are using the center hopefully a good number of them with school aged children that would otherwise be dropping them off in front of the schools, provides an opportunity for them to actually pull off the street into the driveway or in that case in the center so that they are not stacking up on the street trying to get into the school. We expect that because this is a neighborhood child care center that many of the people that maybe now are stacking up in the street will be using the center. There was also, although this is not a neighbor that contacted me there was in your packet a letter that a neighbor received from the neighbor to the east with a concern about the fencing situation. I would like to preface my comments by saying assuring the Commission that there was no sinister intent on my part to misrepresent want kind of fencing exists on the east side of the property. It was the result of poorly legible field notes that I misinterpreted later. I apologize for that, there is an existing wood fence on that east side of that property as mentioned by the homeowner on that side. The concern that she expressed in the letter was the children might be allowed crawl on that fence and she suggested that it be changed to a chain link fence. That is a good solid wood fence on that side it is about 5 to 6 feet tall. It is in good shape and the children that are playing out in the play area would be small groups at a time and they would be supervised at all times by staff. So climbing on the fence should really never occur, shouldn't be any, for one thing it would be a safety concern, you can't allow little kids to climb over fences. If that is a real critical concern of this Commission t would be more than happy to try and work with those neighbors on an acceptable solution but we really don't feel it will be an issue. Children will be actually supervised all of the time if they are in the. play area which is not even the case with a single family residential use. So we think that is a good solution to that problem. We have gone .over all of the conditions and suggestions in the staff report. We don't see any problem with those, although I would like to ask that for clamcation on two issues. In our application regarding parking area, in our application we had requested that the two future parking spaces on the west be allowed to be compact size and that they not be required to be constructed until the enrollment in the child care center reaches 20. I didn't see that really addressed one way or another in the staff report. I would just like to find out which way you are leaning on that. Johnson: (Inaudible) we would be leaning on that to interrupt you is that it would be difficult to police that when would you reach 20 children, how would we know. When we make conditions like that or agree to things like that we often don't do a very good job of following up just because we are limited by the number of people we have working at the City. It would be bet not to recommend approval on things that might happen when you reach a certain point because we might not know when you get there. That is a difficult thing for us to do. Olson: One of the things that was suggested by staff and which we don't' have a problem Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 14, 1996 Page 30 care center I hope which should not add to the problem at feast. Johnson: Excuse me I didn't read it as though he rented it. It says it sits directly behind my residence at 2162 Jericho Way, did you get some indication that he didn't live there? Olson: I believe that when I was checking the property records let me double check here, I gave them to one of the other people I am sorry that he had an address that was not at 2162 Jericho Way. Johnson: That is the address he uses on the letter that is why I ask. Olson: He does own that property but I don't believe that he resides there, I didn't mean to raise that as an issue, I don't think it matter one way or the other. I believe when I sent notices he was at a Boise address. Johnson: Okay, anyway, continue if you have some more. Olson: The issue that he raises is that he is concerned about the resale value of his home located with 2 child care centers in such close proximity. I think my only response on that is and I guess it in some ways echoes what Helen said earlier. When you are in a neighborhood with a lot of small children it is nice to have enough day cares in the neighborhood to handle that demand and it is not necessarily a negative, it is actually a positive to be able to have a place nearby to take your children during the day. This is very much a neighborhood of young children and young families. Johnson: Any questions of Carla Olson? Thank you very much, one last shot, is there anybody else from the public that has an additional comment or would like to address the Commission? Seeing no one then I will close the public hearing at this time. Shearer: Mr. Chairman, I move we have the attorney prepare findings of fact and conclusions of law for this project. MacCoy: Second Johnson: It is moved and seconded that we have the City Attorney prepare findings of fact and conclusions of law, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yee ITEM #13: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A REZONE FROM R-15 TO C-C BY EVERETT & ROEN WILSON: Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 14, 1996 Page 31 Johnson: At this time I will open the public hearing and invite the applicant or the applicant's representative to address the Commission. For you people that are leaving those findings of fact will be addressed at our next meeting which is June 11th and copies will be available to the public. Roen Wilson, 1567 Leslie Way, was sworn by the City Attorney. Wilson: Okay, this house that we are wanting to rezone to the commercial use is right next door to our other two businesses which are on 1st Street there. We have talked to the Shari and it does fall within, in fact it says that on the findings here or on the comments, it falls within the overall city plan. So, we would like to have it zoned so it can be used for commercial use. We already have someone who wants to do a shop there and it would be similar to ours it would compliment ours and would be a nice addition to the neighborhood. Johnson: Thank you Roen, any questions of Mrs. Wilson by the Commission? Shearer: Is the yellow house on the corner zoned commercial? Wilson: The yellow one on the corner, no it is residential and they are not wanting to sell it at this point. Shearer: This is the white one that is in between. Johnson: This is directly north of the red door, the original red door. Any other questions? Thank you Roen, anyone else from the public that would like to address the Commission on this application. Seeing no one then I will close the public hearing, what is your pleasure gentlemen? Shearer: Mr. Chairman, I move we have the attorney prepare findings of fact and conclusions of law on this project. MacCoy: Second Johnson: Moved and seconded we have the City attorney prepare findings of fact and conclusions of law, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Johnson: Those will be available and we will review those at our June 11th meeting. Thank you for coming. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 14, 1996 Page 32 TEN MINUTE RECESS ITEM #9: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING TO C-G BY JAMES AND DONNA HASKIN AND MAYME ELLEN GREEN: Johnson: At this time I will open the public hearing and invite the representative for the applicant or the applicant to address the Commission at this time. Dale Ownby, 1824 Sportsman Way, was sworn by the City Attorney. Ownby: Mr. Chairman and Commission members, I believe this is an opportunity for the City of Meridian to have a position of control over what will take place and the type of development to be approved by this body and the City Council on the corner of Eagle Road and Franklin Road. The property has approximately 205 feet of depth, Franklin Road to the north and approximately 796 feet of frontage on Franklin road. By combining these properties at this point in time will solve a potential problem in the future for ingress and egress for the Haskin property because of the 660 feet of distance required by the Ada County Highway District from a major arterial for access. It will be a great advantage for the City of Meridian to have a planned unit development in place for future control by the City of Meridian. These properties are located within the area known in the comprehensive plan as an entry way con'idor. With a C-G zoning in place and a PUD will help for good landscaping, good designed building and good desirable signage. The Meridian Comprehensive Plan indicates the corner of Eagle Road and Franklin Road intersection to be a commercial usage and north and east of the subject properties to be industrial. I would encourage the Planning and Zoning Commission to approve this request for annexation and C-G zoning. In addition to that 1 would just tell you that the owners have read and examined all of the letters from the different agencies and agree with all of the conditions and comments that are in them. With a clarification on the fees required by the agencies these fees to be paid at the time of final plat or at the time a permit would be issued. Also for clarification all water lines and sewer lines to be extended at the time final plat approval and time permit is issued. Also, for any adjoining developments which there are several taking place that would bring sewer and water to the subject properties. The owners would like to use the late comer fee schedule to take care of any cost involved in those. They also have read the ACHD requesting for the additional 60 feet of right of way on Franklin Road. I assume that you got a fax today from ITD or ITP that they reviewed this application and access will be prohibited form Eagle Road which has been for several years now. That was all of their comments, I didn't know if you got that today or not. Johnson: I do not have it I do not know, staff is probably in receipt of that I am not. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 14, 1996 Page 33 Ownby: They faxed that to me, I talked with Lou Sanchez yesterday and they had not received a notice and so they faxed it to me about 4:00, so here is (inaudible). Johnson: Are we in receipt of this Shari or Gary do you know? Actually it was sent to the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission. It really is very short, it only says that the Idaho Transportation Department has reviewed the application and access will be prohibited from Eagle which really according to Mr. Ownby doesn't appear to be a problem because it hasn't had access for years. We will enter that into the record and copy for distribution. Any further comments Mr. Ownby? Any question of the representative? Thank you Dale, this is a public hearing, is there anyone else that would like to offer testimony on this application? Are there any comments from staff? At this time I will close the public hearing. What is your pleasure gentlemen? Shearer: Mr. Chairman, I move we have the attorney prepare findings of fact and conclusions of law for this project. MacCoy: Second Johnson: It has been moved and seconded we have the attorney prepare findings of fact and conclusions of law to be taken up at our June 11th meeting, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #10: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING TO C-G BY RICHARD JOHNSON AND LAMONT KOUBA: Johnson: At this time I will open the public hearing and invite Mr. Johnson and Mr. Kouba or the representative to address the Commission at this time. Bob Daugherty, 5001 N. Eugene, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Daugherty: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, I am here on behalf of Lamont Kouba who owns a piece of property at 835 East Fairview Avenue here in Meridian. The property is currently in the county, we are requesting an annexation and a rezone. Currently the property has a single family dwelling with various out buildings and the remainder of the property is in pasture. We are proposing a commercial development which would be primarily geared towards the automotive and recreational industries. Our initial buildings up in front we would have an automobile parts store, at a jet ski dealership. We have also been talking about espresso and/or coffee shop in that same initial building which would be the one up facing Fairview. We have had several discussions with staff members and Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 14, 1996 Page 34 I believe we have met the majority of their requirements. Your initial site plan that you have was reflecting an entry on the west side of the property. Our conversations with ACHD has indicated that entry would be too close in proximity to the Meridian Auto Sales entry to be acceptable. They have suggested that we move that entry to the east side of the property which would be next to Rountree the Roundtree Chevrolet dealership. At this time I guess I would like to give you some revised site plans that would perhaps help explain a little bit more about the development that we are proposing. Johnson: Has staff seen these yet, or do you know? (Inaudible) Daugherty: The old site plan along with the new site plan indicates that on the west side of the property we are bordered by Meridian Auto sales and on the east side of the property is Roundtree. Directly to the south of us is primarily vacant, on the south east side is Danbury Subdivision. We have been informed by staff of your requirements for the 20 foot landscape strip which we have provided for in this site plan. We also have on the southwest comer of the property we have the Five Mile Creek Drainage that goes through there. What our developer and owner is proposing is a small park area which would be all landscaped for employees to be able to access that property for lunches and break type areas. The initial building up front would be a block building is what we are proposing. I do have some pictures of a similar constructed building that was done over at Boise that we would be modelling our building after. The rear buildings would be the rear two buildings would be of an R and M Steel construction. I believe that is very similar in nature to the surrounding areas being that Meridian auto sales the rear of their lot they have a service facility that is a steel constructed building. To the rear of the Roundtree auto sales their building is also a steel constructed building. With moving our entryway over to the east side there was currently left a 40 foot strip to access that property that is currently vacant between or right directly south of Roundtree auto sales. ACHD has informed us that should we move our entry to the east side of our property that they would not be allowed to use that 40 foot strip for access