The URL can be used to link to this page

1997 01-16 MERIDIAN PLANNING 8 ZONING COMMISSION AGENDA THURSDAY, JANUARY 16, 1997 - 7:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR SPARKLING SPRINGS SUBDMSION, 43 LOTS, WEST OF MERIDIAN ROAD, %. MILE SOUTH OF USTICK ROAD, BY JIM CARRIE HOMES: (TABLED UNTIL MARCH 11, 1997) 2. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING TO I-L, NORTH OF FRANKLIN ROAD, WEST OF EAGLE ROAD BY MICHAEL AND MICHELLE MURSAKO: (CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW) 3. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A CHILD CARE CENTER FOR 12+ CHILDREN AT 1302 EAST FIRST STREET BY RAYMOND CHACE: (CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW) 4. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FORA 2,800 SQUARE FOOT RESTAURANT WITH A DRIVE THRU WINDOW, 2 "/ STREET AND FAIRVIEW AVENUE, BY JACK IN THE BOX: (CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW) 5. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR BUILDING EXPANSION AT MERIDIAN AUTOMOTIVE AND MACHINE, 505 EAST FIRST STREET, BY JOHN NESMITH: (CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW) 6. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR MODULAR BUILDINGS, 1830 NORTW CINDER ROAD, BY MERIDIAN ASSEMBLY OF GOD: (CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW) MERIDIAN PLANNING &ZONING COMMISSION AGENDA THURSDAY, JANUARY 16, 1997 - 7:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 1. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR SPARKLING SPRINGS SUBDNISION, 43 LOTS, WEST OF MERIDIAN ROAD, '/. MILE SOUTH OF USTICK ROAD, BY JIM C_ ARRIE HOMES: ~tabl~ wn,~i2 f1a~c-zch //~ /qq~ ~ . 2. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND~ONING TO 1-L, NORTH OF FRANKLIN ROAD, WEST OF EAGLE ROAD BY MICHAEL AND MICHELLE MURSAKO: C~ ~tf~ney tv prePas-P ~~f ¢ C/~ 3. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A CHILD CARE CENTER FOR 12+ CHILDREN AT 1302 EAST FIRST STREET BY RAYMOND CHACE: c:i atf l~p~:~~ tlF ~~/~ 4. PUBLIC HEART G: REQU~ST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FORA 2,800 SQUARE FOOT RESTAURANT WITH A DRIVE THRU WINDOW, 2'r4 STREET AND FAIRVIEW AVENUE, B J CK IN THE BOX: 5. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR BUILDING EXPANSION AT MERIDIAN AUTOMOTIVE AND MACHINE, 505 EAST FIRST STREET, BY JOHN NESMITH: ~~~hj affvznef4 ~ fe u~-e ~~~~ C/C 6. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FUR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR MODULAR BUILDINGS, 1830 NORTH CINDER ROAD, BY MERIDIAN ASSEMBLY OF GOD: C~l~~ a t/~vh~y ~a ~-~eP~.c ~/~ ~ c%„ WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., City Clerk JANICE L OASS, Clly Treasurer GARY D. SMfTH, P.E.. Cly Erghner BRUCE D. STUART, Water Wolin Supt JOHN T. SHAWCROFT, Waste Water Supt DENNIS J. SUMMERS, Parke Supt. SHARI L STILES, P b Z Administrator PATTY A. WOLFKII:L, DMV SupeMSOr KENNETH W. ~WPAS, F7ra Chief W.L "BILL' GOROON, PoAce CMeI WAYNE G. CROOKSTON, JR., Aaomey • xue of zn~sunE vAUEr • A Good Place to Live CITY OF MERIDIAN 33 EAST IDAHO MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 (208) 8884433 • Fd%(208) 8874813 Public Wodcs/BaOdiag Deprbvent (208) 887.2211 Motor VehiclelDriven license (208) 688-4443 ROBERTD CORRIE Maya NOTICE OF SPECIAL MEETING cetr t ~ •a Re WALT W. MORROW. PNnltlem RONALD R. 7OLSMA CHARLES M. ROUNTREE GLENN R. BENTLEY P A Z GOMMI~ ION JIM JOHNSON, Chairman KEITH BORUP _ JIM SHEARER GREG OSLUND MALCOLM MACCOY NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning & Zoning Commission of the City of Meridian will hold a Special Meeting at City Hall, 33 East Idaho, Meridian, Idaho, on Thursday, January 16, 1997 at 7:00 P.M. Tale Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission will hold the following public hearings: • Public Hearing: Request for annexation and zoning of 5.465 acres to 1-L by Michael and Michelle Mursako: • Public Hearing: Request for a conditional use permit for a child care center for 12+ children by Raymond Chaoe: • Public Hearing: Request for a conditional use permit to use modular buildings by Meridian Assembly of God: • Public Hearing: Request for a conditional use permit for expansion of Meridian Automotive by John Nesmith: • Public Hearing: Request for a L~nditional use permit for a 2,800 square foot fast foot restaurant with a drive ttuu window by Jack in the Ba>c • Public Hearing: Request for a preli~ary plat for 43 single family residential lots for Sparkling Springs Subdivision by Came Homes