Loading...
1997 01-14MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AGENDA TUESDAY, JANUARY 14, 1997 - 7:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING HELD DECEMBER 10, 1996: (APPROVED) 1. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A GROUP DAY CARE FOR 12 CHILDREN BY PATRICIA REED: (APPROVED FINDINGS; APPROVE RECOMMENDATION) 2. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING TO I-L, SOUTH OF FRANKLIN ROAD, WEST OF LOCUST GROVE ROAD BY PROPERTIES WEST, INC.: (CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW) 3. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR MEDIMONT SUBDIVISION,18 LOTS, SOUTH OF FRANKLIN ROAD, WEST OF LOCUST GROVE ROAD BY PROPERTIES WEST, INC.: (TABLED UNTIL FEBRUARY 11, 1997) 4. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A REZONE OF 8.38 ACRES FROM R-4 TO I-L, '/, MILE EAST OF TEN MILE, NORTH SIDE OF CHERRY LANE, BY PRESTIGE CARE: (RE-NOTICE FOR FEBRUARY 11, 1987) 5. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A 44 UNIT ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY WITH A 16 UNIT ALZHEIMER WING, 10 GARDEN APARTMENTS, AND A TWO STORY, 106 SUITE RETIREMENT COMPLEX, %, MILE EAST OF TEN MILE, NORTH SIDE OF CHERRY LANE BY PRESTIGE CARE: (RE-NOTICE FOR FEBRUARY 11, 1987) 6. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PRIVATE TAEKWONDO SCHOOL AT 706 EAST FIRST STREET, BY JOHN AND BECKY SCHIEBOUT: (CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW) 7. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A CRAFT STORE W/ESPRESSO SHOP, SOUTHWEST CORNER OF CARLTON AND SECOND STREET (141 E. CARLTON) BY LISA & CLIFF SEXTON AND KRIS & STEWART HASKELL: (CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW) i MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JANUARY 14 1997 The regular meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order by Chairman Jim Johnson at 7:00 P.M.: MEMBERS PRESENT: Keith Borup, Greg Oslund, Malcolm MacCoy: OTHERS PRESENT: Will Berg, Wayne Crookston, Shari Stiles, Gary Smith, Lisa Sexton, Clifford Sexton, Kris Haskell, Stewart Haskell, Gary and Debbie Little, Ted Hanson, Jim Boyd, John Fitzgerald, Jim Shearer, Gary Lee, Jim Witherell, Ann Witherell, Robert Smith, Becky Schiebout: Johnson: A couple of house keeping items prior to the opening of the meeting. First of all we would like to recognize Mr. James Shearer for his length of service on Planning and Zoning. As best we can calculate and our records aren't really that good, it is 13 years of dedicated service to the City of Meridian. Jim we would like to present to you a plaque of appreciation or a certificate of appreciation for your length of service and of course to give you this which you will probably never use again. So you can put it on your wall. Thank you James. One other item of note, Wayne Crookston would like to introduce our new City Attorney. Crookston: Yes Mr. Commissioners I would like to introduce John Fitzgerald, II, John if you could stand up. He may take over my duties tonight because I am not feeling that well. But I am going to go for awhile. I just wanted to introduce John because he may be here in the future on occasion. Johnson: John, welcome on board, that is the last applause you will get in this group. I would also like to mention, you may have seen the notice posted on the door as you were coming in. Items 4 and 5 we will not handle tonight, so if you are here for anything to do with Prestige Care and their request for a rezone and conditional use permit we won't be taking public testimony tonight, nor will we have any kind of hearing due to the fact that the posting was not in accordance with the Idaho Code. We have had to by law postpone that until our next regularly scheduled meeting which is February 11. It will be on our agenda that night. MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING HELD DECEMBER 10, 1996: Johnson: You have the minutes, are there any corrections or deletions or additions you would like to make to these minutes? If not 1 will entertain a motion for approval as written. Oslund: Mr. Chairman I move that we approve the minutes as written. MacCoy: Second Meridian Planning & Zo~g • January 14, 1997 Page 2 Johnson: Moved by Commissioner Oslund, second by Commissioner MacCoy to approve the minutes as written, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #1: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A GROUP DAY CARE FOR 12 CHILDREN BY PATRICIA REED: Johnson: Any comments or discussion or corrections necessary on the findings of fact as prepared by our City Attorney? If there is no further discussion I would invite one of the commissioners to recommend approval. Borup: Mr. Chairman, 1 move that the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts and approves these findings of fact and conclusions of law. Oslund: Second Johnson: Moved and seconded that we approve the findings of fact and conclusions of law as written, roll call vote. ROLL CALL VOTE: Borup -Yea, Oslund -Yea, MacCoy -Yea MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Johnson: Recommendation to pass onto the City? Borup: Mr. Chairman, I move that 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 conditions set forth in the findings of fact and conclusions of law or similar conditions as found justified as appropriate by the City Council and that the property be required to meet the water and sewer requirements, fire and life safety codes, uniform fire code and other ordinances of the City of Meridian. The conditional use should be subject to review upon notice to the applicant by the City. Oslund: Second Johnson: All those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #2: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING TO 1-L, SOUTH OF FRANKLIN ROAD, WEST OF LOCUST GROVE ROAD BY PROPERTIES WEST, INC.: Meridian Planning & Zo~g • January 14, 1997 Page 3 Johnson: I will now open the public hearing and invite the applicant or his representative to address the Commission. Gary Lee, 250 S. Beachwood, Boise was sworn by the City Attorney. Lee: Just a point of order Chairman Johnson about the two public hearings this evening. Of course the first one is for annexation and rezone, the second if for a preliminary plat for Medimont Subdivision on the same parcel. I would like to request an opinion I guess from the Commission on how we should proceed with the presentation. Do we want to limit the first public hearing just to annexation and rezone items and then get into the preliminary plat in more detail in the second agenda item? Johnson: It is a mixed (inaudible) and what really occurs in this instance is people testifying usually don't make the distinction and so they testify and express their concerns on the total application including the conditional use permit. So what we have done in the past and Counsel can guide me on this, we have incorporated all of the original testimony in the first public hearing into the second and it seems to be the quickest way to go without trying to make any divisions as we go along. Is that acceptable? Crookston: That is how we have handled it in the past and yes it is acceptable unless the applicant desires to do it differently. Lee: I don't think so, we can approach the project (inaudible) Johnson: We have to formally have two public hearings so we will have another public hearing but you can incorporate any of your presentation in there as well as anybody that testified can have that testimony incorporated in there. The lay people and even ourselves at times we are not going to be able to make the distinction, it could all be one sentence or whatever. t think t probably touched on that enough but that is the way we will proceed if you don't want a distinction. Lee: That is fine, I will just incorporate the two and {inaudible). As stated earlier I represent Properties West, John Barnes on this application. The particular property in question is a little over 26 acres, gross acreage. Again situated off of Franklin Road on the South side and about 500 feet West of Locust Grove Road. Currently the property has been used as agricultural, it has been pasture lands. There was an old house on it at one time and it has since been removed. Right not the property is zoned RT, Rural Transitional zoning for Ada County designation and the application tonight is to seek annexation and rezone to industrial light or the I-L zone along with a preliminary plat we have identified as Medimont Subdivision but we will be marketing it as Stonebridge Business Park so there is no confusion in the names there. The surrounding uses in this particular area, we have a mixture of uses, to the north we have industrial light Meridian Planning & Zo~g • January 14, 1997 Page 4 businesses, there is a subdivision to the northwest that is being marketed as industrial. There is the pumice block which is right across the street on Franklin that is of course industrial. A recent application that was approved by the Ciry kind of north and northeast is the Doug Tamura property being zoned commercial general and industrial light. There exists some RT zoning to the west, south and east of the property. There are some smaller pieces of R1 zoning at the northwest corner and also at the southeast corner. Currently there exist 6 single family homes along the easterly boundary situated on acreages ranging in size from 1 to 3 acres. There are two single family homes on the westerly boundary, one of which is a rental mobile home belonging to the same property owner. South of the property is basically agricultural right now and it is zoned RT. Southwest of the property is in the City and it is commercial general although there is no use there yet. The applicant, Properties West, intends to develop an upper end light industrial business park with 18 building lots and 5 common lots as you can see on the exhibit which is a recreation of the preliminary plat. All of the uses within this development will be specifically permitted by City of Meridian zoning ordinance for the I-L zone or as restricted within the CC&R's that the developer plans to present. Some of those restrictions that we have identified in the CC&R's I will just read briefly here from a list of approved uses in the I-L. We intend to restrict the asphalt and concrete, automobile vw-ecking yard and storage, fuel yards, junk yards, mobile home manufacturing, rail road yards and shops, recycling plants, and solid waste transfer stations. Those particular uses won't be allowed within this development. Again those are defined within the CCBR's. We had discussed with City staff about how this project could be brought in into the City. I know that the City in the past has annexed industrial and commercial uses with conditional use permits in mind for those annexations. We would like to submit to you that we would like to bring this project in without a conditional use permit tied to it. The reason being we have one use planned for the project. We are going to have a controlled environment on how the project is developed. We think this approach v~rould be a good way to go for the City and help free up some of the staff time and some of the Council time in reviewing CUP's. To touch briefly on the possibilities of using development agreements to take care of that. I think that could be worked out in such a way that would be beneficial to the City. The property has services available to it. Of course transportation, there is Franklin Road on the north for access. We are in the Meridian City and rural fire district. City water and waste water is available at the northwest corner which will be extended down Franklin Road and into the property. Currently the project is located in Nampa Meridian Irrigation District, it is our intent to construct a privately held pressurized irrigation system for the project for the landscaping features. The proposed improvements that we are identifying are of course are the roads, water, waste water collections facilities, storm drain facilities and pressurized irrigation. In addition to that there will be a landscaped common lot along Franklin Road, 35 feet in width. There will be a landscaped entry island into the project and there will be a landscaped buffer strip along the easterly boundary 20 feet wide. I would like to kind of give you a view of some of the landscaping. This is a perspective looking I guess it would be southwesterly from Franklin Road into the Business park. It shows the landscaping Meridian Planning & Zo~g • January 14, 1997 Page 5 concept at the entry going to construct a (inaudible) type entrance with some water features along the east and west side with kind of a bridge effect masonry wall. The building that you see there is one that Mr. Barnes is envisioning