to that rear property. In doing so we have been attempting to negotiate a shared access on that 40 foot strip with them in exchange for us constructing it. Being allowed to have that as an easement. Use it as an easement as well. In any case I think the bottom line of this development between two car dealerships one being a new and used dealership and the other being a used dealership but also do automotive repair. I believe that our facility will fit in that area much more so then this single family dwelling. We are proposing to relocate that dwelling it is going to be moved off site. If you need any further information I guess for the annexation and rezone I would be more than prepared to try and answer those questions for you. I see that we are next on the agenda for the conditional use permit so I guess a lot of these questions, additional questions may be addressed at that time. Meridian Planning i~ Zoning Commission May 14, 4996 Page 35 Johnson: We tend to get everything addressed in the first one so don't be surprised if that comes up. That is kind of the way it works especially when we have public testimony. Is that the conclusion of your presentation? Daugherty: Well I guess I could show you some more of what we are doing here. Some of the staffs recommendations and also Ada County Planning I guess they have recommended that we have a five foot sidewalk that connects up to the sidewalk on Fairview Avenue. Currently there isn't any sidewalk along Fairview Avenue in that area. Also, in the recommendations from staff they had said that they wanted a curve along Fairview Avenue to give it a finished appearance. In our discussions with ACRD they have indicated that our fees that we pay to them our impact fees that is basically, what that is going to cover is at the time that they develop or do any improvements on Fairview Avenue that they would go ahead and construct that curb and gutter at that time. They are requiring us to place in a trust account a little over $1200 for the construction of the sidewalk which would, we don't really think that it would benefit anybody to go ahead and put in that curb in there considering that if they go in there and redo Fairview Avenue that it would be torn out and a waste of funds. Currently there is a water main that was run servicing the fire hydrants in front of Rountree and it is on the northeast corner of our property. We have had several discussions with the water company and have determined that they are going to require us to extend that line over to the west side of our property along Fairview Avenue. Of course we are willing to do that. We believe that the front area, of course with recommendations from staff they indicated there is that 35 foot setback seeing as how it is a main corridor into Meridian. That we are anticipating to berm and landscape as well. Most of the parking areas we have also added landscaping and I believe that we have met the requirements as far as the number of trees and so forth. We really don't see anything else in the staffs remarks that we don't necessarily agree with. Other than the curve along Fairview there we don't believe that should be necessary and I believe that, I am basing that on my discussions with Karen Gallagher from ACRD. They were also inquiring about the property to the south. They indicate that it is an R-T and currently it is just vacant they had some concerns, staff did, I guess they were just questioning whether there should be some fencing or landscaping. 1 guess that is something that can be discussed. But currently it is just vacant in that southeast corner which is Danbury Fair Subdivision and it already has a board fence. The new site plan we're actually taking a look at that 40 foot strip as using that. If we are unable to accomplish that then what we will do it will end actually going back to the initial site plan, it will need a little more work but that same basic configuration of that front building and basically be mirroring it and flipping it over, providing that access down the easement property line. Johnson: How far have you gone in these negotiations you have talked about the easement? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 14, 1996 Page 36 Daugherty: Initially we had, my employer talked to Mrs. Johnson who is the current property owner, she has leased the property to another individual who in turn who has subleased it to yet another individual. Initially when we talked to the property I don't' believe that she was aware that she would be losing that 40 foot access to that rear property. So we are going to be discussing that with the individuals who are leasing that property and then if they are receptive then we will address that with her. Hopefully they will be addressing that with us. Johnson: It seems like that is pretty important. Anything else to add? Daugherty: They were questioning I guess the wells in the staff report, there are two wells currently on the property, we anticipate that we would abandon one and the other one we are anticipating using that for the pressurized irrigation system. I guess that is all I have if you have any questions I would be more than happy to try and answer those. Johnson: Has staff discussed with you our ordinance with respect to the domestic wells and use thereof? Daugherty: No they haven't, all that was indicated on the staff report that we received was that it would be abandoned or it could be used for pressurized irrigation. Johnson: Right, so you do know that. Any other, anybody have any questions? Crookston: What type of buildings do you propose on these sites, particularly on the smaller lots? Daugherty: Those are not lots, they are not individual buildings they would be steel R& M steel buildings which would be constructed and they would be divided up according to demand with partitions down them separating them for individual uses. Johnson: The one facing Fairview or closest to Fairview is block and the other two are steel right? Daugherty: That is correct Johnson: So your concept is an incubator type concept, you acquire tenants and then you would at that time determine partitions and that sort of thing. The initial buildings would be shells. Daugherty: The front two, A and B on your drawing we have prospective tenants that was the configuration that should they go ahead and sign the lease agreement that is the way Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 14, 1996 Page 37 they will be built. The C, D and E would be subject to individuals wanting to rent those and then the interior walls would be placed so those could vary. Johnson: Sure, one person could come in and take C, D and E as one. Just so that concept is clear. Daugherty: And the same applies to the metal buildings down below. MacCoy: I am glad you submitted this piece of paper, the map because it says quite a bit. You are saying here that Roundtree runs the full length of the property on your east side which I didn't have as information before. Daugherty: I guess that they do have that, currently the south half approximately half of that is left vacant, it is just piles of dirt and weeds currently. Johnson: They have the property but they haven't developed is the way I understand that. MacCoy: My concern was the residential area south of that and then what would be going in next to you if they own that whole property they will probably end up using it eventually for industrial. On your south side you have part of it as vacant or 1 guess all of it is vacant isn't it. Daugherty: Yes except for I believe it is about 20 to 30 feet where Danbury Subdivision overlaps slightly. MacCoy: And you say they have a wood fence along there? Daugherty: That is correct MacCoy: Is that a 6 foot fence? Daugherty: Eight foot fence. MacCoy: Are you planning on going ahead and continuing that fence across the back of your property or doing something else to end your property run? Daugherty: At this time we weren't planning on it no. We were planning on landscaping which was the planting strip which was required according to the staff level. But we had no plans at this time to fence that southern end. MacCoy: I don't know (inaudible) considering that it is zoned RT, it is not at least labeled Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 14, 1996 Page 38 residential anyway. Johnson: It is a county zone, Rural Transitional, it wuld be anything. MacCoy: I guess my concern was that they could be a residential area eventually and you would want to be able to shield your property from theirs and vice versa. In the end trees even though that is a nice barrier unless you have a forest up you really don't do a fair job of it. Daugherty: I have had discussions with Mr. Kouba and he had indicated that he would be willing to put something up there if that is required. As earlier testimony from before we were, I guess we would be reluctant to add the board fence for obvious reasons that were discussed previously. If we were looking at any type of screening we would probably go with the chain link with the slats. MacCoy: Your steel building that you indicated here there are regular manufactured buildings, do you have any idea who is going to build them or design them for you? Daugherty: R & M Steel buildings and I have some brochures if you would like to take a look at those. MacCoy: Do you have them with you, before you leave 1 would like to take a look. I think that is all I have for the present moment. Johnson: Anyone else have any questions? Hepper: I have a couple, with Roundtree auto sales over there, I remember that we placed come restrictions on them, I can't totally remember what all the restrictions were. But some of them 1 remember that we didn't' allow any service doors on the south side of their shop building. Johnson: Service doors and lighting were the two that come to mind. Hepper: They don't have any service doors facing south towards Danbury Fair subdivision because of the subdivision. We also made them hold the building north quite a substantial amount more than what they wanted to act as a buffer, a natural buffer for the subdivision there. I am a little bit concerned about building N, O, P and Q where the service doors on those would be in where the entrances would in relation to Danbury. Daugherty: The entrances on those buildings would be from the east and the west so they would not be on the south side of the building. Let me preface that by saying that there Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 14, 1996 Page 39 could be exterior walk doors but nothing, no roll up type service bays on the south. Hepper: What about building section N and 0? Daugherty: N and 0 were also from the east and west, (inaudible). Hepper: Okay, it shows parking there, you may have to eliminate a couple of parking stalls. Daugherty: That is correct we have an excess of what we need for parking there. Hepper: And I remember also we had a fairly substantial planting strip along the south side of the property for Roundtree Auto sales I believe it was at least 20 feet, I can't remember for sure what it was. Daugherty: And speaking with staff, and that is a concern that they addressed with us and they indicated that would be a 20 foot planting strip and we have addressed whether or not we can park in that and they were very emphatic that it was a planting strip and that is what we have reflected on this new site plan. Johnson: That is item number 10 of Shari Stiles' comments. Hepper: The only part that I see being 20 feet is only 41 feet long and then it drops down to 5 feet. Daugherty: That is correct, that is the only portion of our property that is actually touching that Danbury Subdivision. So what we did was held a 20 foot radius and 20 feet off the back of that property line to make sure that we have a minimum of 20 feet from the subdivision itself. Hepper: And I guess the only other thing would be is building O, potentially would be like lighting, make sure that the lights are non-glare, or no outside lights there that would be obtrusive to the residents on the other side of the fence. No outside speakers, I think that was a concem we had with the auto sales next door was the speakers on weed ends and stuff. Daugherty: I think we can certainly adhere to that. We don't' anticipate that as being a problem and we are willing to be subject to that condition. MacCoy: On that lighting would you on the P & 0 area particularly those would you consider building mounted lights which are shielded and so on so you don't have lighting way out into the back end which would then create a problem. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 14, 1996 Page 40 Daugherty: I think we could, would probably do something similar to residential areas which would be something that would be mounted on the side of the building. They are not going to have any, the roll up doors would not be on the south side so there wouldn't be any reason for a great deal of illumination in that area. Johnson: Anyone else? Thank you, this is a public hearing, is there anyone else that would like to address the Commission at this time? Diane Boyd, 813 East Fairview, was sworn by the City Attorney. Boyd: Well I have a few problems with this. We have been fighting contamination, I think they are a little premature in trying to get it rezoned to commercial until the contamination is cleaned up. That has not been done on my property which has held up financing, by banks or anybody else at this paint in time. Mr. Kouba, I have spent a lot of money trying to get him to do this. I have pictures of his previous business, I have had to have him haul off 17 wrecked vehicles which he has brought next door in to a residential. I had to call the county and have them handle the situation. I have pictures of all of that if you would like to see it. He has a beautiful laid out plan but I really don't think it is going to look like the plot looks. I have looked at his previous business, we have already got one wrecking yard in the community and I don't think we need another one. So, I don't know what else to say, maybe you have a few questions for me. Johnson: Well with all do respect, this is not an application for a wrecking yard and I think that is a little inflammatory a statement like that. The wrecking yard that we have in the community is in the county, the City has no control over that whatsoever. We would condition this the way we conditioned Roundtree which turned out to be a nice project. I would like some more specific information on the contamination, how far you have gone with that, who in fact have you contacted as experts in that field and what their reports show. Boyd: Well I spend $45,000 so far with attorneys, DEQ and going to court over it. Johnson: I am really interested in the contamination itself. Boyd: Well I have all the reports, I could have brought the box with me. It has not bee cleaned up on my area which is contaminated from his side of the fence because it was a spray service. It has benzine and chloradine on my side of the fence which has not been cleaned up. I can bring all of the paperwork on that. Johnson: What firm are you working with with respect to the environmental assessments? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 14, 1996 Page 41 Boyd: DEQ Johnson: Have you worked with any independent firms for testing and that sort of thing, like Chen-Northern or somebody like that. Have you worked only with the State? Boyd: I have worked with the state, I have a gentlemen involved who was involved with me first and then went across the fence with Mr. Kouba. Mr. Anderson, Anderson and Engineering firm. Johnson: Someone that is in that business? Boyd: Well, yes. Johnson: That is a very specified area, you have to have certain qualifications in order to assess the land. Boyd: Mr. Anderson is not working on the case anymore either for me or Mr. Kouba. Johnson: Right, what I am trying to get at. Boyd: It was proven that he couldn't handle the situation. Johnson: What I am getting and not to be argumentative I just want to know at this point since you have brought up a very serious concern of ours is who have you worked with to get these evaluations? Because there are only a few people that are qualified to do these assessments. Boyd: Well is DEO not qualified? Johnson: Well that is a matter of opinion I think, that is why 1 asked you if you had somebody other than the State that you worked with. Boyd: Well Mr. Kouba has hired an outside firm, I cant remember the name of it, Tort Environmentalists. Ihave also worked with Envirosearch, they have done a lot of testing which they are approved and I have all the paperwork from Envirosearch. Johnson: Okay, that is the kind of information that I was looking for. Prior to the sale of this property I guess I should back up and ask another question, how long have been involved with the property to the west? Boyd: We purchased the property in 1988. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 14, 1996 Page 42 Johnson: At that time was the property owned by Mr. Lee? Boyd: Yes Johnson: And did you have any discussions or institute any tests for contamination at that time? Boyd: Not on mine, when we found the contamination I was trying to purchase the same property that Mr. Kouba was, I had the tests run at that time and that is why I did not pursue the purchase of the property. Johnson: In about what year was that? Boyd: 1991 or 1992. Johnson: Thank you, I am just trying to get some history here. Boyd: 1 have boxes of it. Johnson: Yes, but I don't want attorney bills because those are meaningless to me. Boyd: It isn't it is testing. Johnson: Yes but you mentioned attomey bills. Any questions of Diane Boyd? Thank you very much for your testimony. Is there anyone else that would like to address the Commission? Eleanor Johnson and Rod Johnson, 8306 West State Street, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. R. Johnson: As representative and spokesman for my mother we were approached once and I can't say for sure it was Mr. Kouba or by who as to giving him a right of way down our property which is Roundtree, we own that property. Larry Bames, L.B. Industries is leasing it from us. At that time we told him under no circumstances were we going to give an access on our property to go down his fence line. Not because that would not only mess up our property but it wouldn't be fair to Mr. Barnes either. Aa far as that piece of ground to the south we own that ground. Now if Mr. Kouba wants to use that ground the price is negotiable. We told him there is no access on our ground. Johnson: Excuse me, 1 am a little confused, what portion do you own to the south? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 14, 1996 Page 43 R. Johnson: We own the east side of his property. Johnson: You said something about property to the south. R. Johnson: We own the property along the canal bank, we own one full acre back there. Johnson: Anything else to add? Any questions of the Johnson's? Crookston: Yes I have one, can you point out to me on this little drawing (inaudible) what property do you own. R. Johnson: By looking at this and by looking at what he has up there and not seeing the surrounding plot map I would have to say it would be on the ground to the south. I don't know where is fence laying in accordance to ours. I use the canal as a reference point of where our property is. The way it looks here his is encompassing already our acre of ground. If I can show you (inaudible) there is I don't know if you call it a 1/4 corner or a corner of a section but there is a big marker at the corner of our ground where we used to have access back into our corner which is directly behind this area here. E. Johnson: We bought it, my husband did so that when we had our horses over there you could (inaudible) R. Johnson: This is the same piece of ground that we gave to the sewer district for (inaudible) right of way to go across it. Because at that time (inaudible) detrimental to us. Oslund: So you are not sure that acre that you are speaking of in included in this or is it just in here? R. Johnson: We own, there again, I am not sure where, the fence lines have been moved. (End of Tape) R. Johnson: The fence line has been moved, and I am going to have to get a surveyor out there to actually show us where our (inaudible) both sides of the canal and we are (inaudible) one full acre back there. Like I said we were approached one time about giving access (inaudible) west side of our property, the east side of his fence line. We unequivocally said no, because we didn't want public access across our property. Johnson: So have you been approached by the applicant either to discuss access or any other aspect of the property. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 14, 1996 Page 44 R. Johnson: As I said once. Johnson: This same applicant? R. Johnson: There again sir I can't who was the one that contracted us. Johnson: When you initially said that it seemed like you weren't sure whether it was Roundtree back when they were developing or recently. R. Johnson: Roundtree has a (ease on the entire acreage over there. Even the dirt piles he has, as you know that is a piece of property that hasn't been developed yet. That was just where the overburden was pushed. He has a long term lease on all of that ground. It wouldn't be fair for us to give access across something that he has a lease on nor do we want to mess up the piece of ground for ourselves in the future in case we want to sell it or do something else with it. Johnson: Well then to be fairly direct about this, I am assuming and not putting words in your mouth this is not a negotiable item, is that what you are saying? R. Johnson: You understand correctly. Johnson: Thank you, anyone else from the public that would like to address the Commission? Would the applicant or his representative have any further comments after the testimony? Daugherty: First off Mrs. Boyd had some legitimate concerns about the environmental or the DEQ that was investigating the area and the property. In doing so Mr. Lamont has has a result has done some extensive work on the property by aerating a great deal of the soil and had a lot of it hauled off to approved sites. They have also sought monitoring and test wells on the property. We would certainly be willing to have this, the annexation and zoning and conditional use contingent on having a clean bill of health from DEQ. I think that would satisfy everybody concerned. As far as the access I think what we were looking at doing is once we had our conversations with ACHD we were told that 40 foot strip was left there to access the rear of Roundtree. After having a conversation with ACRD they indicated that if we were required to move our access which we were to the east side our property that they would no longer be able to use that as an access. They are currently not using it as an access but it is there and in place should they develop the back half of that property. So in doing so I guess what we were hoping to do was to go into negotiations with them, if they are not willing to do that I guess that is their prerogative. We will just shove the entry way to the east line of our property and put it all on our property and that will solve that issue. As far as the one acre that was brought up, certainly unclear as to Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 14, 1996 Page 45 what they are speaking about. I work for a license surveyor in the State of Idaho which is Richard A. Johnson, we've surveyed the property and according to Mr. Kouba's deed which you folks all have a copy of we've put the project on his property. I guess that is about all I have to add. Johnson: Thank you Hepper: I had another question for you, on the proposed uses in the buildings you apparently you have a proposed use for the front building, A/B building, do you have a proposed use for the middle building or the southern building? Daugherty: On the steel constructed buildings, is that what you are referring to? We would anticipate the (inaudible) would be geared to toward the automotive industry. Mr. Kouba has specifically stated something similar to like a detail shop. It could be a variety of items, catering towards the automotive and or recreational type industry. Perhaps like a motor home repair facility, a lot of that would be I guess would be subject to the tenants that would be looking to locate in there. In our discussions with staff members they had indicated that Roundtree had been denied an auto body shop and for obvious reasons with its proximity to the subdivision, the residential subdivision. So, we have obviously elected not to even try to put an auto body shop in there and of course that could be a condition of the approval as well. Hepper: That is my main concern is this southem most building is the application for conditional use when we don't know what the use will be and we may condition out an auto body shop but there may be several other uses that wou-d be just as offensive. Daugherty: I guess right now we are dealing with phase one and discussing that with staff members they said that we could show a conceptual idea of the southern part of the property and 1 think that is what we are showing. In doing so the initial building would be subject to this initial conditional use permit. We would have no problems with the balance of the property of course being subject to an additional conditional use permit at which time you would have the opportunity to take a look at what we are proposing and we would anticipate when we are going to be looking at constructing a building we would have an idea of at least a couple of tenants that would be going into that building. That would give you a little more of an idea of what the development would be. Hepper: I think that would be a lot more satisfactory especially on the southern most building. Daugherty: Okay Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 14, 1996 Page 46 Johnson: Any further questions? Oslund: If you do as you and move your access further to the west and not on Rountree's property bring it straight in, it seems like you are going to have to eliminate a lot of parking to get that done. Daugherty: Right, if you take a look at that initial site plan that you had in your packet what that did was show a straight through drive way going all the way down with the parking configuration which was different and that obviously would have to change. What we would have to do probably use something similar to that plan but flip flopping the building and we would just require an additional look at the parking situation to make sure we have met the required number of spaces. Johnson: Anything further? Any further comments from the public before 1 close the hearing. I will close the public hearing at this time. Shearer: Mr. Chairman, I move that we have the attorney prepare findings of fact and conclusions of law for this project. MacCoy: Second Johnson: We have a motion and a second to have the City Attorney prepare findings of fact and conclusions of law all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #11: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A RECREATIONAL AUTOMOTIVE USE BY LAMONT KOUBA: Johnson: I will now open this public hearing and invite the applicant or the representative to address the Commission. Bob Daugherty, 5001 N. Eugene Street, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney Johnson: You can dispense with describing the project if you want since we have that information. Daugherty: I think we pretty much covered everything, if you do have, someone was asking about some pictures, I can show you the general idea of what we had for the block constructed building up front. Of course the building here is angled where ours would be more north and southerly but it gives you a concept of what we are looking for. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 14, 1996 Page 47 Johnson: Are you prepared to leave these with us? Daugherty: Yes I am Johnson: Anything else to add with respect to the conditional use permit? Daugherty: I think we have pretty much answered everything, I do have those, the additional flyers that will show you the construction we are anticipating for those metal buildings, steel constructed buildings in the rear. Of course all of those, the interior walls as they are erected would be fire walls which is a requirement of the fire department. The project as you already can see in your packets has sewer and water already to the property so that is not really a concern. We have access to both of those. Power, phone and gas and everything is right there too so we don't anticipate any problem. We have discussed with the Meridian water what their requirements were and we feel that we will be able to meet those without any problem. So I guess that is about all we have unless you have any further questions. Johnson: Thank you, any questions of Mr. Daugherty? Mr. MacCoy would like to see the brochure with respect to construction of the steel buildings. (Inaudible) Daugherty: No sir at this time we are gearing it more towards the service industry. Because of it s proximity off of Fairview Avenue we don't believe the visual will be as great. We do believe that building is very similar in nature to the one to the east of us which is Roundtree and we believe that it is actually going to be more attractive than the one currently housing the automotive facility or the repair facility over at Meridian auto. Johnson: Any other questions regarding the conditional use permit? Thank you very much, is there anyone from the public that would like to address the Commission on the conditional use permit? The testimony that was given previously will of course apply as well to this application. Seeing no one then I will close the public hearing at this time. Oslund: Mr. Chairman, I move that we table this item pending the completion of the findings for the previous item for the annexation and zoning. Shearer: We have a motion and a second to table item 11 request for a conditional use permit for a recreation, automotive use by Lamont Kouba until item 10 is addressed, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 14, 1996 Page 48 ITEM #12: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN AUTO SALES LOT, AUTO REPAIR SHOP BY ADVANTAGE AUTO SALES, INC.: Johnson: At this time 1 would invite the applicant or the applicant's or the applicant representative to address the Commission. Steve Sherer, 2090 Star Lane, was sworn by the City Attorney. Sherer: I am representing Advantage Auto Sales on the unique application to change an automobile sales lot into an automobile sales lot. As most of you are aware Meridian Ford has been at that location of the premises of the current application for several years. In fact it was there predating the City ordinances and zoning ordinances which is why it is necessary for us to come before you with a conditional use permit. We have proposed very few physical changes to the building. Our application includes the possibility of an automotive repair shop as a subtenant. That automobile repair shop would be required to meet and address the comments that have been provided by the Fire department, by the Sewer department, and by the plumbing department as well and the City Engineer. The cromments to our application have been and seem to be limited, the Fire department was concerned about a sprinkler system. In the event the auto repair shop uses cutting torches or welding torches something that would create sparks and would create the need for a sprinkler system. We would have no problem of granting of the application be conditioned upon installation of a sprinkler system in the event that type of auto repair facility is sublet into the back part of the premises. It is expected at this time that any use of the repair facility will be simply a mechanics shop however not related to auto body work. The Ada County Highway Department has indicated and Ms. Stites has also indicated in her comments that she believes either a five foot detached sidewalk or a seven foot attached sidewalk be included on the arterial of E. 1 st Street. We would propose that instead of the proposals of the Ada County Highway District in the Administrator Stiles' recommendations that for the purpose of continuity and to satisfy the City and to really beautify and keep it aesthetically pleasing that the dimensions of the landscaping and the sidewalk would match the dimensions of the Les Schwab tire store which is immediately to the south. We believe that makes more sense for the entry way of the City. We would entertain the Commission's recommendations in that matter but it seems like if we are attempting to beautify that corridor that we would want to be symmetrical in terms of the landscaping strips. The Ada County Highway District has also recommended that we eliminate the center curb cut to the premises. There are actually 3 curb cuts into the old Meridian Ford lot, the southern most one opens from the northern lane of traffic as well, that is where the break in the median strip is that is why that one has been allowed to stand by ACRD. The northern most one is I think more than 150 feet away from the other one. The center one will be closed as required by ACRD, we believe that is a pretty major concession on the part of our clients because it does limit access to that premises but we are willing to do Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 14, 1996 Page 49 that. Additionally ACRD requested a cross easement into the Les Schwab property. Franklin the Les Schwab properties that I have seen have been in their location about a year, this one has been too close to 40 or 50 years and I don't think Les Schwab is every going to be in a position to grant that easement, a corresponding easement. It seems like something was missed there in their application but we had no problem in granting an easement to their property should that ever become a possibility. The Nampa and Meridian Irrigation District was concerned about run off of excess water from the premises. I submitted this afternoon a proposed plan that was drafted by John Sharp and I chose Mr. Sharp because he is Nampa and Meridian's engineer and he would have to approve any plan that my engineer would submit and I would have to pay for his approval any so I decided to get the stuff right and go to him in the first place. He submitted a drainage plan which includes asphalt berms on the property and a drainage trench along the southern most side of the property. We have no problem in complying with those as well. The sewer department was concerned with a single containment (inaudible) automobile repair shop. We will address the sewer departments concerns at the time that we obtain a tenants for that portion of the premises. We would be glad to comply with any concerns that they have and would in fact make that a condition of the lease of the premise of the back premises there. Now, with, again, I haven't seen any other objections to the plan I believe I am fairly current unless something was filed Tate today. Johnson: The only thing that was filed late today was a letter from you. Sherer: Okay, I wish I had been able to get that in earlier. The engineer had problems getting that finished. The ordinances as I read them do not concern themselves exactly with landscaping. I think the landscaping is the issue along E. 1st Street that we have a problem with. We will abide by the Commissions recommendations whatever they are. It is very important that this project move forward as quickly and with all expediency as possible. We believe it would make more sense to match dimensional the landscaping that was put in next to us at Les Schwab and that it would be aesthetic for the City. I did also submit another landscape plan and I have put part of this plan up on the (inaudible) clarifies what we have already proposed with the trees across here the trees down the side. We would have the drainage trench along this side as well. We would have the asphalt berms across here and across the back of the premises (inaudible). Johnson: I can't see dimensions from this view point is that 15 or 20 feet wide. Sherer: The sidewalk and landscaping together is 20 feet wide on Les Schwab's plan. Johnson: I really don't know about Les Schwab's plan, this is proposed for your plan right? Sherer: Yes Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 14, 1996 Page 50 Johnson: And is that 15 or 20 feet there? Sherer: The sidewalk is five feet and the remainder of the landscape is 15 feet being a total of 20 feet. When we had a preliminary site review the statement was made that the City requires a 20 foot wide landscaping strip along E. 1st with a five foot sidewalk and underground sprinkler system. We believe that complies with the requirements of the site plan. We do have the requisite number of trees, we have our landscape architect has determined what trees to use that will fit in with the City's plan and will be aesthetically satisfactory to the City. We would request that in the event that Council or the Planning and Zoning Commission approves this request this evening that we move forward with all due diligence. It is my understanding that it would not be necessary to have a public hearing before the City Council because of the fact that this is commercial property and therefore only one public hearing is required pursuant to the zoning ordinance. We would hope to hasten this through and to address this at a special meeting of the Council to be held on June 4th. In the event that the commissioner approve this tonight we will arrange for bonding, Mr. Rick Zamzow Inc. is the coapplicant in this matter is willing to arrange for immediate bonding to have the work begun immediately to have it ready so that on Council's approval we can get a temporary occupancy permit until the project is finished. Johnson: I don't know who you have talked to about your timing schedule but conditional use permits require findings of fact and conclusions of law. We won't handle those until our June 11th meeting. Sherer: Well I guess we will proceed with as much diligence that we are allowed. Johnson: And then the City will have to review those. I hope you haven't been mislead in that regard as to how quickly this can be processed through. I feel an obligation to tell you that. Sherer: I appreciate that, thank you. Johnson: Any questions of Mr. Sherer? MacCoy: I have one, since I didn't see any major car name on there, it says auto sales, is this going to be a used car lot? Do you use that word or do you call it something else or what? Sherer: The name of the lot here will be called Auto Finance of America and it is a used vehicle lot. Johnson: Excuse me, since that point was brought up, the statement from the, and I was Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 14, 1996 Page 51 confused on that too, but if you look at the Ada County Highway District's comments here from the development service division the applicant is requesting a conditional use for a new auto sales and service facility. So I am wondering if they are aware that this is not a new dealership, this is dated May 8. MacCoy: That is the reason I asked the question because I couldn't find any place that said that it was an agency and I know they change names nowadays. They call it various things other than used cars. Sherer: The Ada County statement is an approval for a new auto sales and service facility. As implying a new facility, you could read it one way or another. MacCoy: I realize that and I just wondered what your interpretation was. Sherer: My interpretation is that they will be marketing used cars not new cars. MacCoy: And these cars come from other lots and so on. Sherer: They will be purchased at auctions brought from other lots, taken as trade ins. MacCoy: What I am concerned about is the same thing you are talking about here and that is avenue to our city and I just don't like to see somebody Joe drives his car down here and sells my car and all of a sudden it becomes just a big lot to park your car on. I have seen this down in other parts of the country. Sherer: I had occasion to talk to Mr. John Popell who is the president of Advantage Auto Sales Inc. when I received the water application from the water district I talked to him and talked to some engineers about run off and my concern is what would happen when the cars are washed and stuff like that. He stated that the cars would all be detailed off site and brought onto the Site. So, they are expecting a very clean and orderly operation. MacCoy: Okay, that was my next question, where are you planning to work on these if you are going to bring one and not just take any old car and then work on it. Sherer: They are planning to do any repair work off site, they don't expect to have any broken down cars. I think as you may have seen from the photographs that were submitted they do run a Gean and aesthetically respectable car sales lot. They have one in Oregon, they have 2 in Missouri and I believe they have some in Florida but t am not sure exactly. Johnson: Any other questions of Mr. Sherer? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 14, 1996 Page 52 Crookston: Steve I didn't understand how you were complying with Shari Stiles's comments about 20 feet of landscaping and a five foot sidewalk. Sherer: Let me look at my site review. It says the City requires a 20 foot wide landscaping strip along 1st Street with a 5 foot sidewalk and underground sprinkler system. Now, the way I read it is the way I interpreted it with the space after the first street. It was my assumption that included in that 20 foot landscaping strip was a 5 foot sidewalk and an underground sprinkler system, that is how I interpreted what she said. I could be wrong. Crookston: Do you have a comment on that Shari? Stiles: The 20 feet would be in addition to the 5 foot sidewalk. I think it says, however since landscaping provided is very minimal 20 feet should be landscaped beyond required right of way. Sherer: Again the Les Schwab dealership or tire store next door does not meet those same requirements. We thought that for the purposes of ingress into the City that matching them dimensional will be more aesthetically proper than even complying with the recommendations. But then again this is up to the Council and I appreciate Ms. Stiles' input she has helped me a lot in preparing this. But we do feel that matching Les Schwab would be in the best interest of the City. Crookston: Did you have a comment Shari? Stiles: 1 guess I would have no problem with that if they would go the extra mile like Les Schwab did and they have quite a bit of additional landscaping, they have the total perimeter is landscaped and I don't think that is what we are seeing here. So I think we should hold it at 20 feet. Sherer: And of course the reason that we don't landscape the total perimeter is that we are landscaping the south side between Les Schwab and the auto safes lot and along the street. The parcel that is being leased is not the entire parcel that Mr. Zamzow owns. In that case we don't know what the use is going to be both of the west side of the parcel or the north side of the parcel. Which is why we don't think it is good sense in planning right now to try and landscape the whole thing. We are leasing this premise and the lease is a 3 year lease. So we would expect to put significant amounts of funds in this project by doing what is requested anyway. Hopefully we can turn this into a long term situation. Crookston: Is the, the use of the building is that all leased or are we talking about the building be broken into tenants? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 14, 1996 Page 53 Sherer: No the use of the building is all leased, (Inaudible) the actual premises of the old Meridian Ford extends to the north approximately twice the dimension that is drawn here and it extends to the south this is the edge of the asphalt. It extends to the south as a gravel lot and then there is an access strip to Meridian Road (inaudible) and again none of that is addressed in this application because none of it is being leased by Advantage Auto Sales. Oslund: Is there any part of this proposal that deals with remodeling of the building, repainting and dressing it up in any way? Sherer: The building will be repainted and recarpeted if necessary. And frankly they haven't made a decision as to whether or not to do that. They have looked at the carpet and they said that the carpet is old but it is top quality carpet when it was put in. So they are vacillating on that right now as to whether or not to replace that. What they expect to do is have a facility that is cost effective and nice as possible within the cost effectiveness of what they are operating. I can't say exactly what that is. Oslund: The exterior paint is a done deal? Sherer: I don't know, I believe they are planning to paint the exterior. Hepper: Mr. Chairman, since I haven't commented on this yet I need to step down due to a possible conflict. Johnson: Step down Commissioner Hepper. Any further questions of Mr. Sherer? This is a public hearing is there anyone else that would like to address the Commission at this time? Rick Zamzow, 11555 Thomas, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Zamzow: Just a little history, we intentionally bought Meridian Ford to put a Zamzow store there, with very good intentions because it was a sizable investment. As it worked out there was some problems with level 1 and level 2 contamination that since then has been cleaned up to the satisfaction of the State and so on and so forth. This has been a pretty big project to say the least. With the facility being the way it was it wasn't really conducive to a retail location for us so having bought we decided to move down the street and put a store up and I think we did a pretty good job trying to keep it aesthetically proper for Meridian and that is a concem of ours. We have been around for a lot of years and that is our business. I think it is real important that you know that is a concern of mine that we are not going to let any riff raff in there. First of all just the economics of it wouldn't allow these people to be able to sell Junkers. They just can't afford to do it nor am 1 going to go Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 14, 1996 Page 54 through another situation where we have a pollutant contaminants, welders, anything like that. I don't have enough time in the day to deal with that. So I want to set your mind at ease on that. It is going to be, I checked this guy's credit out, I spent a lot of time doing diligent work on his background. He is a good operator, honest, I think he would be a real welcome to our community. I think it would add to our tax base with the employees, I think there is a definite need for that. There is a definite need for an additional service, auto repair facility whatever you want to call it. It would be a real add to the community. As far as the outside paint is concerned I think it has to be done just to clean it up and get the Meridian Ford logo off. I don't think he has a lot of choice in doing that just to brighten it up, the paint is probably 10 years old. As far as the landscaping on the balance of the property that will alt be taken care of as we find tenants for the balance of it. Obviously we can't and in conjunction with the ordinances. That is all I had to say. Johnson: Any questions of Rick? Crookston: I understood Mr. Sherer to say that there were three accesses off of E. 1st Street. Zamzow: There are, right now there are. Larry Chetwood actually blocked one of them just by parking cars across it. Crookston: Okay, I was only remembering two. Johnson: You are looking both sides of the building and then there is another one north. Zamzow. And we have no problem with that, you kind of hate to lose access just because you hate to. Time is important to us on this issue. Johnson: This is kind of a dumb question but I ask them all of the time, what percent and you may have said this or Mr. Sherer may have said this in his presentation what percent of the old Meridian Ford property is Advantage Auto Sales going to occupy? Zamzow: About half, you see the back area where there was contamination is all cleaned up it is all gravel and we are actually negotiating or were I don't know if that has ended with a government for office buildings there. A division of the government I don't remember it was done through a realtor. And then the other part we are looking at possibly a like a quick tube or a O tube or something like that that might fit into it. Believe me whoever I get is going to be within the ordinance. Because I don't want to go through the process again. Johnson: Any other questions of Mr. Zamzow? You have a great new building there on Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 14, 1996 Page 55 our entryway to Meridian, I wished you would have faced it out onto our entry though. Zamzow: Thank you (inaudible) Johnson: Anyone else from the public that would like to address the Commission? Mike Caven, 6874 Fairview Avenue, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Caven: Mr. Chairman and Commissioners I just wanted to reiterate some things real quick. I am the leasing agent for Mr. Zamzow on the piece of property. This has been quite a process that we have been through in selecting a tenant for this building. We have seen a lot of different people interested in it. We feel we have selected the best tenant not just in dollars (inaudible) but in the type of business that they are doing the cleanliness of the business as far as contamination looks and so forth. So we have spent some time researching who and what is going into the building. As far as the rest of the property we intend to do the same thing as we come in with new tenants for the rest of the property. We will be going through a building permit process and we will need to show landscaping at that time. If it is a conditional use we will be back in front of you to do that. Again Mr. Zamzow does have quite a bit of investment in the City of Meridian not just this site. He wants to keep it that way. Johnson: Any questions for Mr. Caven? (End of Tape) Johnson: Any comments from staff on the application? I will close the public hearing at this time. Shearer: Mr. Chairman, I move we have the attorney prepare findings of fact and conclusions of law. MacCoy: Second Johnson: It is moved and seconded we have the City Attorney prepare findings of fact and conclusions of law on the application for a conditional use permit by Advantage Auto Sales Inc., all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #5: TABLED APRIL 9, 1996: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FORA VACATION OF A PORTION OF GEM STREET RIGHT OF WAY BY WILD SHAMROCK Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 14, 1996 Page 56 PARTNERSHIP: Johnson: This item was held to the end of the meeting to accommodate the applicant. I will now open the public hearing, rf the applicant would like to address the Commission at this time or his representative. Mike Caven, 6874 Fairview Avenue, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Caven: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, I represent Wild Shamrock on the vacation of Gem Street here in Meridian. From our last meeting it was tabled to get some input from Ada County Highway District. We talked with them, I faxed over a letter to Mr. Johnson today, I didn't know if the rest of you guys had a chance to see that. I am trying to find it here. I appreciate you tabling item 5 to the end so I could get here for this. Here is a copy if it, anyway we have talked to ACHD about this Gem Avenue. Our first approach to them was to vacate the whole Gem Street, they didn't want to go for that. Our second approach was then let's purchase Gem Street right of way, they didn't want to do that either. They want Gem Street to be improved and constructed. In our conditional use for our site back in April 14, 1995 in the findings of fact, I will read paragraph 19, it says the Ada County Highway District submitted site specific requirements and they are incorporate herein as 'rf set forth in full which include providing a deposit to the public rights of way trust fund of the district for required street improvements. I will skip down to where it talks about the construction of Gem. Constructing curb, gutter, five foot sidewalk and matching existing pavement along Gem Avenue. And so they made the comments a year ago this April in regards to our project and what they wanted to see along Gem Avenue. They do want us to improve it, like I say we went through the State trying to acquire it and they no they need it for their traffic patterns for this area. In the conclusions put together by your attorney then item 7 says the applicant shall meet the requirements of Nampa Meridian Irrigation District and the Ada County Highway District which were the requirements that I just read to you. We are kind of caught in a catch 22, we need to go to Ada County Highway District with an application for a vacation of Gem. A requirement of the application is to get approval from the City of Meridian for the vacation. That is why we are here to try and do. I think the vacation of Gem Avenue or of the portion that we are asking to vacate is where the Eight Mile Lateral now runs. It would be no part of the actual street. It is all lateral. I don't know how ACRD ended up owning it but whoever sold it to them sold them 92 feet which is way more than what they needed but it included the lateral. And so they do own it. So in our opinion by vacating the portion that we are asking we would the the lateral, landscape along it. The other option is not tiling it and leaving it like it is which 1 don't really think compliments the entrance to the City of Meridian. So, ACHD has said what they wanted in the conditional use a year ago. Mr. Quinteri was here, he has a license agreement for parking in the right of way. In that license agreement it states that when the road is improved ACRD will give him a 30 days notice to vacate the license. The license Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 14, 1996 Page 57 he has doesn't even abut to his property, it is in the middle of Gem Avenue. I wish we could help him out, I don't know what we could do to help that situation. That is where we are at and I would ask that you approve the vacation. If there are any questions? Shearer: Do you have some specific dimensions on which part is being vacated etc? Caven: Brian Iverson is the engineer on the project and he is here. He can give you some actual dimensions and so forth of the road right of way. Johnson: I think most of those are on page 48 of our minutes if you brought those with you. (Discussion Inaudible) Johnson: Mr. Iverson gave us some history on the right of way last time and we have that unless there is something different. Caven: Yes, it looks like the vacation would be for 36 feet. Johnson: The southerly 36 feet of Gem Street. Caven: Yes Johnson: There is 91 feet of right of way altogether. Caven: Yes, 92 feet. So like I say that 36 feet none of it is in any of the proposed improvements for the street, it is all lateral. I am sure that Nampa Meridian Irrigation wouldn't mind having that also tiled, no more maintenance for them. (Inaudible) Crookston: You are going to the from E. 1st Street to Meridian Road? Caven: Yes, what we'd like to do is the it and then have an access about the center of our property onto Gem Street. I don't know if you can see from where you are. Here is E. 1st here is Meridian and Gem Street. We have an access coming in about the middle of the property, center between E. 1st and Meridian. Then we would tide it and put up landscaping. Johnson: I think the cold hard facts are that parking has been provided there has been gratuitous and that Mr. Quinteri was aware of the fact of if this were developed he would Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 14, 1996 Page 58 lose that. I think that is part of the fact in order to complete your project the way you want certainly it would approve in my opinion the looks of that. I agree with ACHD that they need that for all of the development that we out there, 27 restaurants and a football field, not quite that bad. But it does tie in and I understand there is a bank site there as well. So I, you are more or less telling us that it is the chicken or the egg and in this case I guess we need to be either one of those two things at the City of Meridian. That would be my recommendation to these people. Oslund: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a motion that we recommend to the Council that the vacation be approved and that the lateral be tiled. Shearer: Second Johnson: We have a motion and a second that the vacation as applied for be approved with the tiling of the lateral Eight Mile Lateral, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Johnson: 1 should have asked for discussion, did you have a question? Caven: I just wanted to ask if, I don't want to have to come back. If you would feel that access point at the center on Gem Street if that would also be acceptable, I don't know if that would become a question somewhere in the future then we have to come back through this process again. Do we need to address that now or not. Shearer: We let ACRD decide those things most of the time. Johnson: When we are making a motion in your favor you don't want to interrupt us. Crookston: The motion was that to have the tiling and the landscaping? Shearer: Yes Johnson: I don't think landscaping was mentioned in the motion. Shearer: I move we adjourn. MacCoy: Second Johnson: We have a motion and a second to adjourn, all those in favor? Opposed? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 14, 1996 Page 59 MOTION CARRIED: All Yea MEETING ADJOURNED AT 11:00 P.M. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) ATTEST: IL IAM G. BERG, JR., CI C RK CITY OF MERIDIA~ N~EETING SIGN-U SHEET .j-I U-9Lp ~ 7~ I ~~~~1 NAME PHONE NUMBER • • ORIGINAL BEFORE THE MERIDIAN PLANNINQI AND ZONINO COMMISSION WAYNE S. 8 KAREN L. FORREY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PLANNED DEVELOPMBNT PINS CENTER PARR MERIDIAN. IDAHO FINDINOS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The above entitled matter having come on for public hearing March 12, 1996, at the hour of 7:30 o'clock p.m., the Petitioner, Wayne S. Forrey, appearing in person, the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Meridian having been unclear as to the land that was being included in the Application and therefore not adopting Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law at the April 9, 1996, meeting, but now being informed on the amount of land being included in the Application and now having duly considered the Application, the evidence and the matter, makes the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions: FINDINCiB OF FACT 1. That a notice of a public hearing on the Conditional Use Permit was published for two (2) consecutive weeks prior to the said public hearing scheduled for March 12, 1996, the first publication of which was fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing; that the matter was duly considered at the March 12, 1996, hearing; that the public was given full opportunity to express comments and FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW PINE CENTER PARK - Page 1 submit evidence; and that copies of all notices were available to newspaper, radio and television stations. 