Inc.: The public is welcome to attend. DATED this 31st day of December, 1996. _ ~~~ WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CLERK CITY OF MERIDIA I~CEIVED PUBIC MEETING SIGN-U~HEET ~qp ~ 61997 OF ME61D1AA ~~f1N ~ r r~~~/ ~S5"7-co(c~ MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JANUARY 16 1997 The special 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, Gary Smith, Shari Stiles, Raymond Chase, Nancy Slonaker, John Slonaker, Chris Mesa, Jim Kilmartin, Ron Winks, Keith Loveless, Daniel Sanford, J. Jackson, Jack Green, Jim Carrie, Jack Sweet, Ida Sweet, Bob Kole, Ted Sigmont, Bryan Goold, James Gipson, Jean Bamey, Matt Barney, John Holman, Keith Jacobs, Mike Holman, Dale Ownby, Brad Miller, Tom Spader, John Nesmith, Patrick Drake, John Fitzgerald, Keith Jacobs: ITEM #1: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR SPARKLING SPRINGS SUBDIVISION, 43 LOTS, WEST OF MERIDIAN ROAD, '/. MILE SOUTH OF USTICK ROAD BY JIM CARRIE HOMES: Johnson: At this time I will open the public hearing and invite the applicant or his representative to come forward and address the Commission. Keith Jacobs, 290 North Maple Grove, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney Jacobs: Good evening, this subdivision consists of 43 single family lots and 3 landscape lots. The two existing residences that front Meridian Road will be incorporated into this subdivision. Those two lots will use a common driveway to access Meridian Road. There will be two landscape lots 20 feet wide across the frontages of those two lots except there would be enough public frontage for one lot, I believe it is lot 2 onto Meridian Road. So that it has legal frontage, the other lot is a corner lot and it wiN have frontage on the interior street but the access will be off Meridian Road and that is the way it exists today. The subdivision is proposed with the curvilinear street that winds through that subdivision from Meridian Road to the west to the end of that development. The street will connect into NW 3'" Street in Lansbury Lane Subdivision and provide a street connection to the west, two to the north. Ada County Highway District requested a second access to the north and we can incorporate that into the subdivision with some impact but I think we can design around that. We will not increase the lots number of building lots for this proposal. This development is under and annexation ordinance number 687 which requires 1600 square foot home minimum. We are asking fora 1400. We have lots that range in size from 8,000 to 24,900. Twenty of the larger lots range from 11,600 to 24,900 square feet. It will connect to Meridian sewer and water, we will provide pressure irrigation and of course the public services such as US West and Idaho Power and cable t.v. The streets will be constructed in accordance with Ada County Highway District standards and this is in conformance with the City's comprehensive plan. The street names will be in accordance with the City's grid system. Meridian Planning & Zo~g Commission January 16, 1997 Page 2 Johnson: Thank you very much, I am sure we will have some. MacCoy: I have got one right off the bat, you mentioned your reduction in square footage, what prompted you to go for a lesser square footage than a neighboring neighborhood area? Jacobs: We have some lots in that subdivision primarily along the north boundary of it that are in the neighborhood of 8,000 square feet and that is why we are asking for those reductions. MacCoy: Across town, I happen to know that bigger lots are selling pretty fast. I was wondering why you wanted to go smaller in the lots? Jacobs: 1 would have to defer any further questions or comments on that to the developer. Johnson: Thank you Malcolm, anyone else? Commissioner Oslund? Oslund: According to the comments from staff the way I am reading this anyway maybe staff can clarify this, the only way we can reduce the minimum square footage to 1400 square feet is if we change ordinance #687. It seems like a difficult thing to do on an individual basis. Johnson: They would have to request a variance, which has not been asked for at this time, it has not been applied for. Oslund: So this comment implies that we would have to change an ordinance to make it happen. I guess the real intent is that they would have to apply for variance from Council, is that right? Smith: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Oslund, the annexation ordinance for that subdivision or for that parcel of ground that was previously