constructing in the future. It is intended to be a light industrial use that would lend itself to a small business operation that needs somewhat of a store front and also has the requirement for storage in the rear. That particular rendering there shows a concrete tilt up type structure. We did have a couple of neighborhood meetings with the adjoining property owners. We had sent invitations out to all those within 300 feet of the property and we did have occasion to meet with a couple of the property owners on a one on one basis and we reviewed some of the concerns that they had expressed during the previous submittal to this Commission. We talked about the irrigation system that is in an existing ditch right now that will have to be piped. That particular ditch in its state today has caused some leakage problems and it is contributing to some flooding of basements and that sort of thing off to the east side of the property. Of course by piping that we can help alleviate some of that problem. As I have discussed before, on the CUP process, I know this is an item that the City again has initiated and I have made a response to the staff on some of their concerns on that particular item. I think you probably have copies of that letter in your packets. The meat of the discussion which is fairly lengthy. Johnson: Excuse me Gary, is that the January 13th letter you are referring to? Lee: Yes it is and that is in response to a January 9`h memorandum from Bruce Freckleton and Shari Stiles. Most of the general comments in that response from the City has been things like confirmation about the annexation legal description and so on and so forth. Piping of the irrigation ditch, abandonment of wells and septic tanks, soils profiles, storm water design approvals which we will have to acquire in our first phase design from ACHD and from the Nampa and Meridian Irrigation District. Fire Hydrant placements, we had shown those on the engineering concept plan and it is our intention to review the placements and modify as necessary with fire and water master. Flood plain issues, FEMA maps don't show any on this particular property. Street name signs, sewer and water connections are basically as we have shown on the concept plan. Details on the landscape plan, again we are talking about those right now in general terms. Although they will be submitted to the City for final review in that first phase. Chain link fence, we have identified around the perimeter of the property per the city's requirement. And also show present land uses on the preliminary plat. Most of these things are engineering related that are generally handled during design phases and I would be glad to discuss these if you have any particular questions about them. But in the past we have been able to work through these with the engineering and planning staff. However, I do want to talk about the Meridian Comp plan a little bit, there was indications that the CUP process is required, although, I am sure that most of you are real familiar with that comp plan and there are a number of items in there that speak to these processes. The comprehensive plan is just a general guideline to direct the planning and the growth of the City of Meridian which you are all aware. Certain Meridian Planning & ZoniTig • January 14, 1997 Page 6 suggestions and policies have been identified. Although those suggestions and policies are, need to be substantiated by zoning or resolution ordinance changes. Lane use delineation's on the comp plan map is not precise which is identified again on the comp plan. They are used for long range vision for the community. The mixed use identification in there that requires conditional use permit refers coordinated development of several major uses as part of a single project such as specialty retail commercial, variable density residential, offices, motels, industrial, service, commercial, public and semi-public uses. This particular development is not a mixed use, it is a single use. We have identified what that use is going to be and we are going to identify controls. We think there is probably a better way to handle whatever concerns staff may have about items they look at in the conditional use process. Either through the development agreement or the CC&R's or a combination of both or to adopt some sort of design review process. Which I understand is in the works. To place this particular project under the CUP requirement is going to put this developer at a disadvantage to his competitors right across the street. You have industrial uses all over the City of Meridian that don't require conditional use processes. One important statement in the comp plan was that every effort shall be made by the City of Meridian to encourage commercial and industrial growth. Of course what we are attempting to do here is to develop business atmosphere and to create jobs, increase economic base, the things that the City of Meridian in the comp plan are looking for. I have a couple of other little exhibits here. This is an enlarged copy of an exhibit that was placed in the CC&R's that were submitted to the City for review. It is a method that we propose to use to help maintain the look that we are trying to achieve in this particular development. That is we are going to have requirements for landscape strip along the entry roads, along all public roads. That will be a minimum of 20 feet wide. It will have a minimum of a 3 foot high berm and it will be a specific type of tree, and spacing. There will be of course requirements for landscaping in other areas along the side yard, up to the face of the building and all of this will be irrigated by the privately held irrigation system. This is a sketch of what we had proposed to the property owners at our neighborhood meetings about the type of buffer that we are looking for. We propose a series of pine trees through there with a ground cover of a pasture type grass, something that will be easy to maintain that won't require continual mowing program. That concludes my presentation, if you have any questions I can either answer them now or after the other comments. Johnson: Thank you Mr. Lee, any of the commissioners have any questions of the applicant's representative at this time? MacCoy: I do, you have shown the picture, the drawing plat, the entire area that you are going to be working on, are you going to control the building construction, the type of material, the coloring, so that it reads like (inaudible) a lot of pieces going together there? Meridian Planning & Zoning • January 14, 1997 Page 7 Lee: Yes we are, there will be an architectural control committee set up and we have identified building materials to be used, particularly in the front facade of the building, the types of products that we are going to allow in there. It will have to be approved by the architectural review committee for both landscape plans, site plan, building materials, the basic look. The intent is to try and carry the same feel throughout the project as we have created at the entrance. MacCoy: So you are planning to keep full control of everything that goes on inside of that? Lee: Yes, until the last lot is sold. Johnson: Counsel? Crookston: Thank you, Gary, I had two questions. to your proposal on the not to have conditional uses on each use, is your proposal not to have any at all for the 18 lots, do you propose that there not be a conditional use for a use on each lot or do you propose to have one conditional use hearing which would apply to each of the 18 lots or have none. Lee: Well the intent was to not have any conditional use permit requirements unless it specified in the zoning ordinance for that use and there are those in the I-L zone that require a CUP. Crookston: But you are proposing that be waived even though the zoning ordinance requires that for a use? Lee: Well just the uses the uses that identify the requirement then yes they would have to have a conditional use process. But if it is a permitted use in your zoning ordinance then we are saying it is a permitted use and it doesn't require a CUP. Crookston: What we have done in the past is in the mixed use areas we required a conditional use permit for each use. That is the Commission and the Council. The other question I had, maybe you stated it but I didn't hear it. You were talking about improvements, you said that you would do pressurized irrigation and roads and water, are you going to do sewer? Lee: Yes and storm drains. Johnson: Commissioner Borup? Borup: Not at this time. Johnson: Commissioner Oslund? Meridian Planning & Zon'li"ig • January 14, 1997 Page 8 Oslund: One of your contentions is that if we require a conditional use on each and every parcel that creates an unfair advantage to your competitors. You made reference to I think there is an industrial use across the street and to the west, is that correct? Lee: Yes there is. Oslund: 1 am not familiar with that development, it has come through P & Z while I have been here, but maybe somebody knows, what is the nature of that development. Is it one parcel one use or is it, I am thinking that is what it is. Is it a subdivision? Lee: It is a subdivision, I think he is involved in the marketing of that project and could probably speak a little more in detail about that. Oslund: This question would be directed to Counsel or Chairman anybody that has been here maybe when that came through. To help me understand why that one which seems to be a similar project in fact why doesn't it have that conditional use permit requirement or does it? Crookston: Any land that is within a mixed use area, each use has been required to obtain a conditional use permit. Oslund: Okay, so this is in the mixed use overlay. I see, thank you. Lee: I guess the contention is this particular development is not a mixed use but even though it is in that overlay area. Oslund: That is all I had. Johnson: Okay, anyone else on your behalf that would like to present anything at this time, if not we can catch that later. Jim Boyd, 9272 Shalane Avenue, Boise, was swum by the Ciry Attorney. Boyd: Mr. Chairman, Planning and Zoning Commission, my name is Jim Boyd and I am in the commercial real estate business and have been specializing in industrial real estate for 19 years here in the Boise area. A few things that I would like to in general speak to on behalf of this development. Over the 19 years 1 have seen a lot of developers develop a lot of different types of projects. There are a few exceptions in the valley but for the most part I see that the industrial developments have been pretty much on the minimal side of putting in the streets, and the sidewalks whatever is required by ACHD and often times complaining about those issues that they have to put in. I think the project that Mr. Barnes is proposing goes well beyond what we have seen with exception of one like Central Valley, that is a nice project. So many of them Meridian Planning & Zo~g • January 14, 1997 Page 9 are set up to where when the project is sold out why it is up to the owners to fair for themselves. Some of the items that have been addressed and thought through and even as a group we have encouraged some of these other steps that you see so much in residential today that we didn't see 20 years ago even. One of those is a good strong set of restrictive covenants developed by the home owners association for those owners within that development. So that you have got a project that is viable not only during the sell out phase but is viable and works well after the project is sold out for years to come. As Gary mentioned earlier on the streets there would be a 20 foot landscaped buffer behind the sidewalk on both sides of the street. On that berm buffer we designated a flowering pear tree so we have consistency of types of vegetation and not everybody planting everything, different types of vegetation to keep a continuity in the project. A question that was asked regarding an architectural committee, the purpose of that is the landscaping and the building and the types of products being used. You can't necessarily be dictatorial because different products are coming on the market over time. But looking for consistency in the project. The other thing is not to allow an over building ratio to the land. That often times may work for one person but the next user it doesn't work for. So, 50% building ratio onto the lot is a maximum requirement. Another key point that I see over my 19 years is people going in and building kind of this and that and no consistency and you have to realize that not everybody can afford the Taj Mahal in concrete tilt ups. So you have to have some flexibility. But on the fronts of the buildings that face the street they can use some other combination. It doesn't have to be all metal in my book. The fronts can be combination of other types of, it can include some metal but other types of frontage to give some architectural change to them. Again we are not trying to create something that all looks alike in another fashion but some continuity. As well also is to prohibit some uses that are allowed in the light industrial zone because we want a compatibility within the, because we want totally light industrial. We want some nice compatibility for small businesses. I think there is a need for that in this community. I see a need for it in Boise and there are two factors. People are looking for a nice environment for their small business and they are looking for affordability. You have to meet that. I would like as Gary mentioned, not have to have the requirement for the conditional use. understand what Mr. Crookston was getting to but I also know that when you start going conditional use for every use it really puts a damper on things. 