2. That this property is located within the City of Meridian and the Applicant's stated they are not the owners of the property, the property owner is Bedelco, Inc., Edward L. Bews, and that the Forrey's are purchasing the west 12.75 ages of the Bedelco, Inc., property; that it was represented that the land is currently farmed on a year to year basis, that a wheat crop has been planted and growing well, that none of the out-buildings are in current use, that 12.75 acres are proposed for the Business and Living Center with five acres as a Planned Development General, Senior Citizen Boarding and Lodging Complex and 7.75 acres of business uses as permitted in City zoning code 2-409; that the Applicant submitted a letter, dated April 29, 1996, in response to the inquiry of the City Attorney as to what property he was actually proposing for the conditional use since the Application indicated that 12.75 acres were to be used for the senior citizen complex and business uses; the Application listed the legal description for the conditional use as 12.75 acres; the April 29, 1996, letter indicates the legal description is not changed and thus the City must decide whether the Application is for conditional use on 12.75 acres or 5 acres. The letter does state the senior citizen (elderly) boarding and lodging facility is on the five (5) acre portion Applicant is developing, but the legal description and maps, which showed 12.75 FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW PINE CENTER PARK - Page 2 acres as being included in the Conditional Use Permit Application, were not changed. 3. That the property is currently zoned I-L Light Industrial District and is defined in the Zoning Ordinance at 11-2-408 B. as follows: (I-L) Light Industrial: The purpose of the (I-L) Light Industrial District is to provide for light industrial development and opportunities for employment of Meridian citizens and area residents and reduce the need to commute to neighboring cities; to encourage the development of manufacturing and wholesale establishments which are clean, quiet and free of hazardous or objectionable elements, such as noise, odor, dust, smoke or glare and that are operated entirely or almost entirely within enclosed structures; to delineate areas best suited for industrial development because of location, topography, existing facilities and relationship to other land uses. This district must also be in such proximity to insure connection to the Municipal Water and Sewer systems of the City of Meridian. Uaea incompatible with light industry are not permitted, and strip development is prohibited. 4. Conditional Use Permit is defined in the Zoning Ordinance as follows: "Permit allowing an exception to the uses authorized by this Ordinance in a zoning district." 5. That the property is located on East Pine Street near Locust Grove Road. 6. That the Applicants state their APPLICATION FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, under Description of Proposed Uae, as follows: "To develop a high quality Senior Citizen boarding and lodging Complex in a secure, landscaped, campus setting.^, FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW PINE CENTER PARR - Page 3 and state, in the Information For Conditional Uae Permit Application, under 7. Proposed Use of the Subject Property, as follows: "A 12.75 acre Business and Living Center. Five acres as Planned Development General, Senior Citizen Boarding and Lodging Complex and 7.75 acres of business uses as "P" permitted in City Zoning Code 2.409." Applicant has corrected this in the April 29, 1996, letter to state as follows: "Five acres as Planned Development General, Senior Citizen Boarding and Lodging Complex which includes commercial food service plus facilities for elderly resident services. All of the essential services are provided: quality living space, dining facilities, chapel, recreation, laundry, education, van transportation, 24-hour maintenance and security within a landscaped campus setting, including full handicapped accessibility available to elderly Pine Center Park residents." 7. That the owner of record is Bedelco, Inc., who consents to this application for a conditional use permit. 8. Mr. Forrey stated in his application that the characteristics which made this conditional use desirable is that residential properties border the site on the North, East and West; that the neighbors want development along Pine Street; that the Park has been designed to locate business uses away from Pine Street and away from the residential subdivisions along Pine Street; that the Senior Citizens Complex will help buffer and provide an aesthetic land use transition for this neighborhood; that neighbors support this concept; that the Snyder Ditch/Drain will be tiled and the easement will be reduced to minimum, with FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW PINE CENTER PARK - Page 4 design plans having been submitted to the Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District. 9. The Assistant to the City Engineer, Bruce Freckleton, and the Planning and Zoning Administrator, Shari Stiles, submitted comments which are incorporated herein as if set forth in full herein; that any existing irrigation/drainage ditches crossing the property to be included in this project, shall be tiled per City Ordinance 11-9-605 M; that any existing domestic wells and/or septic systems with this project shall be removed from their domestic service per City Ordinance, except for wells may be used for non-domestic purposes such as landscape irrigation; that outside lighting shall be designed and placed so as to not direct illumination on any nearby residences; that all aignage shall be in accordance with Meridian City Ordinances; that off-street parking shall be provided in accordance with Section 11-2-414 of the City of Meridian Zoning and Development Ordinance and/or as detailed in the site-specific requirements; that sewer service to this facility is contingent upon positive results from computer model analysis; that water service to this development is contingent upon positive results from a hydraulic analysis by our computer model; that 5 foot wide sidewalks be provided on both sides of proposed streets according to City Ordinance Section 11-9-606.B.; that paving and striping shall be in accordance with the standards set forth in Sections 11-2-414 D 4. and 11-2-414 D 5. of the City of Meridian FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW PINS CENTER PARR - Page 5 Zoning and Development Ordinance and in accordance with Americans with Disabilities Ace (ADA) requirements; that the Meridian Fire Department requires a minimum width of 25' for driveways; that a drainage plan shall be submitted designed by a State of Idaho licensed architect or engineer for all off-street parking areas for approval by the City Engineer; that fire hydrant placement shall be coordinated with the City of Meridian's Water Works Superintendent, and that any existing FEMA floodplain Boundaries on the Site Plan Map, and/or any plans to reduce said boundaries shall be indicated. 10. That specific site comments of Bruce Freckleton and Shari Stiles are as follows: a. Sanitary sewer and water services are existing in Pine Street; that the Applicant will be responsible to construct the sewer and water mains to and through this proposed development; that the subdivision designer is to coordinate main sizing and routing with the Public Works Department; that sewer manholes are to be provided to keep the sewer lines on the south and west sides of roadway centerlines; that water lines shall be located on the north and east sides of roadway centerlines. b. Provide a 250-watt high pressure sodium streetlight on Pine Street at a location designated by the Public Works Department. All streetlight shall be installed at Applicant's expense. Typical locations are at street intersections and/or fire hydrants. c. Provide a 50-foot radius paved temporary turnarounds at the proposed stub street. d. Any proposal for a supplementary connection from the City's water system to the pressurized irrigation system being proposed will need to be reviewed closely due to the size of the area to be watered; that the Applicant shall provide a FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW PINE CENTER PARR - Page 6 statement as to the ownership of and operation and maintenance for the pressurized irrigation system. e. That permanent perimeter fencing is to be provided prior to obtaining building permits; that details of fencing and required buffering of adjacent property shall be provided. f. That Pine Street is designated as a Minor Arterial on the Functional Street Classification Map. Site plan show a 45' right-of-way south of centerline, but distance scales only 40'; that the Applicant shall provide evidence of dedication of needed right-of-way to ACRD prior to obtaining building permits. g. Construction of curb, gutter and a five (5) foot wide sidewalk along Pine Street. h. Permanent perimeter fencing is to be in place prior to obtaining building permits. A minimum 20' planting strip is required along Pine Street beyond required right-of-way; that screening fence shall not encroach on this 20' planting strip. i. That a detailed landscape plan is needed showing species and sizes prior to obtaining building permits. j. That the density proposed for this five-acre parcel is greater than what has been allowed by Council in R-40 zones. k. A Record of Survey is required to be prepared for approval and signature of the City Engineer for a one-time split. Platting should proceed for the remainder of the property. 1. This Conditional Use Permit addresses only the five-acre parcel; that if the property is being developed as a Planned Development - General, the entire site should be presented for review and approval. m. That the drain that currently exists along Pine Street must be piped in accordance with the Nampa and Meridian Irrigation District's standards and be located outside of the required right-of-way. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW PINE CENTER PARR - Page 7 Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District has indicated that, due to the required depth of the pipe (15 foot,+/-), their easement cannot be reduced, nor can any trees be planted within their easement. n. Provide evidence of additional approvals required for senior housing complex (HUD, etc.) o. All construction is to be in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and all required Uniform Codes. p. That Five Mile Creek shall be developed as a pathway in accordance with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan and the Ada County Ridge to Rivers Pathway Plan. q. Re-submit a site plan to an accurate scale detailing all of the above requirements. s. If Bensaremeg Street is approved to be a private street by the City Council, the name will need to be changed to Lane; that if this roadway is not proposed to be a public roadway, the remainder of the parcel will have no frontage, thus not allowing building permits to be issued. 11. Central District Health Department, Meridian Eire Department, Meridian City Police Department, Nampa fi Meridian Irrigation District, the Ada County Highway District and the Sewer Department submitted comments and they are hereby incorporated herein. 12. That the Meridian Fire Department Chief, Ren Bowers, commented that fire hydrants need to be spotted in the complex as well as fire sprinkler systems; that all codes shall be met. 13. The Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District commented that the Nine Mile Drain courses through the middle of this project; that the right-of-way of the Nine Mile Drain is 100 feet, 50 feet FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW PINS CENTER PARK - Page 8 from the center each way; that the Rutledge Lateral courses along the south boundary of the project as well, which is 40 feet, 30 feet to the right and 10 feet to the left of center facing downstream; that the developer must seek approval from the District before any encroachment or change of right-of-way occurs; that a Land Use Change/Site Development application be filed for review prior to final platting; that municipal surface drainage must be retained on site; that if any surface drainage leaves the site, the District must review drainage plans. 14. That the Ada County Highway District submitted comments regarding this application and they are incorporated herein as if set forth in full; that the Districts site specific comments include the following: 1. Dedicate 45-feet of right-of-way from the ultimate street centerline of Pine Street abutting the parcel (20 additional feet) prior to issuance of building permit or other required permits. The owner will be compensated for this additional right-of-way and must submit a letter of application to the impact fee administrator prior to breaking ground, in accordance with Section 15 of ACHD Ordinance #188. 2. Construct a 5-foot wide concrete sidewalk on Pine Street abutting the parcel, located one foot north of the new right of way line; that this will require relocating the drainage facility out of the right-of-way. 3. Construct Bensaremeg Street as a public street to a 41-foot back-to-back street section with 5-foot wide sidewalks with a 58-foot right-of-way. Provide a paved turnaround to District standards at the south end of the road and an appropriate easement to the District; that Bensaremeg Street FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW PINE CENTER PARK - Page 9 shall be offset a minimum of 125 feet from Stonehenge Way, centerline to centerline. 4. Three 30-foot wide driveways and one 20-foot wide driveway for the caretaker's quarters are approved as proposed on Bensaremeg Street. The northern driveway shall be located as proposed 100 feet south of Pine Street and all driveways shall be separated by a minimum of 50 feet as measured from near edge to near edge. 5. That direct lot or parcel access to Pine Street is prohibited. 15. That Commissioner MacCoy submitted statements regarding this application and they are hereby incorporated herein as if set forth in full; that additional street lighting on the west side of the property be added for night visibility and security of resident occupancy; that additional fire hydrant may be needed on the west side of the parking lot and to be checked out with the Meridian City Fire Department; that the buildings and site to meet the Americans with Disability Act (ADA) requirements. 