named Green Haven Estates stated that the size of the houses would be 1600 square feet. That was part of the annexation ordinance I believe. So the annexation ordinance would have to be changed I assume, I would have to defer to our legal counsel, but that was a condition of annexation. The City ordinance f believe requires 1400 square feet for an R-4 zone but that 1600 square feet was a condition of annexation of this parcel of ground previously. Oslund: Can the City Attorney provide some clarification on what exactly is the procedure then to reduce it from 1600 to 1400, do they have to come back to us? Crookston: I would like John Fitrgerald to answer that question, I am sitting down because I am going to leave here shortly. Meridian Planning & Zo~g Commission • January 16, 1997 Page 3 Fitzgerald: Well 1 would believe that it would require an application for a variance. But under the, if the ordinance dealing with this particular property requires 1600 square feet it would either require an amendment of the ordinance or a variance. I believe it would be an amendment of that ordinance. MacCoy: Doesn't it depend on how it was written? Fitzgerald: I don't necessarily understand. MacCoy: Well an amendment would be if the ordinance was so stated that you could make an amendment or otherwise you have to go for a variance. Borup: I have a couple of questions, you made reference that one of the reasons for the reduction in sizes was because the northern lots were smaller, some of those on the northern end of the property, was that what you stated? Jacobs: Yes, the smaller the 8,000 square foot lots. Borup: Were you asking for size reduction on the whole subdivision or just on those lots? Jacobs: We wanted a size reduction on the whole development. Borup: The other question I have was have you, I assume you have had a chance to read staff comments from the City? Jacobs: I had some comments back, what date are these? Borup: January 10`" Jacobs: I don't believe I had those no. Borup: How about ACRD staff comments, apparently you have been in contact, you mentioned the extra stub streets. Did you have their full set of (inaudible) Jacobs: Yes I did, in fact I was there at the tech review when we went over that comment. Borup: I guess what 1 was leading to was any of their comments that anything you had or any problem with any of the ACRD staff? Jacobs: The one was that street and I think we solved that issue. Meridian Planning & Zo~g Commission • January 16, 1997 Page 4 Borup: You did say you were going to have an easement through the landscape lot which didn't show at this time? Jacobs: It wouldn't be an easement, it has to be actual frontage for that lot. Borup: So the lots have to be reconfigured or something then? Jacobs: Yes, the landscape lot, there is a long one across both of those lots, we cut it in and make it two lots out of landscape and then we would have access for that one lot. Borup: I think a good part of the staff comments, a lot of it had to do with the ACRD comments, that is why I was wondering if you had seen both of those. I had nothing else at this time. MacCoy: Let me clarify something, you say you have not read the staff, January 10th material. Jacobs: Yes, I don't believe I have read that. May t have a copy, I can quickly tell. No I have not seen these. MacCoy: My next questions were going to be based on the fact that have you read this and do you have any problems with it. Of course you can't answer that now because you haven't had a chance to go through. So I will hold mine up. Johnson: Any other questions at this time? You might want to look over those and depending on how long the testimony goes you might have an opportunity to answer some of those. This is a public hearing, does anyone else want to address the Commission at this time, please come forward. Dan Sanford, 2715 Venable Lane, Meridian, was sworn by the City Attorney. Sanford: I am here on behalf of my father John Sanford who has the property at 2880 Venable Lane which is west of the proposed subdivision. He sent me with a letter that he would like me to read to the Commissioners. "Dear Mr. Berg, Regarding proposed project Sparkling Springs Subdivision. I received a notice of a hearing for 7 P.M. on January 16, 1997. In as much as 1 will be out of the area on that date I would like to present some facts pertinent to the zoning of this property. First I own the property along the west border which consists of 12 acres that is used as a training facility for cow cutting horses. This