1 am not seeing it in other areas, not only in Boise, Meridian across the street or over on Locust Grove. I am not seeing that requirement. So it puts us at a disadvantage in that respect.. It is nice to look at the zoning ordinance, a lot of work went into the zoning ordinance in creating some 8 pages of allowed uses and conditional uses in those zones. If there are some gray areas modify that to where it fits the needs of the community. But look to that as a guide to what goes in those areas. Certainly those that are specified as conditional uses will continue to be conditional use. I guess in closing, it is our goal to establish a product that fits well within the community. Our emphasis would be to establish some parameters that are usable for all of us to live within both government and private enterprise. I would be happy to answer any questions. Meridian Planning & ZoTng January 14, 1997 Page 10 Johnson: Thank you Mr. Boyd, any questions at this time from the Commission? Borup: Mr. Chairman, I v~rould still be interested in a clarification of Mr. Oslund's question on the project across the street. You indicated there was not any conditional use permits for individual lots in that subdivision. Boyd: I believe there are two that come to mind, right off the top of my head would be the one across the street would be Meridian Business Park and the other one would be off Locust Grove it is called Layne Industrial Park. I am not aware, unless they have a use that comes in that would, in the zoning ordinance, required to have a conditional use. But otherwise if your allowed use in the zoning ordinance you can go in there as long as you meet the building code and the set backs and that sort of thing. That was originally platted in the 70's and replatted last in 1996. Johnson: Any further questions? Thank you Mr. Boyd. This is a public hearing, is there someone from the public that would like to address the Commission at this time, please come forward. Jim Witherell, 215 South Locust Grove Road, Meridian, was sworn by the City Attorney. Witherell: I think I can clarify your previous questions to the engineer and the realtor. What is different in this case that does not affect any of these other properties being talked about is this immediately adjoins housing. Layne development is out all by itself, the old Meridian Business Park does not touch any houses, it is across from the cemetery, it is separated by a road. When the Ciry adopted the comprehensive plan it adopted some very good standards. Among them was that you can't, the adjoining owners cannot lose property value, they cannot lose water, they cannot suffer damage, they do not incur health risks. For that reason I think the logic was that they put light industrial in segregated areas. Areas where there were no housing. We are asking now because the overall concept of mixed use is innovation. What is innovative about an industrial park in the middle of R1 residential. This does have R1 housing on both sides of it immediately touching it. I am within 12 feet of the property line. The house on the west side is within 1 foot of the property line. So gentlemen if anything proceeds we do want conditional use, we don't want unregulated anything. The architectural committee looks at the front of the buildings. The landscaping committee looks at the landscaping in the front of the buildings. We live at the back of the buildings, it is a pretty horse but we are looking at the wrong end of it. From our angle it is a chain link fence, a couple of trees, which is the same thing we get in Garden City where it is not exactly R1 housing. This incidentally is the fourth amazing innovation to come along. First it was going to be a trailer park. Then it was going to be (inaudible) R15 manufactured housing. Then it was going to be some condos, that one didn't get here. And then it was going to be C-G, I-L. Now we are back with I-L again, different developer same song. There is something wrong with either this property because all four of these applications have been on the same piece of property, now where else in the mixed Meridian Planning & Zo~g • January 14, 1997 Page 11 use area is anything developing. By definition or logic you have to deny this application because no amount of landscaping, no amount of conditional use can quiet industrial noise, dim industrial lighting or prohibit health or safety risks to residential norms in any residential area much less to neighborhood standard of Ri, which is our entitlement under civil law. Wait a minute, I keep hearing much (inaudible) CC&R's coming along. And they are going to take care of atl of this because they are so tight. For example these CC&R's and we have read them, would have prohibited the 2 warehouses in Boise or Stone's Lumber in Nampa from burning down. Because in these CC&R's this kind of nuisance is not allowed. The CC&R's would prohibit oil and herbicide to be spread over 50°k to 60°k of the surface of the development because it is gravel. That is the area behind us. This is the truck fleet parking area. It is required but the CC&R's prohibit this oil and herbicide from seeping into our water table. Therefore it is tight enough that these CC&R's prohibit gravity because gravity is not allowed under these CC&R's because the CC&R's have no standards they are just simply statements. The standards are as it says within industrial standards. This is a residential area for heaven sake we sleep here. But we are only given one protection and these CC&R's read them carefully one protection for the residents, that is that the occupiers will park their cars behind that fence that chain link fence so that we can see them from the residences. To use this concession you will appreciate that we have to close our eyes or it is our fault that we are breaking his CC&R's. This logic once worked for the King of Siam but he got killed. The CCBR's read them carefully, there are weasel words or sorry weasel words they are mink words. It does not say that prohibits nuisances from creeping over onto adjoining residences. It says that it keeps them from intruding onto adjoining lots. As he pointed out on his plat the adjoining lots are his, he has taken the landscaping and spun them off as separate lots. So we are not affected. These are the easements and landscapes there is nobody back there to complain unless you have a gopher with a law degree. This is no accident, in law it is called the (inaudible) it is the grouping of legal words for legal interpretation. He uses the terms residences exactly where he means residences, that is where we can't see the trucks. He uses Tots where he means lots which is where his landscape and easements. And he means the adjoining property which obviously neither residences or lots. These mean the lots within the property, we are not given any protection in this except for that. This is a garlic party, it basically means, a nuisance, one machine shop cannot annoy another machine shop. One thing that I meant to point out is that the whole area underlying this is a patented water table which adjoining residents receive by court award in 1993. (Inaudible) an offer whatsoever to hook us up with water and sewer, this is the 4th time that we have been told that our water right be damned goes through the City it is not the developers problem and we probably will. Thank you. Johnson: I have a couple of questions, does anyone else? There was an indication earlier by the presentation in the presentation by Mr. Lee that they had offered to meet with the property owners notifying everyone within 300 feet and they did meet with a couple of the property owners. Were you one of those, have you met one on one with the developer or his representative? Meridian Planning ii Zoning • January 14, 1997 Page 12 Wetherell: Yes, there are six affected properties. Two of those affected properties have a financial interest in the property. The other four do not. Those four property owners which were all at the meeting submitted to you on December 9th a letter protesting this saying those meetings were not held in good faith. Johnson: On what basis did you come to that conclusion? Wetherell: Because the issues like the water table, he would not address that. The initial offer for transition was six foot sterilized strip with a six foot chain link fence. That is less than the Meridian Gomprehensive Plan, he said he could not do better. The second meeting was a ten foot strip not sterilized with a chain link fence. He could not do better than the comprehensive plan. I see on his final plat he has finally got the easements in there for the utilities except they are on the wrong side of the transition. He has a 20 foot transition, if this goes ahead we will be asking for 35 foot transition with berming and with an 8 foot masonry fence. Johnson: And a final question I have at this point is obviously this property is the fourth try and I am familiar with two of the other three. It looks like somewhere down the road it will get developed if this one doesn't go through. What would be your response if this was like R-8 density residential (inaudible) what kind of appeal would that have to you would you see that as less bothersome? Wetherell: If we would have our druthers it would be C-G. We are talking about masonry buildings that don't burn. We are talking about nobody storing chlorine gas for servicing swimming pools. It is much safer, it has low density lights. This thing could be worked C-G but we would want a conditional use, we want masonry buildings, we want paving, we don't want dust, we don't want gravel parking. If this could be worked in with, R-8 failed before, it would have to be along our transition R2 (End of Tape} the R2 next to the R4 and nobody in the R4 is going to want to buy next to the R8. So, we have no problem with that. We do expect that it will be developed some day, we are just hoping in fact we were hoping because this was Properties West and Barnes has done some darn good stuff in the City of Meridian and we were actually kind of hopeful that we were going to get something nice. But it is just another industrial park with a fancy front. Johnson: Any other questions of Mr. Wetherell? Borup: Just a minor one, you said you would rather see a C-G zoning in that area? Wetherell: C-G, what I am thinking of there, some light industrial could go back there. Borup: What is your understanding of C-G zoning? Meridian Planning & Zon• • January 14, 1997 Page 13 Witherell: C-G would be commercial, business, we are looking at business. I wrote it down, I can't remember it of course. Borup: Well my reading of the ordinance says C-G is related to auto services, they want it close proximity to major highways so that the motoring and travel related services can have easy access. Witherell: Well unfortunately this is only our fourth time through the process. We don't have everything memorized. Let me give you an example, it is the Cherry Lane Plaza, that type of, Cherry Lane Center on Fairview, that could where there where you have businesses. I think there are some C-C, I get C-C right (inaudible). Borup: You would rather see gas stations and (inaudible). Witherell: No, we were misinterpreting what C-G meant when we got those. We are novices, we have to study our notes at home. If something goes back in there the economy doesn't favor anything right now. Johnson: So is it safe to say in summary that you are not opposed to the development of the property just this application and what it constitutes? Witherell: That is correct. The lot sizes would be fine by us, but the transition is woeful. The incurred corrosion on the water table will precipitate a law suit unless water and sewer is provided at