16. That the Applicant, Wayne Forrey testified that he and his wife, Karen, are purchasing 12.75 acres at East Pine Street and Locust Grove to construct a 114 unit planned development for an elderly retirement style type campus, which will utilize the front 5 acres along Pine Street; that 7.75 acres will be used for the development of a business park (which apparently is not part of this Application); that opening the facility is anticipated for early Fall 1997; that very extensive setback and berming are planned along Pine Street using 35 feet as the planting strip; that FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW PINE CENTER PARK - Page 10 the Five Mile Creek touches the northwest corner of this property and agreements with the Nampa and Meridian Irrigation District to landscape and put an asphalt pathway along the Five Mile Creek on the side of this property, far enough away from the creek .for safety concerns, along with benches, an overlook area and hand rail; that it is in our best interest in improve the creek and not to upset the Gruber Lateral in any way, as it supports the pressurized irrigation for Danbury Fair as well as it will feed this projects irrigation system; that no buildings are proposed in the easement; that parking is central; that this project anticipates on site maintenance, a 24-hour shuttle van service and property management for the operation of the center and campus. Mr. Forrey stated that Builders Masonry is to the south of this proposal by approximately 1,100 feet; that an agreement to construct a sound barrier wall on this project's extreme south property line, next to the railroad tracks was in the best interest in keeping harmony, even though the nearest living unit is approximately 700 feet away; that the material for the wall may be double pane insulated wood, insulated fiberglass, metal or cinder block; that no residential dwellings will be built closer to the railroad tracks or Builders Masonry's business; that the Applicant would prefer to have the barrier wall right at the south edge of this property if Builders Masonry could agree; that the access to the office and business park will be a continuation of Penrith FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW PINE CENTER PARR - Paqe 11 Avenue, which would be a public road, and possibly the neighbor to the east will be developing a business park, in which a stub street is possible coming out of the business park and linking up with Penrith Avenue; that the maintenance road along the ditch would be worked into the landscaping concept, to include sodding, however, access will remain. Mr. Forrey also stated that he would ask the City, in a development agreement, to put a restriction on them that this would be the end or limit to this use; that the rest would be business uses on the balance of the property between the railroad tracks and this use. 17. That Commissioner Oalund commented that a barrier wall along this development would make better sense to mitigating noise by having it closer to this development as well as compatibility with the future with what ultimately will be business use. 18. Commissioner MacCoy stated that he was in agreement with Commissioner Oslund's remarks regarding the barrier wall; that even more barrier might be appropriate such as trees, more shrubs or mounding, providing a second barrier. 19. That Builders Masonry Products submitted a letter of opposition to this project and it is incorporated herein as if set forth in full; that this zoning should remain Industrial and that residential developments of any type should not be allowed near existing industrial developments; that this business or others may FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW PINE CENTER PARK - Page 12 wish to operate 24 hours a day producing noise and congestion unsuitable for residential co-existence; that given the concessions by Mr. Forrey regarding the construction of a sound barrier wall along the south property line as well as to the screening fence and landscaping, in addition to, signing and recording a binding agreement clarifying that no further residential uses on the balance of our Pine Street property, Builders Masonry Products desires to work with Mr. Forrey on the best possible solution. 20. That Opal Farrington submitted a written statement in favor of this application; that she would much rather have this than housing; that she would like to see that the trash and garbage created during the building process be kept under control. 21. That William Bumphrey testified regarding his concern with the beautifying proposed along the ditch area and the safety hazard in respect to the elderly people accessing the creek; that for approximately 15 years the ditch company has been cleaning that lateral putting dirt on my property; that as far as the enhancement of the area, he questioned whether the dirt would continue to be distributed in the same manner. 22. That planned units are defined in Section 11-2-403 as follows: Planned Development (PD) - An area of land which is developed as a single entity for a number of uses in combination with or exclusive of other supportive uses. A PD may be entirely residential, industrial, commercial or a mixture of compatible uses. A PD does not necessarily correspond to lot size, bulk, density, lot coverage required, open space or type of FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW PINE CENTER PARR - Page 13 • ~ residential, commercial or industrial uses as established in any one or more created districts of this Ordinance. Planned Commercial Development (PD-CI - Any development in which the principal use of land is for commercial purposes. Planned General Development (PD-G1 - A development not otherwise distinguished under Planned Commercial, Industrial, Residential Developments, or in which the proposed use of interior and exterior spaces requires unusual design flexibility to achieve a completely logical and complementary conjunction of uses and functions. This PD classification applies to essential public services, public or private recreation facilities, institutional uses, community facilities or a PD which includes a mix of residential, commercial or industrial uses. Planned Industrial Develovment (PD-II - Any developments in which the principal use of the land area is for industrial purposes or accessory uses customarily relating to industrial uses with the balance of such areas, if any, being intended for commercial uses as reasonably relates to the support or convenience of the intended industrial uses or their occupants. Planned Residential Develovment (PD-R1 -Any development which is predominantly residential including those accessory purposes customarily relating to residential uses with the balance of such area, if any, being intended for such uses as reasonably relate to the support or convenience of the residential uses of other occupants. 23. The Subdivision and Development Ordinance addresses Planned Unit Development in 11-9-607; that the provisions of that section are applicable to this application and the section is incorporated herein as if set forth in full; that some of the particular applicable provisions state as follows: 9-607 A PURPOSE The City's policy is to encourage developers of land development and construction projects to utilize the provisions of this Section to achieve the following: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW PINE CENTER PARK - Page 14 C, • 1. A development pattern in accord with the goals, objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan; 9-607 B APPLICABILITY Whenever there is a conflict or difference between the provisions of subsection 9-607 and other sections of this Ordinance, the provisions of Section 9-607 shall prevail. Subjects not covered by Section 9-607 shall be governed by the respective provisions found elsewhere in this Ordinance. 9-607 D PROCEDURES FOR PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (PD) Any person as the agent, or agent for the owner of any property within the City, may apply for Planned Development approval. All applicants shall follow the procedures as provided in Section 9-604 of this Ordinance, PROCEDURES FOR SUBDIVISION APPROVAL. In addition, the developer shall provide the Council with a colored rendering of adequate scale to show the completed development that will include at least the following: 1. Architectural style 2. Building materials 3. Landscaping; 4. Screening; 5. Garbage areas; 6. Parking; and 7. Open space. and building design; and color; 9-607 E MODIFICATION OF DISTRICT REGULATIONS A PD shall be allowed only as a Conditional Use in each district subject to the standards and procedures set forth in this Section. A PD shall be governed by the regulations of the district or districts in which said PD is located. The approval of the Final Development Plan for a PD may provide for such exceptions from the district regulations governing use, density, area, bulk, parking, signs, and other regulations as may be desirable to achieve the objectives of the proposed PD, provided such exceptions are consistent with the standards and criteria contained in this Section. 9-607 F GENERAL REGULATIONS FOR PLANNED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW PINE CENTER PARK - Page 15 1. Planned Developments - Planned developments shall be subject to requirements set forth in the Zoning Ordinance and also subject to all provisions within this Ordinance. 3. Owners' Association - The Owners' Association Bylaws and other similar deed restrictions, which provide for the control and maintenance of all common areas, recreation facilities or open space, shall meet with the approval of the Council. 7. Bonus Density - The following bonus densities may be granted within a Planned Development, but shall not be treated as cumulative: a. Provision for private, common open space in a PD shall be considered cause for density increases not to exceed twenty-five percent (258); b. Character, identity, and siting variation incorporated in a PD shall be considered cause for density increases not to exceed twenty-five percent (25$). 8. Financial Guarantees -The developer shall post financial guarantees for all approved on-site improvements if required pursuant to 9-606 C. 9-607 G GENERAL STANDARDS FOR PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS (PD) 6. Landscapin a. Screening of off-street parking, loading and waste storage areas shall be required. b. Screening shall be required as a buffer between residential and non-residential uses or structures in a PD. c. All ground surfaces in a PD shall be covered with a vegetative cover growth or other ground treatment capable of preventing soil erosion under normal surface runoff conditions. 8. Design Review - All PD's shall be subject to design review by the City Staff and Council. 9-607 B DESIGN STANDARDS FOR PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS - RESIDENTIAL (PD-R) 2. Parkins Space - One (1) additional parking space beyond that which is required by the Zoning Ordinance may be required for every three (3) dwelling units to accommodate visitor parking. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW PINE CENTER PARR - Page 16 3. Maintenance Building or ApAroved Area - A maintenance building or approved area shall be provided that is suitable for the services required for the repair and maintenance of all common areas. 9-607 I DESIGN STANDARDS FOR PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS - COMMERCIAL (PD-C) 1. Buffering and Screening - When commercial structures or uses in a PD-C abut a residential use, sight-restricting screening or buffering shall be provided. In no event shall any structure in a PD-C be located nearer than twenty feet (20') to a residential use. Off-street loading and waste storage areas shall be visually screened on all sides. 2. Lighting - Outside lighting shall be designed and placed so as to not direct illumination on any nearby residential areas. 3. Design of Site - A PD-C shall be designed to harmonize with adjacent uses as to height, bulk, location,. and use of exterior materials. Sides and rears of all buildings shall be given treatment comparable in attractiveness to their principal frontage. Pedestrian walks, plazas, and open spaces shall be located to provide maximum accessibility among the various buildings of the PD-C. Open spaces shall be so located as to provide for maximum visibility by customers and to create a harmonious relationship between buildings and exterior spaces throughout the project. 9-607 J DESIGN STANDARDS FOR PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS - GENERAL (PD-G) 1. PD-G shall be subject to all applicable standards as set forth in Section 9-607 of this Ordinance, with each land use conforming to the PD criteria for said land use. 24. That Section 11-2-409 A Residential, lists General Planned Residential as a Conditional Use in the Light Industrial zone; that Section 11-2-409 A does not list Planned Residential Development as a Permitted or Conditional Use in the Light Industrial zone nor does it list Multi-Family Dwellings as either a Permitted Use or as a Conditional Use. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW PINE CENTER PARK - Page 17 Section 11-2-409 B Commercial, lists Planned Unit Development - General as a Conditional Use in the Light Industrial zone, but does not list Planned Unit Development - Commercial or Retirement Homes as Conditional Uses or Permitted Uses in that district. That in 11-2-409 C Industrial, it does list Planned Unit Development - General as a Conditional Use and Planned Unit Development - Industrial as a Permitted Use. 25. That the Subdivision and Development Ordinance speaks to planned unit developments in 11-9-607 and such is incorporated herein as if set forth in full; that section 11-9-607 E states as follows: "A PD shall be allowed only as a Conditional Use in each district subject to the standards and procedures set forth in this Section. A PD shall be governed by the regulations of the district or districts in which said PD is located. The approval of the Final Development Plan for a PD may provide for such exceptions from the district regulations governing use, density, area, bulk, parking, signs, and other regulations as may be desirable to achieve the objectives of the proposed PD, provided such exceptions are consistent with the standards and criteria contained in this section."; 26. That Section 11-2-418 C of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian sets forth the standards under which the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council shall review applications for Conditional Use Permits; that the section states as follows:: 11-2-418 C, GENERAL STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO ALL CONDITIONAL USES: The Commission and Council shall review the particular facts and circumstances of each proposed conditional use FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW PINE CENTER PARK - Page 18 in terms of the following and shall find adequate evidence showing that such use at the proposed location: 1. Will, in fact, constitute a conditional use as determined by City policy. 2. Will be harmonious with and in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan and this Ordinance. 3. Will be designed, constructed, operated and maintained to be harmonious and appropriate in ap- pearance with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and that such use will not change the essential character of the same area. 4. Will not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or future neighboring uses. 5. will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services such as highways, streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water, sewer or that the person responsible for the establishment of proposed conditional use shall be able to provide adequately any such services. 