the developers expense. We want the paving, we want the buildings to actually act as part of the transition, the sound, because masonry would absorb a lot of the truck sounds. We don't want parking in our back yard or his backyard which is also our back yard. Johnson: I was going to say it has to be his back yard or he couldn't park there. Anybody else? Any other questions? Thank you very much, anyone else like to come forward? Ann Witherell, 215 S. Locust Grove Road, Meridian was sworn by the City Attorney. Witherell: I would like to talk a little bit about sound. Something that would be going on constantly should this be developed light industrial. An average decibel level or DBA is a measure of vehicle noise starting from idling to running it at speed on pavement. The high ends of these would be at road speed and road gears and running at high RPM in low gears. All of these levels are then averaged to a single figure to form a measure the DBA. Ordinary residential traffic generates about 55 to 60 DBA, at R1 we are well below the ordinary residential level. A level of 75 DBA is established health risk. 125 DBA is the pain threshold. Let me say it again, 75 is a health risk, 125 is pain threshold. At our meetings with the developer and I was at both of them, Mr. Barnes used A-1 Heating and Plumbing as a possible example of a typical tenant. We Meridian Planning & Zon• • January 14, 1997 Page 14 have learned that A-1 Heating and Plumbing operate a fleet of 15 service trucks, 8,000 gross weight or greater. As A-1 would be typical the mass vwuld be 15 vehicles times 18 tenants equals 270 service trucks in constant movement. Therefore our exposure would be constant. The DBA for a service truck is 90, well above the health risk threshold. Nearly twice residential levels. Amplified by 270 trucks on gravel not pavement this far exceeds the health risk level, this probably exceeds the pain threshold. Heavy delivery trucks, those above 12,000. gross weight are 95 DBA, also a constant exposure. Dump trucks 110 DBA. My source is the transportation statistics annual report 1994, page 168. This source also says on that page using the last study of its type in 1989, "based on total travel in urban areas", this isn't rural areas, "in 1989 noise damage from cars and trucks to property in urban areas is estimated at around $9 billion.° Simply said increased traffic damages property values. These are federal statistics gentlemen and federal standards. This should establish that the proposed industrial park is a health risk in a residential area and that our property values must fall. In our meetings with the developer Mr. Barnes said that trucks were the nature of light industry and that nothing could be done about it. Something can be done you can deny the application. Knowing the health risk and property damage the comprehensive plan prohibits either one of these. We hope you deny the application. Johnson: Any questions by the Commission? Mr. Oslund? Oslund: Do you have any formal training or certification to evaluate or I guess otherwise interpret noise impacts? Witherell: These were compiled by the Federal Bureau of Transportation? Oslund: Thank you Witherell: I have no argument with that, I am not in the habit of arguing with federal government standards. Borup: Do you know whether these noise levels on the trucks and the different size is that any certain speed or idling? Witherell: That is an average speed from idling to full speed and then they even it off as an average. Borup: So like freeway speed? Witherell: Freeway speed would be different from idling or running at low gear at a high RPM that would be very noisy. Borup: So that is what I was wondering, the mack truck at 90 is figuring out on highway speed? Meridian Planning & Zo~g • January 14, 1997 Page 15 Witherell: That would be part of it, it would also be accelerating which would be noisy, very noisy. Borup: This is showing an automobile at 85 which is about halfway between a sewing machine and an alarm clock. So it sounds like the information you gave us is showing that the trucks you are talking about are fitting right in there with noise level of a lawn mower and alarm clock. Witherell: Yes, a large pick up truck and be very noisy especially when running on gravel. We live next to one. Borup: At what speed? Witherell: On our gravel driveway about 5 miles an hour. Borup: I am aware of the noise of trucks and automobiles on a highway. I am not sure how noisy they are in a parking lot though. Johnson: Anyone else that would like to come forward at this time, yes sir. Ten Hanson, 1882 Bentley Avenue, Meridian, was swwrn by the City Attorney. Hanson: I had a couple of questions which weren't addressed. Other than he mentioned that the waste water run off from streets will be dealt with. In the past in this project they were brought to the front on (inaudible) Eventually that evolved into a filtration system adjacent to Franklin Road with it draining into Five Mile Creek. Have they got permission from Corps of Engineers to do that yet or have they addressed that. Any discussion about having control over the properties he stated in the end of that dissertation that they no longer had control once the total project was developed. So is this a 24 hour a day usage in this area? Which would increase the noise level considerably at night? That is what I wonder about. Johnson: Any questions for Mr. Hanson? Anyone else that would like to come forward at this time? Robert R. Smith, 335 South Locust Grove, Meridian, was sworn by the City Attorney. Smith: Well I would like to bring up several things that wasn't spoken about. During this development, during the total development and as it proceeds we are going to be adversely affected by a lot of dust and noise and pollutants that happen during construction. So we do need a buffer between our property and we are unusual again as Mr. Witherell informed you in the fact that our properties directly adjoin anything that is developed on that property. We have real concerns with the fact that all of our yards Meridian Planning & Zon• • January 14, 1997 Page 16 are, back yards excuse me, adjoin this and where we spend our summers and our time it is going to really affect how we live in our homes now. Most of us are retired. So we spend a lot of time there. We are concerned and hope you will really consider what is going to be developed and how it is going to be developed. Thank you. Johnson: Thank you, any questions? Anyone else? Okay, I would like the applicant's representative to come forward at this time and answer a couple of questions please? I know you have a couple of things to say Gary, but specifically I would like you to address both Mr. Smith's and Ted Hanson's comments if you could and whatever rebuttal you have got at this point. Lee: Mr. Ted Hanson, he mentioned the storm water discharge and approvals from the Corp. of Engineers. As you may or may not know but certainly the property owners know that the storm water discharge or I should say waste water from the irrigation of that property has historically run north. It goes into a drainage that crosses Franklin Road and then goes through a natural drainage way into the Five Mile Creek on the north side of Franklin Road. It has been the policy of Nampa Meridian Irrigation District, the City of Meridian, and ACHD that when we design our storm water facilities with the intention of discharging certain rates of flow that we are allowed to use and take advantage of whatever predevelopment discharge is now occurring. In other words what is going off of there today can continue to go off in the future after development. However there are guidelines that the Highway District and the City and the Corp. of Engineers have for the quality of that water. During our design phase if it turns out that we will be discharging those rates of flow they will be in accordance with current regulations and codes. So to answer his question about the approval from the Corp. of Engineers that is typically is not something that is seeked at this level of the review. It is something that is addressed during final design phases of the first final plat and will be addressed along with other issues. Mr. Smith had discussed the construction process initially which I interpreted to mean the time that is spent to construct water and sewer, pressurized irrigation, utilities and roads for the development. We will be Johnson: I am assuming he was also including construction of the structures too. Lee: Structures too, again there are requirements of the City as placed on us on other developments within the area that addresses things as dust control, which has to be handled during the construction phase. There has to be water trucks available to keep the dust to a minimum. There are trash fences that need to be constructed during the construction phase to contain whatever materials may be blown from the property. So we realize there will be some impacts from noise during construction but no matter what is constructed there, there will be that phase of development. As far as the other comments from Mr. and Mrs. Witherell I certainly am concemed about the health and well being of our neighbors and we will make every effort to prepare our designs and seek the approvals of the regulatory agencies, the Central District Health Department on water and sewer and waste water issues. The City of Meridian Public works Meridian Planning & Zo~g January 14, 1997 Page 17 department on water and sewer, the State of Idaho Department of Environmental Quality. There are a long list of regulatory agencies that we have process our plans and seek approvals and we will do so. The uses, people actually using the lots after they are constructed, they are also required to handle hazardous materials in certain manners. They do have to have permits and I am sure there are enforcement agencies that follow up on those requirements. We don't intend to build anything in there that is not in accordance with currently adopted regulations and standards. Is there any other questions I can address? MacCoy: I would like to jump back in this again and (inaudible) where I face the same thing as some of these people here. When you build your complex there and various companies come to buy in, I guess they buy in don't they? Lee: They will purchase lots. MacCoy: Are you going to have as part of the requirements that after a certain hour of the night whatever that may be there, they are not allowed to have noise above a certain decibel level till a certain time in the morning as a criteria of being involved in that area? Lee: There hasn't been anything identified in the CC&R's that 1 have read at this point. Although something like that could be added if the City so desires. MacCoy: I think for some of these people here that would go probably a long way in helping that out because nobody wants to as you heard here have their life disrupted 24 hours a day if they can get away from it. So I am sure it makes them happier if they can get an assurance that there is a criteria or a ruling or whatever you want to call it in your operation you wouldn't sell to or let in there via a requirement that would control those certain noise levels. Lee: I think that is a good point. Johnson: Any other questions from the Commissioners? Borup: A question on the plat, along the buffer, the buffering strip, you have got a couple of designations for your utility easements on of course outside the strip and then the other mentions the utility/irrigation drainage easement in the strip. Is there a specific utility easement that would be within that 20 foot strip or is that identified at this point? Lee: The original concept there was to accommodate an existing power line and utility line that is there now that serves those homes. Which, based on our survey and it kind meanders in and out of the property line to serve those people. There isn't a specific recorded easement although they obviously have prescriptive rights. The other issue is Meridian Planning & Zon~fig • January 14, 1997 Page 18 the irrigation ditch that we intend to remove and install a pipe to provide water service to each of those users as they have today. The idea then was that we would install that in such a way that they could operate it however they chose to. In other words there could be control valves that they can continue to use in a rotation schedule that they have now and maintain the same delivery. That is why those two easements were mentioned in that buffer. Borup: So those are, the other easement I assume is future easements for the subdivision lots themselves? Lee: On the west side of the buffer? Borup: Yes Lee: Yes Borup: So then at this point the utility easements for the residents along there are not on their properties? Lee: Well the poles themselves kind of meander around and if you were to try to establish a width for whatever easement right, Idaho Power, as an example, it could be on both properties. Borup: I also have a question on the landscaping on that buffer, your drawing of the trees looks like at the rendering stage shows a pretty solid wall. Has the landscaping design been established as far as what size the trees would be or what type of growth schedule they would have? Lee: I don't know that I can answer that question although that drawing and the spacing was established by a licensed landscape architect. I am sure that he had something in mind as far as the size to come up with the spacing that he has determined. Borup: I am assuming that is after partial growth, it is not practical to do that without allowing for (inaudible). Another question on the stages in the application talks about wanting to do two phases in the subdivisions. I assume that is also the request to do the buffering strip in two, the eastern buffering strip in two phases also? Lee: Yes Borup: Do you know if there has been any plot or discussion about doing that all at one stage? Lee: Well it is an expense that from the development stand point is better to do during that phase of construction since there are other up front costs that have to be incurred. Meridian Planning & Zon~g • January 14, 1997 Page 19 So the economics of the development suggest that you do the improvements on a phase basis. Although the irrigation pipe planned along there will need to be installed in its entirety during the first phase to make the system function. Johnson: Thank you, anyone else? Commissioner Oslund? Os{und: Has there been any thought given to possibly a, I don't know what I would call it a compromise position wherein you would designate certain lots for certain uses. In other words the lots that appear that appear most crucial to the neighborhood are all of block 3 it looks like along that eastern edge there. Possibly that the kinds of uses you would designate in those lots would be a little different than maybe some of these interior lots. Was there ever any consideration for doing something like that? Lee: Well initially the discussion was project wide and we are trying to identify a certain market that we believe is there for a certain type of user. We don't want to put ourselves in a position where we are being restrictive in one area of the development and not in another. So to answer your question directly no we didn't really think about trying to further restrict any specific group of lots. Borup: A question related to that, as far as location of buildings, has there been any thought along the same line along that easterly boundary maybe requiring the buildings to be built along the back of the lots. Lee: We kind of approached it from the other direction. That we would try to keep the buildings away from the neighbors. So trying to keep the activity center as far away from them as we could. Borup: I know that has been the thing, I think one of the neighbors mentioned that had some appeal to them rather than the possibility of a storage yard. MacCoy: Along that same line, the buildings that would be right along the back of the residents there you could very easily require those buildings to be, at least the outside section the part that is facing them to be concrete or some type of masonry structure which would give him the best benefit. You would still have your building and they would have a reduced audio problem and I think it would be beneficial for a discussion (inaudible). Oslund: I think I would just like to add one more point that, obviously we are being put in a tough spot here. On your side you want the flexibility to market these lots and not so restricted that they are not marketable. I think most people can understand that. And the other side we have an established neighborhood and this is a little different situation then across the street because across the street there aren't adjacent uses and residential uses immediately adjacent to the development. So I guess the point of my question was looking for a compromise position. Looking for a way to give you Meridian Planning & Zo~g • January 14, 1997 Page 20 flexibility and allow, you have to mitigate. I don't think the position is a big departure from where you are at because they are saying or at least who we think their representative is you may not agree with your representative but he at least said that more of a commercial type use would be acceptable. There are a lot of uses within I-L that are also in commercial. That was the point of my question. Lee: That is something that we can discuss with the developer and see if it is something he can work with. I might point out that in other areas of the state and of course I am familiar with Boise a little more than some areas and Meridian, 1 am fairly familiar with. There is a mile stretch and I am sure you have all traveled on it along Emerald Street between Five Mile and Maple Grove that is all industrial light zone all the way through there. It backs right up to residential on the north side for a full mile without any buffering strips at all. They have managed to in their proceedings to make it compatible and it seems to be vwrking just fine. Oslund: Well we don't do anything like Boise, why would we start now. Johnson: Anything else Gary? Any other comments from the developer or applicant? Do you have one last comment? Smith: 1 would like to address what Mr. Lee said there for just a moment. First of all on the landscaping, if you do that in a park we could have 2 to 3 years difference in your landscape growth. Some of that will be 2 to 3 years ahead of what the other is and secondly the dirt and the movement of that to remove to reinstall it for the finish of it will make that all look and just regenerate another problem which you could take care of all at one time. If you are going to allow the landscaping to take place. Secondly I have retired from Idaho Power Company, 40 years service as a line crew foreman. I was involved in this development that he just addressed, I was shut down by the Police department one night when we had an outage scheduled to redo the power for Sears computer industry that is there because of the noise that it was generating for the night construction that took place with the trucks, the back hoes and everything to redo that. The police came and shut Idaho Power down. We had to take the outage during the day which constituted that Sears had a terrific amount of time factor involved because of all their computers for the whole United States is housed there. So what he says is not necessarily true. There is just a wood fence that borders that and it is a conflict when the time factor or whatever you do generates a lot of construction noise. Well according to Ada County it is not in the agenda to extend or change locust Grove road for at least 20 years. So if in fact it is going to change it could be at any time in that time frame of course but right now with the problems they have got with Eagle Road and extending it and Franklin Road needs to be widened and (Inaudible). I don't look to see Locust Grove change for quite some time in our direct area. Parts of Locust Grove may change but right now where we are I don't think we will be looking at that for a while because there are some streets that seriously need addressed more than that. Meridian Planning i~ Zon~g • January 14, 1997 Page 21 We can't even now get on Franklin Road off Locust Grove at 8:00 in the morning, we can't get across Franklin Road. So there has to be other changes. Thank you. Johnson: Anyone else before I close the public hearing? Seeing no one then I will close the public hearing at this time. This is a public hearing for annexation and zoning, it would require findings of fact and conclusions of law. MacCoy: Mr. Chairman, I move that we have the attorney prepare findings of fact and conclusions of law for this project. Oslund: Second Johnson: We have a motion to have the City Attorney prepare findings of fact and conclusions of law, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Crookston: Mr. Chairman, could I have John Fitzgerald step into this shoe? If you don't mind I will depart. Johnson: Okay, see you Wayne, hope you feel better. Borup: Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to add something on a lighter note. I was interested in the school district's comments that this subdivision will add 9 school children and cause overcrowding of the schools. I didn't know if the developer addressed that. ITEM #3: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR MEDIMONT SUBDIVISION, 18 LOTS, SOUTH OF FRANKLIN ROAD, WEST OF LOCUST GROVE ROAD BY PROPERTIES WEST, INC.: Johnson: We will automatically incorporate all of your testimony unless you have an objection to that. I will now open the public hearing. Gary Lee, 250 S. Beechwood, Boise, was sworn by the Ciry Attorney. Lee: I would like to reiterate what I said before. If there are any further questions about the preliminary plat I would be glad to answer them at this point or the conceptual engineering plan. I think we have adequately addressed all of the City staffs concerns. Oslund: I have a question that may not be directly related, but maybe left over from before, Mr. Chairman. The only one was, in the CC&R's is there anything in there about the hours of operation? Meridian Planning & ZorT~ng • January 14, 1997 Page 22 Lee: Not at this point, but there could be. I just wanted to mention too that we received ACHD's final comments today, I don't know if the City staff has them yet or not. But there were some site specific requirements that they made and we have addressed on this revised submittal and incorporated with what Gary and Shari had mentioned. Basically what they were looking at is providing a tum lane into the project off Franklin Road a decel lane and acceleration lane going out with a painted median. There is some stacking from the east going into the project and then there is a tum lane from the west which we have incorporated. They have made some suggestions about the right of way widths and again in these commercial collector roads they are wanting 58 feet now instead of 60 like they always had before. There was an issue about the access point to the Tamura property that was recently approved. We have been talking with Doug Tamura and he has verbally told us that he can rework his plan somewhat from one of his driveways it wasn't a street access but it was a driveway. So we can meet that minimum setback requirement that AGHD has along Franklin so that will be provided. That is just a little update on some of their comments. Johnson: Is there any reference in the ACHD study comments draft to a traffic study? Lee: No, there is no requirement, they did a brief analysis themselves based on the use and concluded that there wouldn't be one required. Johnson: Any questions of Mr. Lee? Mr. Oslund Oslund: Mr. Chairman, in the staff comments there was one comment related to, maybe it was in your response. The issue being ACHD is requiring that you submit money in a trust fund for your frontage improvements. I think the City, one of the City comments was that you do sidewalk, has that issue been resolved? Lee: I don't know if it has been resolved. It is not too uncommon to go ahead and put the sidewalk in at this point as long as we can set it back far enough from the plan widening of Franklin Road so it can be reused at a future date. The only comment I made about that was we would be glad to put the sidewalk in rather than pay a road trust fee to the Highway District as long as we don't have to do both. We would rather have the sidewalk too. It makes it a much nicer finished look. Borup: That was the same question I had, the road trust fee is strictly for a sidewalk? Lee: Yes, all of the improvements on Franklin Road will be done by impact fees generally. Borup: Well that seems reasonable not to pay for it twice. Johnson: Thank you Gary. This is a public hearing, anyone else like to address the Commission at this time? Did you have a comment Mr. Fitzgerald? Meridian Planning & Zon~g • January 14, 1997 Page 23 Fitzgerald: No comment Johnson: I will close the public hearing at this time. Oslund: Mr. Chairman, I move that we table this item pending the results of the findings of fact. MacCoy: Second Johnson: Motion is made with a second that we table the public hearing on the preliminary plat until the findings of fact and conclusions of law are approved or formulated, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea FIVE MINUTE BREAK ITEM #6: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PRIVATE TAEKWONDO SCHOOL AT 706 EAST FIRST STREET BY JOHN AND BECKY SCHIEBOUT: Johnson: 1 will now open the public hearing and invite the applicant or representative of the applicant to address the Commission and tell us what you are planning on doing. Becky Schiebout, 70 Southwest 7`h, Meridian, was sworn by the City Attorney. Schiebout: I don't know where you guys got the word private, we are sole proprietors, I don't know why it says private. Johnson: Well that makes it private, it is not public. Schiebout: We teach self defense and it would be the old Idaho Tent and Canvas building. We are going to open March 1~` hopefully if everything goes okay and it will just be a karate school. Johnson: I am sure that the commissioners have some questions. If not I will start while you guys think about it. Have you set your operation hours yet, what would you think your prescribed hours of operation would be? Schiebout: Nine a. m. to nine p. m. Johnson: I am assuming what you would do is different age groups, is that true? Meridian Planning & Zon~g • January 14, 1997 Page 24 Schiebout: Yes Johnson: How many days a week? Schiebout: Monday through Saturday. Johnson: In your location there, I assume you are leasing the space is that correct? Schiebout: Yes Johnson: There is no parking that comes with that, is there just public street parking or is there additional parking I don't know about? Schiebout: Behind where Modern Printers is and then of course the building where we are going to be which used to be Idaho Tent and Canvas and then Harry's Bar and Grill there is a lot back there that I guess Delores Bisby owns the half of it and that would be private parking for Karate for Kids customers and clients only. Johnson: So that will be posted accordingly? Schiebout: Yes Johnson About how many spaces or cars would that accommodate back there? Schiebout: I can't say for sure, I would imagine 8 at least 8 to 10 probably. Johnson: What is the square footage there, 1 don't recall, do you remember what the square footage is? Schiebout: Of the building, approximately, it is at least 2,000 square foot, anywhere from 2,000 to 3,000 square feet. Johnson: Is that one level or is there a basement? Schiebout: There is a basement. Johnson: The recent remodel is that mostly cosmetic or was there anything done with heating and air conditioning and that sort of thing? Schiebout: From what I understand the entire thing, heating, air conditioning, electrical, everything has been redone, the windows, glass, as far as 1 know. Paving behind the back door because the water was leaking into the basement. Johnson: Is that completed, the remodel? Meridian Planning & Zon• • January 14, 1997 Page 25 Schiebout: The remodel is in the process of completion right now. It should be done by the beginning of February. Johnson: Has there been an occupancy permit issued to you knowledge? Schiebout: As far as I know yes. Johnson: Okay, by now I am sure the other commissioners have questions. Commissioner Oslund? Oslund: Wetl after studying the application thoroughly, it looks like a good use. What happened to the tent and canvas place? Schiebout: It is on Bower Street as far as I know. Berg: Right now they are in a temporary trailer but they are building a new building. Their lease ran out of that building and they moved. Johnson: Anyone else? Borup: Mr. Chairman, question on parking, your application says you are planning on paving that in the spring is that correct? Schiebout: The owner of the old Idaho Tent and Canvas at 706 East First, she is going to pave it as far as I know. Borup: Then related to that the ordinance does call for minimal landscaping on pavement. Shari mentioned the only room available for that is in the parking lot behind the building. Is there a logical place back there for some type of landscaping are you familiar with that? Schiebout: I would not be the one to ask. Borup: That is an aspect I think is well to have. My question is, is it practical in this situation? Is it aesthetically noticeable. I can't tell by the drawings, would Shari maybe be able to answer that. Stiles: It probably (End of Tape) across the back if it didn't impact the parking area available. Borup: That is fairly visible from the side street too isn't it? Stiles: Yes Meridian Planning & Zo~g • January 14, 1997 Page 26 Borup: That is all I had. Johnson: Commissioner MacCoy. MacCoy: Yes sir, you are leasing that place you say? Schiebout: Yes MacCoy: I am really pleased to see that they cleaned that up (inaudible). I was also, when I read through the material here (inaudible) as indicated by I guess you people to or staff that you are making it available to the handicapped by having, by meeting all of the requirements of the ADA, parking, I guess you will have to put the ramps in with the hand rails in and so on. Schiebout: Myself and my husband in particular put that in, the building will have to be accessible, I understand that. That should be something that maybe Mrs. Lisby knows about, she is in charge. Oslund: You are just the lessee? Schiebout: Right, I don't think that is our responsibility. Iknow the rest rooms are wheel chair accessible. As far as a wheel chair getting in and out of the door I am not aware of that. MacCoy: Well it would have to be for the ADA requirements. That brings up, 1 am just curious the standpoint that in your teachings you are going to be advertising to take handicapped as well? Schiebout: I don't see why there would be any reason we shouldn't. MacCoy: What about signage in your pface? Schiebout: The front has been redone and we had a space for a sign that will be lighted and it will be right on the front. MacCoy: It will face the building, and it won't have any blinking lights and all of these jazz things (inaudible). Schiebout: No, just something to catch the eye of the people driving by kind of sort of. MacCoy: So you are hopefully going to work toward a very pleasing type of sign. Schiebout: You bet. Meridian Planning & Zonlfig • January 14, 1997 Page 27 MacCoy: I guess that is it. Johnson: Thank you, any other questions of the Applicant? Oslund: Can I ask a question of staff? Before I digress and talk to staff, I was just thinking it was kind of funny about the flashing lights and the noise because you are right next to the Frontier Club so you are going to have to work pretty hard. But the question for staff, do we have any special or do we have any reduced requirements for parking in the down town district. Do we require the same of a down town applicant as any other applicant? Stiles: Recent applications in the down town area have required the applicant's to get a variance if they did not meet the parking requirements. Oslund: So there is nothing specifically in the ordinance, they would have to go through the variance just like anybody else. Stiles: Right Oslund: And their application, does it meet the parking requirements? Stiles: I don't know how many students they would have. It is not based on the square footage, it would be based on the number of students they have. One for every ten. Schiebout: One thing concerning that, we have a class, we have scheduled classes, and so maybe we have. Right now we have approximately 120 students, but they are not all there at one particu-ar time. There are 40 minute classes and they are one right after each other so people would be coming and leaving and so you won't need parking spaces for 120 people or whatever. A lot of our, out of the 120 students that we have, a lot of them are siblings. They car pool, we pick kids up from school too help with the parking with that matter. Oslund: Do you have a, correct me if I am wrong Shari, but it looks like if that is the case with the parking then she is going to need to give us an estimate of the number of students she expects in one shift or one class. Somewhere along the line we are going to have to pin down the number of how many spaces are required, is that right. Borup: You said the requirement is one for every ten? Stiles: I believe the requirement is for a private school 1 for every ten. Borup: And 120 feet of the building that is what is available for parking spaces? Meridian Planning & Zo~g • January 14, 1997 Page 28 Stiles: That is what the applicant has indicated. Borup: That would be 13 spaces, which would be 130 students at one time. Oslund: Is that parking space parallel or perpendicular. That is an alley, in the back do the cars park length wise? (Inaudible) Oslund: That is alley is 60 feet? Borup: Looks like the parking requirement was 25 feet for backing around and 19 feet for the parking space. Which would be 44 and there is 60 feet there. They should be able to do straight in parking which would allow for 13 spaces. Johnson: And that is old math right? Borup: Yes, and there is 3 feet left over for bicycles. Johnson: Mr. Fitzgerald, it looked like you had a comment or question. Fitzgerald: Yes I had a couple just for the record. You said that you were planning to be open Monday through Saturday, is that 9 a.m. to 9 p.m.? Schiebout: Yes Fitzgerald: On each of those days? Schiebout: Our busiest times where there is the most traffic flow as far as children and parents, vehicles, would be from right after school which would be 3:45 until 7:30 at night. We are open in the morning at 9, we do have morning classes that are available but it is kind of like our down time. Especially from 1:00 to 3:00 or to 3:45 basically. So it is quieter those times of day. We are there, there is someone in the office there from 9 a.m. to 9 p.m. Monday through Saturday. Johnson: Thank you John, anyone else? Thank you, anyone else here to testify on this application? Apparently not, any other comments or questions? If not I will close the public hearing at this time. I request in your motion that you ask the City Attorney to have these findings of fact prepared no later than February 2"d so they can be presented to the City intact with their hearing on it on February 4`", does that makes sense Shari so that we could maybe save time for the people here? Stiles: That would be nice if we could do that for the next two applications? Meridian Planning & Zo~g • January 14, 1997 Page 29 Johnson: This one and number 7 that would speed the process up a couple of weeks. Stiles: The second is a Sunday but even if they were ready by, we have to have the agenda for the City Council, it would need to be Johnson: (Inaudible) Stiles: The agenda has to be prepared by Thursday? Johnson: The findings of fact would have to be ready by January 29, that is probably doable, we have two attorneys now right? Fitzgerald: We can get it done. Johnson: I would think so because these are not going to be complicated findings of fact. Stiles: It would save them two weeks. Johnson: If you could do that it would save you two weeks getting the approvals assuming everything else is a slam dunk Oslund: Well heck we are meeting Thursday, let's get them done for Thursday. Johnson: So I am ready to take a motion. MacCoy: Mr. Chairman, I move we have the attorney prepare findings of fact and conclusions of law for this project. Oslund: Second Johnson: Moved ad seconded we have the City Attorney prepare findings of fact and conclusions of law on the application for John and Becky Schiebout, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Johnson: When those are done then you will have access those and through the City, Mr. Berg can get you a copy. ITEM #7: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A CRAFT STORE W/ESPRESSO SHOP, SOUTHWEST CORNER OF CARLTON AND SECOND STREET (141 E. CARLTON) BY LISA & CLIFF SEXTON AND KRIS & STEWART HASKELL: Meridian Planning & Zo~g • January 14, 1997 Page 30 Johnson: I will now open this public hearing and invite the applicant or the representative of the applicants to come forward and address the Commission. Stewart Haskell, 2155 North 24`", Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Haskell: Basically I am in the same boat as she was, unprepared. Johnson: If you just briefly tell us what you have in mind and then we will ask you questions. Haskell: What we have planned for is this house we bought and we are going to, it originally was flower shop I guess there. She went out of business so we bought it and we are going to turn it into a craft store. Well I guess the conditional use permit would allow that just for a lateral transfer but when we decided to add the espresso shop we have to come back through this and that is why we are here. It is mostly for the espresso shop. So that is, it is going to be a craft store with an espresso shop on the side. Johnson: Well we can probably handle the rest of it with questions if that is your presentation. Whoever wants to ask the