6. Will not create excessive additional requirements at public cost for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. 7. Will not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operations that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors. 8. Will have vehicular approaches to the property which shall be so designated as not to create an interference with traffic on surrounding public streets. 9. Will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural or scenic feature of major importance. 27. That section 11-2-418 D. states as follows: "In approving any Conditional Use, the Commission and Council may prescribe appropriate conditions, bonds, and safeguards in conformity with this Ordinance. Violations of such conditions, bonds or safeguards, when made a part of the terms under which the Conditional Use is granted, shall be deemed a violation of the Ordinance and grounds to revoke the Conditional Use. The Commission and Council may prescribe a FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW PINE CENTER PARR - Page 19 r~ L set time period for which a Conditional Use may be in existence." 28. That there was no other testimony given at the hearing and proper notice has been given as required by law and all procedures before the Planning and Zoning Commission have been given and followed. CONCLUSIONB 1. That all the procedural requirements of the Local Planning Act and of the Ordinances of the City of Meridian have been met including the mailing of notice to owners of property within 300 feet of the external boundaries of the Applicant's property. 2. That the City of Meridian has authority to grant conditional uses pursuant to 67-6512, Idaho Code, and, pursuant to 11-2-418 of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian. 3. That the City has the authority to take judicial notice of its own ordinances and proceedings, other governmental statues and ordinances, and of actual conditions existing within the City and state. 4. That the City of Meridian has authority to place conditions on a conditional use permit and the use of the property pursuant to 67-6512, Idaho Code, and pursuant to that section conditions minimizing the adverse impact on other development, controlling the duration of development, assuring the development FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW PINE CENTER PARK - Page 20 is maintained properly, and on-site or off-site facilities, may be required for any conditional use permit; that 11-2-418 D authorizes the City to prescribe a set time period for which a conditional use may be in existence. 5. That Section 11-2-418 D. states as follows: "In approving any Conditional Use, the Commission and Council may prescribe appropriate conditions, bonds, and safeguards in conformity with this Ordinance. Violations of such conditions, bonds or safeguards, when made apart of the terms under which the Conditional Use is granted, shall be deemed a violation of the Ordinance and grounds to revoke the Conditional Use. The Commission and Council may prescribe a set time period for which a Conditional Use may be in existence." 6. That the City has judged this Application for a conditional use upon the basis of guidelines contained in Section 11-2-418 of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian and upon the basis of the Local Planning Act of 1975, Title 67 Chapter 65, Idaho Code, the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Meridian, and the record submitted to it and the things of which it may take judicial notice. 7. That the conditional use permit, if granted, would be treated as being conducted in a Light Industrial District since that is the zone of the land. 8. That it is concluded that the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, regarding planned developments, listing Planned Unit Development - General Planned Residential as a Conditional Use in the Light Industrial District, but not listing Planned Residential FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW PINE CENTER PARK - Page 21 Development, also, as a Conditional Use in that District, are quite problematical, particularly when dealing with an Application requesting approval of a Senior Citizen Boarding and Lodging Complex, and other associated uses, as- a Planned General Development. 9. That the definition sections, regarding planned developments, provide some instruction, but only state that they may be entirely residential, industrial, commercial, or a mixture of complementary conjunction of uses. 10. The Applicants listed, on the Application, only the senior citizen boarding and lodging complex as to what the conditional use was being asked for. In the Information for Conditional Use Permit, in Section 7, as amended by the April 29, 1996 letter from the Applicant, but not in the Application, which was not amended by the April 29, 1996 letter, it does state that five acres will be used for the Senior Citizen Boarding and Lodging Complex under the Planned Development General, which includes commercial food service plus facilities for elderly resident services, essential services of quality living space, dining facilities, chapel, recreation, laundry, education, van transportation, 24-hour maintenance, security, and full handicapped accessibility for elderly Pine Center Park residents; in the Information document, it was also stated that proposed use of the 7.75 acres, apparently, would be used for business uses as "P" FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW PINE CENTER PARK - Page 22 permitted, but do not state that this would be under a planned development nor do they state what the proposed uses would be, but this was not included in the April 29, 1996, letter as being a proposed use and did not state that this 7.75 acres of land was part of the Application. 11. The Applicant testified at the Public Hearing that the 7.75 acres would be used for tha development of a business park but did not state the proposed uses that would be in the business park and represented, in the Information document, that the uses would be permitted under the Zoning Code; it is concluded that it is very difficult for the Commission to determined if the uses would be permitted uses without knowing the uses; the 7.75 acres was not mentioned in the April 29, letter amending the Information for Conditional Use, and that land is not now being dealt with in these Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. If the Applicant desires to use that land a new application must be submitted. 12. That Ordinance 11-9-607 of the Subdivision and Development Ordinance controls development of a Planned Development and 9-607 J, states that a PD-G shall be subject to all applicable standards as set forth in Section 9-607 of this Ordinance, with each land use conforming to the PD criteria for said land use and that one of the required provisions in Section 9-607, which is not generally. applicable to other applications, is that all Planned FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW PINE CENTER PARR - Page 23 Developments are subject to design review by the City Staff and Council. 13. That since the Applicant stated in his April 29, 1996 letter that the Planned Development would include a: "Senior Citizen Boarding and Lodging Complex, which includes commercial food service plus facilities for elderly resident services and that all of the essential services are provided: quality living space, dining facilities, chapel, recreation, laundry, education, van transportation, 24-hour maintenance and security within a landscaped campus setting, including full handicapped accessibility available to elderly Pine Center Park residents."; and since Planned Residential Development is defined as: "Any development which is predominantly residential including those accessory purposes customarily relating to residential uses with the balance of such area, if any, being intended for such uses as reasonably relate to the support or convenience of the residential uses of other occupants."; it is concluded that the above uses, mentioned as being in the development, are accessory purposes customarily related to the prime residential use of the Senior Citizen Boarding and Lodging Complex and are intended for such uses as reasonably relate to the support or convenience of the prime residential use. 14. That with regard to the prime use of a Senior Citizen Boarding and Lodging Complex and the application for a General Planned Development, it is concluded that under the Residential Section of 11-2-409 A, RESIDENTIAL, a Planned Residential Development in the I-L District is not authorized as a permitted or as a conditional use, but a Planned Unit Development - General Planned Residential is allowed as a Conditional Use. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW PINE CENTER PARR - Paqe 24 15. That it is concluded that in Section 11-2-409 C, INDUSTRIAL, a Planned Unit Development Residential is not allowed as a permitted or a conditional use, but a Planned Unit Development - General is allowed as a Conditional Use. 16. That it is concluded that the uae actually is a Residential Planned Unit Development and should be treated as such; however, the Commission is unable to determine if there is any difference between a "Planned Residential Development", which is not allowed either as a permitted or conditional use in the Light Industrial District under either 11-2-409, A, RESIDENTIAL, or 11-2- 409 C, INDUSTRIAL, and a "Planned Unit Development - General Planned Residential", which is stated under 11-2-409 A, as being allowed as a Conditional Use, but under 11-2- 409 C, INDUSTRIAL, it is not a permitted or conditional uae. 17. That it is concluded that a Planned Unit Development - General is a allowed as a Conditional Use under 11-2-409 C, INDUSTRIAL; the question then is whether the applied for use is a residential planned development or whether it is a general planned development; as stated above the Commission believes that the use, as stated, is a residential planned development, but there are enough questions involved with the Application that the Commission believes that it cannot make a recommendation without the questions being answered and the questions should be answered by the City Council. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW PINE CENTER PARR - Page 25 ~:: . 18. That 11-2-41$ C of the Revised and Con~pled``Ordnances of ,the City of Meridian sets forth the standards under'.:which the .Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council shall review .applications for Conditional Use Permits; that upon a review of those requirements and' a review of the facts`pXesented and the conditions of the area and assuming that the above conditions or similar ones thereto would be attached to the conditional use, the Planning and Zoning Commission concludes as follows: a. The use of land for a Senior Citizen Complex would in fact, constitute a conditional use and a conditional use permit would be required by ordinance. b. The use may be harmonious with and in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan if the use is determined to be a General Planned Development but would not be if it is determined to be Residential Planned Development; that which ever it is determined to be the Zoning Ordinance requires a conditional use permit to allow the use. c. The use may be designed and constructed to be harmonious in appearance with the character of the general vicinity; that if the conditions set forth herein are complied with the use may be operated and maintained to be harmonious with the intended character of the general vicinity' and may not change- the essential character of the area. d. That the use would not be hazardous nor should it be disturbing to existing or future neighboring uses if the conditions are met. e. The property will need to connect to sewer and water, contingent on positive results from computer model analysis. f. The .use:. would not create excessive additional requirements at public cost for public facilities and services and .the use would not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW PINE CENTER PARK - Page 26 q. If the conditions are met, the use should not involve a use, activity, process, material, equipment or conditions of operation that would be detrimental to person, property or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors. h. That sufficient parking for the proposed use shall be required to meet the requirements of the City ordinance. i. The development and uses will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural or scenic feature of major importance. 19. That since conditions may be placed upon the granting of a conditional use permit to minimize adverse impact on other development, it is recommended by the Planning and Zoning Commission that when the City Council determines whether the use is a Residential Planned Development or a General Planned Development and whether such use is allowed in the Industrial District, that the City Council place conditions on the use and development if it is determined to be a General Planned Development and deny the Application if it determined to be Residential Planned Development. 20. That if it is determined to be General Planned Development and allowed in the Industrial District that it is recommended that the City Council require that all comments and conditions of the City Staff, the Ada County Highway District, and Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District be met. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW PINE CENTER PARK - Page 27 APPROVAL OF FINDIROS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts and approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONER BEPPER COMMISSIONER OSLUND COMMISSIONER SHEARER MacCOY CHAIRMAN JOHNSON (TIE BREAKER) VOTED VOTED ~~ VOTED VOTED ~""^ VOTED DECISION AND RECOl~NDATIOR The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council of the City of Meridian that they answer the questions presented in these Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and if the Council determines that the use is a General Planned Development and such is allowed in an industrial district, that the Application be approved and conditions be placed on the use and development, as found justified and appropriate by the City Council and that the Applicant and property be required to meet the requirements stated in the Conclusions of Law adopted by the City Council. If the use is determined to be a Residential Planned Development that the Application be denied. MOTION: APPROVED: DISAPPROVED :_ FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW PINE CENTER PARK - Page 28