first question (inaudible). Borup: Mr. Chairman, the only thing I have questions on is ACRD comments. MacCoy: What kind of signage do you plan to have at your place? Haskell: Well there is already an existing sign there and all we are going to do is put new plastic in which is our logo Crafts by Nature and probably a neon espresso sign in one window and an open and closed sign basically is it. MacCoy: In the window, not out on the street side? Haskell: No, we won't make any other sign other than what is already there. MacCoy: No blinking lights or anything Tike that? Haskell: No blinking lights or flashy jazzy stuff. MacCoy: On the handicapped, what is your plan there? Haskell: On the east side eventually we would like to build a ramp coming up into the shop area. MacCoy: You say eventually, when is that? Meridian Planning & Zonlfig • January 14, 1997 Page 31 Johnson: Is that like when we require it? Haskell: Okay Johnson: Is that what you mean? I am just asking where you are coming from on that, because that is a good question. Haskell: If it is a requirement then I guess we will have to do before we can open. Otherwise we are going to put it off until we can afford we can do this. MacCoy: I suggest that you might want to think about that (inaudible) because it is a requirement. We are governed by the Americans with Disabilities Act, it is a Federal taw, it is also good for your business too as well. So you get a benefit from that. This tree they talk about, where are you going put this tree, is that going to be out on the lawn or the (inaudible). Haskell: I am not familiar with the tree? Borup: Mr. Chairman, did you receive a copy of Shari's comments, Shari Stile's comments? Haskell: I received this packet, which one is she under? Johnson: This letter is dated January 10, do you have that letter? Haskell: (Inaudible) I don't see one in here. MacCoy: Our staff reviews this and then gives us a base line to go with here. Johnson: You can have my copy there, and then you can get an original if you want. MacCoy; Okay, look at item 3 on that, on the first page there, since you haven't (inaudible). I did have a question on your lighting, what were you planning on your lighting your parking or lighting what? See we would require the fact that if you do have lighting that it doesn't form a glare and create a problem. Haskell: Okay, basically the lighting is just, there is a street lamp there on the corner and the lighting would just be exterior lights on the house like porch tights. MacCoy: So it would be pretty well what you have already then you are talking about. Haskell: Maybe we were going to go with a little bit larger flood light type thing but as far as, we wouldn't point them into the street. They would be more for security around Meridian Planning & Zo~g • January 14, 1997 Page 32 the, it is kind of an out of the way area there, dark. Especially with that old school across the street and the kids and vandalism and stuff we just like to keep it lighted as much as possible. MacCoy: Keep in mind if you do put up lights that glare is a real item of issue here with us. Johnson: Anyone else have questions of the applicant at this time? Borup: Maybe not the applicant, I am still confused on ACHD's comments. Johnson: Would you like clarification as best we can get it from staff? Borup: Yes I would. Johnson: Bearing in mind they did not write these. Borup: I realize that, at one point they say that it conforms to their standards and this item will not be heard. At one point they say everything is okay. And then they give a list of recommendations. Are they saying they everything meets their standards, but that is not what that says. Am I reading that wrong then? Johnson: The second paragraph under B? Borup: Yes, well both paragraphs. One says that it conforms and then it says in the second paragraph the item will not be heard. Stiles: I believe what they are referring to are the accesses that would come off the street and there is no right of way dedication that they need. The site plan itself is not any problem with them, that is why it is a staff level approval. But when Bill Brewer came through with his conditional use permit these same conditions were a part of that application but the improvements were never constructed. MacCoy: Does it put it in your hands to govern the site specific requirements then? Stiles: No MacCoy: I agree with Keith, if you read this it gives you the impression that it is all okay and the next thing you know you have yourself thinking which hand am 1 talking about. They talk about curb and gutter and gravel and driveways and quite a bit of things. Oslund: Have you revievwed the ACHD comments? Meridian Planning & Zorlfng • January 14, 1997 Page 33 Haskell: We went down, we had to go to ACHD and they gave us this particular, whatever you want to call it here. But it was a total shocker to me too, I was not even expecting as far as the curbs and gutters and when she started going off about that I was like °oh man'. We were not even, as far as our curbs and gutters, 1 don't know if you are familiar with that street but they are not nearly has bad as some of the other businesses that are right there in the area. So that is why we couldn't figure out is why they are going to make us replace curbs and gutters when ours aren't nearly as bad as some of the other places that are right on that little corner there. MacCoy: Well the same thing came up during the flower shop. Haskell: Right, I talked to Mr. Brewer about that and he basically, it just seemed to, we are basically in the same boat. Depending on how our business goes we may or may not want to add a parking lot onto our back area. So we would like to request that the curb and gutters be delayed for one to two years so we can determine how busy out place is going to be, then we can determine where to put the cuts into the streets after we decide to go with parking on the lot itself. MacCoy: And meanwhile Mr. Brewer has given you, 1 read someplace in here, his permission. Haskell: Yes he did, Mr. Brewer did give us permission to use the back part of his mortuary as overtlow parking for our business. Oslund: I have a question for staff, what is the, procedurally what are we talking about here, this is not a preliminary plat and there is not plat approval on ACHD's part. If we choose to look at this comments as somewhat vague and confusing and just go off in my opinion the right is just to approve this. The change in use is virtually nothing, it is good for downtown. We are talking about some minor things here. Is there another approval process that ACHD is involved in on this particular application? Stiles: Ada County Highway District does sign off on all occupancies now. Haskell: She told us when we were down there that, we were like I said dumbfounded by the whole thing. She said just remember that these are recommendations. Borup: That is what I was going to mention here that is what they say they are just provided recommendations for the City. To me that is saying the City can require it or not depending on (inaudible) Oslund: Okay, then we are done then. Johnson: I don't think it is particularly unusual for the Ada County Highway District's comments to be ignored. Because you can never go back to them and say well you Meridian Planning & Zorlrng • January 14, 1997 Page 34 didn't tell us to because they have told you everything that you need to do. But the practical matter is that I don't think something like this v~ are going to keep an operation from opening its doors because of ACHD's requirements that they don't see important enough to even go beyond staff level approvals. Oslund: The only one that possibly does is that corner (inaudible). Haskell: Now that is something that we had also discussed between the four of us is that it comes right down to it where we can open we will be more than happy to do the corner portion of the sidewalk where the pedestrian ramp comes up and we can just delay doing the curb and gutter until we can figure out exactly how busy we are going to be and get some more money. This is our savings right here. Oslund: You understand that you have to hire somebody to do that work that is bonded. Haskell: Right Oslund: If that ramp is not there is still decent access, are you planing to provide handicapped access for your customers, that would be my (inaudible). Haskell: We have talked about it and we are going to put a ramp onto one of the doors. There are two entrances. Oslund: Would there be a way to get from that ramp to a parking space that somebody would conceivably use for (inaudible). Haskell: The existing cut out that goes into the drive way now I suppose a wheel chaired individual could come up that way onto the sidewalk. But as far as the actual curb on the street no, just the cut out that is there right now for the actual, which is what we use as our drive way and loading area. MacCoy: Well at least they have away to get into it and park. Johnson: Any other questions? Borup: I think the applicant is probably aware then at the time of putting in paved parking you probably need to be prepared for a lot of this ACHD stuff it looks like. Haskell: Right Johnson: Anyone else that would like to address the Commission on this application? Any further comments or discussion? If not I will close the public hearing at this time. Meridian Planning & Zo~g • January 14, 1997 Page 35 Oslund: Mr. Chairman, I move that we direct the Counsel to prepare findings of fact and conclusions of law. MacCoy: Second Johnson: We have a motion and a second to have the City Attorney to prepare findings of fact and conclusions of law, all those in favor/ Opposed? Motion carried: All Yea Johnson: Any additional motions. Oslund: I move we adjourn. MacCoy: Second Johnson: I have a motion and a second to adjourn, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All yea MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:10 P.M. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) APPROVED: ~ 2_n-9~ M J ,CHAIRMAN ATTEST: `````````,~y ,~~~~~~~~,,,,~~~~~'`''''^ ~,,~ WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., L `K $~L c "~~~ yp' "~r ~~ ~~~ `ter iy~~/hMm ru~~p~~~p MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AGENDA TUESDAY, JANUARY 14, 1997 - 7:00 P.M. C TY CO~~1Itt~~CIL CHAMBERS Cr~J~,~.tz~h~~; o~ Ce2fih2~ ¢v ~ J"~u°a~ MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING HELD DECEMBER 10, 1996: q~i~rr~v~ 1. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A GROUP DAY CARE FOR 12 CHILDREN BY PATRICIA REED: ~~~Jro ve {'~~ ~ ,er'~ Ci-~nPrv/z ~ecoH+~tr+otafitrr.~ fv L'lC~ 2. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING TO i-L, SOUTH OF FRANKLIN ROAD, WEST OF LOCUST GROVE ROAD BY PROPERTIES WEST, INC.: 3. PUBLIC HEARI G: REQU ST F R A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR MEDIMONT SUBDIVISION,18 LOTS, SOUTH OF FRANKLIN ROAD, WEST OF LOCUST GROVE ROAD BY PROPERTIES WEST, INC.: 4. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A REZONE OF 8.38 AC ES FROM R-4 TO I-L, Y. MILE EAST OF TEN MILE, NORTH SIDE OF CHERRY LANE, BY PRESTIGE CARE: Gee/a ~L u~-~~ ~c ~. ll'-` /'h-f~- ~e - ~o 1~2.ei ` fh.z ~aiY-.e d. 5. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A 44 UNIT ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY WITH A 18 UNIT ALZHEIMER WING, 10 GARDEN APARTMENTS, AND A TWO STORY, 108 SUITE RETIREMENT COMPLEX, '/+ MILE EAST OF TEN MILE, NORTH SIDE OF CHERRY LANE BY PRESTIGE CARE: ~Ce%t L cc,H.til Feb. ~l/-` fez ~'e-`ioliLe~ Ve~aiYed~ 6. PUBLIC HEARIN~REQUEST FOR A CONDITONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PRIVATE TAEKWONDO SCHOOL AT 706 EAST FIRST STREET, BY JOHN AND BECKY SCHIEBOUT: 7. PUBLIC HEARING: REQ~ FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A CRAFT STORE W/ESPRESSO SHOP, SOUTHWEST CORNER OF CARLTON AND SECOND STREET (141 E. CARLTON) BY USA ~ CLIFF SEXTON AND KRIS 8 STEWART H SKELL: G'/~~ CZ ~~v~.rr~~ fn ~-~e~oa~.e ~l ~ ~C~L CITY OF MERIDIA ~~p PUBL~C MEETING SIGN- SET JAN 1 41991 CITY OF MERIDIAN CITY OF MERIDIA PUB>~C MEETING SIGN- HEET RECEIVED JAN 1 41957 CITY OF MERIDIAN ~~~537~ ~ ~ ORsGIi~iAL BEFORE THE MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PATRICIA REED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR GROUP DAY CARE 2167 JERICHO WAY MERIDIAN, IDAHO FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The above entitled matter having come on for public hearing December 10, 1996, at the hour of 7:30 o'clock p.m., the Petitioner, Patricia Reed, appearing in person, the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Meridian having duly considered the evidence and the matter makes the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. 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 December 10, 1996, the first publication of which was fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing; that the matter was duly considered at the December 10, 1996 hearing; that the public was given full opportunity to express comments and submit evidence; and that copies of all notices were available to newspaper, radio and television stations. 2. This property is located within the City of Meridian and the Applicant is the owner of the property; that the property is currently zoned R-8 Residential; that in the ZONING SCHEDULE OF USE CONTROL, Section 11-2-409 A., Residential, Group Child Care Home is FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 1. REED listed as a conditional use in the R-8 District and, therefore, in the R-8 District a conditional use permit for the operation of a Group Child Care Home is required. 3. The R-8, Residential District is described in the Zoning Ordinance, 11-2-408 B. 4 as follows: (R-8) Medium Density Residential District: The purpose of the (R-8) Districts is to permit the establishment of single and two (2) family dwellings at a density not exceeding eight (8) dwelling units per acre. This district delineates those areas where such development has or is likely to occur in accord with the Comprehensive Plan of the City and is also designed to permit the conversion of large homes into two (2) family dwellings in well-established neighborhoods of comparable land use. Connection to the Municipal Water and Sewer systems of the City of Meridian is required. 4. Conditional Use Permit is defined in the Zoning Ordinance as follows: "Permits allowing an exception to the uses authorized by this Ordinance in a zoning district." 5. The property is located at MERIDIAN PLACE SUBDIVISION NO. 1, Block 5, Lot 4, within a R-B single-family residential subdivision. 6. The intention of the Applicant is to operate a day care for children not to exceed twelve (12) children. 7. The Applicant testified that she presently has a day care for five (5) children; that the operation of the day care is her livelihood and she needs to expand her existing day care to support her family; that she has a large home and backyard which will be adequate for the day care; that she has her day care license and a Certificate of Occupancy. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 2. REED 8. The Assistant to the City Engineer, Bruce Freckleton, submitted comments which are incorporated herein as if set forth in full; that off-street parking shall be provided in accordance with Section 11-2-414 of the City of Meridian Zoning and Development Ordinance; that outside lighting shall be designed and placed so as not to direct illumination on any nearby residential areas and in accordance with City Ordinance Section 11-2-414 D. 3.; that all signs shall be in accordance with the standards set forth in 2-415 of the City of Meridian Zoning and Development Ordinance; and that sanitary sewer and water to the facility would be through existing service lines; that assessments for sewer and water service will be reviewed to determine whether additional load justifies an adjustment to the assessments; and that the Applicant will be required to enter into an Assessment Agreement with the City of Meridian. 9. The Planning and Zoning Administrator, Shari Stiles, submitted comments which are incorporated herein as if set forth in full; that the Applicant will provide a copy of the daycare license from the Idaho Department of Health & Welfare; that the operators' licenses shall be available on the premises for inspection at all times; that Applicant shall provide the Social Security Numbers of the operators of the facility; that the Applicant is to obtain a Certificate of Occupancy prior to operation of the group day care home; that the Applicant shall screen adjacent residential properties through landscaping and fencing; that no unpaved areas shall be used for parking; that the Conditional Use Permit issued FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 3. REED pursuant to this application shall be subject to annual review; that any proposed signage shall be subject to plan review; that maximum number of children at the group day care home throughout a day shall be twelve (12); and that the proposed group day care home is two houses away from Jerry Cobler's day care center, All About Kids, which was approved in 1996. 10. Meridian City Police Department, Meridian Fire Department, Central District Health Department and Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District submitted comments, which respective comments are hereby incorporated herein as if set forth in full. 11. There was comment and discussion between Commissioner Borup, Chairman Johnson, Commissioner Shearer and the Applicant pertaining to the submitted comments of Central District Health Department, what Central District Health Department requires for approval of the application, and the satisfaction of such requirements prior to complete approval of the application. 12. There was comment and discussion between Commissioner Oslund and the Applicant concerning the prior day care application of Jerry Cobler, and the Applicant's expressed concern about the inconsistency concerning the height requirements of the fencing for Jerry Cobler's day care and the height requirements of the fencing previously imposed upon the Applicant. 13. The Applicant testified that no canals or ditches existed around her property and that she does not have a swimming pool on her property. 14. There was no further testimony given at the hearing. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 4. REED CONCLUSIONS OF LAW i~ 1. 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. 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. 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 of Idaho. 4. 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 is maintained properly, and on-site or off-site facilities may be attached to the 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. 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 set time period for which a Conditional Use may be in existence. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 5. REED 6. 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, Zdaho 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. 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 upon a review of those requirements and a review of the facts presented 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, would in fact, constitute a conditional use and a conditional use permit would be required by ordinance; b. The use would be harmonious with and in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan but the Zoning Ordinance requires a conditional use permit to allow the use; c. The use is 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 should be operated and maintained to be harmonious with the intended character of the general vicinity and should 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; that traffic will increase, but due to the drop-off and pick-up being off of the street it should not be a problem; FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 6. REED e. The property has sewer and water service already connected, but Applicant may have to pay additional fees for the use; 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; g. If the conditions involve a use, activity, conditions of operation person, property or the excessive production of glare or odors; are met, the use should not process, material, equipment or that would be detrimental to general welfare by reason of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, h. Sufficient parking for the proposed use will be required to meet the requirements of the City ordinance; and i. The development and uses will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural or scenic feature of major importance. 6. 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 the following conditions of granting the conditional use be required, to wit: a. The children, if outside, shall be maintained in the fenced area, as required below; b. There shall be fencing, gates and locks for the outside play area such that no children can leave the property without an adult unlocking and opening the gate to let the child or children out of the play area; no children shall be allowed outside of the play area or the home without an adult being present; the fence shall be maintained in god repair and the children, when outside, shall stay in the fenced area and the children shall not be allowed outside of the fenced area or the home, except for drop-off and pick-up times, but an adult shall be with them at all times if the child or children are waiting to be picked up; c. The Applicant shall meet the state of Idaho requirements for staff to children ratio; FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 7. REED • ! d. The Central District Health Department and the state of Idaho Department of Health and Welfare have requirements for day cares and the Applicant shall meet those requirements of the Central District Health Department and the state of Idaho Department of Health and Welfare; e. The conditional use, pursuant to the Zoning Ordinance, shall not be transferable to another owner of the property or to another property; f. The Applicant shall meet the requirements of the City Engineer's office, the Planning and Zoning Administrator, and other governmental agencies submitting comments, which comments specifically include: 1. Off-street parking shall be provided in accordance with Section 11-2-414 of the City of Meridian Zoning and Development Ordinance; 2. Outside lighting shall be designed and placed so as not to direct illumination on any nearby residential areas and in accordance with City Ordinance Section 11-2-414 D. 3.; All signs shall be in accordance with the standards set forth in 2-415 of the City of Meridian Zoning and Development Ordinance; 4. The Applicant shall enter into an Assessment Agreement with the City of Meridian and assessments for sewer and water service will be reviewed to determine whether additional load justifies an adjustment to the assessments; 5. The Applicant shall hold, maintain a daycare license from the state of Idaho and provide a copy thereof to the City of Meridian; 6. The operators' licenses shall be available on the premises for inspection at all times; 7. The Applicant shall provide the Social Security Numbers of the operators of the facility; 8. The Applicant shall obtain a Certificate of Occupancy from the City of Meridian prior to commencing operation of the group day care home; 9. The Applicant shall screen adjacent residential properties through landscaping and fencing; FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 8. REED 10. No unpaved areas shall be used for parking; and 11. Any proposed signage shall be subject to plan review. g. The conditional use should not be restricted to a period of authorization but may be reviewed annually, upon notice to the Applicant, for violation of any conditions imposed herein and in other day care conditional uses and other conditional use applications. 9. There shall be no more than twelve (12) children cared for at the home throughout the day. This number of children shall be arrived at from the total number of children at the facility during a day, and not the number of children at the facility at one time. 10. The above-conditions are concluded to be reasonable and the Applicant shall meet these conditions. 11. It is recommended that if the Applicant meets the conditions stated above that the conditional use permit be granted to the Applicant. APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND OF LAW The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts and approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONER BORUP COMMISSIONER OSLUND COMMISSIONER SHEARER COMMISSIONER MACCOY CHAIRMAN JOHNSON (TIE BREAKER) ~_ VOTED VOTED it ~/~r ~~- L VOTED G / (Uh VOTED ~'/~ ~~,,./ fJ~"~- VOTED ° I (- l~9 ~ FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 9. REED DECISION AND The Meridian Planning and Zoninq 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 conditions set forth in the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law or similar conditions as found justified and appropriate by the City Council and that the property be required to meet the water and sewer requirements, the fire and life safety codes, Uniform Fire Code and other Ordinances of the City of Meridian. The conditional use should be subject to review upon notice to the Applicant by the City. MOTION: APPROVED !', ~' DISAPPROVED: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 10. REED