is a large indoor arena surrounded by corrals which of course include cow pens. These cow pens cover a portion of the west border. What I am trying to say is the people who will be leaving next to these pens should be aware of some nuisances such as cows bawling and some odors. To help this situation it would be recommended that a fence at least 8 to 10 board feet high across the entire west Meridian Planning & Zo~g Commission • January 16, 1997 Page 5 boundary excluding the road which would require a gate. The proposed plan shows a road with an outlet to our property which is very necessary considering the fact that my land would be land locked in as much as Venable Lane which is our only access now is considered a private lane and Ada County Highway District does not have any plans for making Venable Lane a public street. So to the outlet to our property on the west is a must. I obviously have no way of preventing zoning of this project but do have reservations about additional people in this area. My experience with the Lansbury project which is directly south of this project and also borders my property on the west has been less than satisfactory due to certain things that have occurred. One, one resident of the Lansbury Subdivision was training his dog by chasing some of my horses in the pasture adjacent to the project. When I approached him he said I don't see anything wrong. two, trash and garbage is found over in the same field. Three, calls from the neighbors complaining about noise from the animals. However, 1 feel the high fence would have prevented this sort of activity. Lansbury has no fence on the west boundary. The above information is to give you some thoughts to be considered when granting permission to build this project. Sincerely John C. Sanford. " Johnson: We would like a copy of that for the record please Sanford: Absolutely. Johnson: It might be pertinent to point out that the reference there to zoning, that took place in 1994, this is the plat. Anything else, any questions of Mr. Sanford? Thank you very much, anyone else? Chris Mesa, 205 West Claire, Meridian, was sworn by the City Attorney. Mesa: My name is Chris Mesa, I am Vice President of the Lansbury Lane Homeowners Association. I would like to make three quick points. One, I would like to present this petition to you and read what it says. We request .the Council to uphold the requirements of the City ordinance #687 by denying the request for a variance made by Carrie Homes on its preliminary plat for Sparkling Springs Subdivision. Specifically v~ are opposed to the variance that has been requested by Carrie Homes to reduce the minimum square footage requirements for the homes in Sparkling Springs Subdivision from 1600 square feet to 1400 square feet. Second, homeowners in this area have purchased homes knowing that this ordinance was in effect. Changing that requirement we feel will only hurt property values of the adjacent subdivision. Our subdivision, I would like to point out that signatures on this petition are from Lansbury Lane Subdivision and also other surrounding houses. The third item is we have also concern with the proposed plan and its plan for third avenue. As the plan exists right now it appears that 3`d Avenue will be widened as it goes from Lansbury Lane into the Sparkling Springs Subdivision. Currently 3'" Avenue is a no parking street in Lansbury Lane. There is also no driveway accesses to 3'" Avenue. The current design for Sparkling Springs would have a driveway access for two of the lots onto there, I believe Meridian Planning & Zo~g Commission • January 16, 1997 Page 6 that might be the reason for widening of the street. We feel that this would increase parking along 3`' Avenue where we have no parking. We definitely have some concern. These are also some of the smallest lots in the subdivision which happen to adjoin some of the largest houses that are in the Lansbury Lane Subdivision and we feel it does not make for a smooth transition into that subdivision. Especially since there will be no real way of telling when you are leaving Lansbury Lane Subdivision and going into the other one. That is all I have. Johnson: Thank you very much, can I have your petition please. Is there anyone else that would like to address the Commission? Jack Sweet, 3001 North Meridian Road, Meridian, was swum by the City Attorney Sweet: My neighbor and family member son and d2ughter in law that live next to me are the property that is immediately north of this proposed subdivision. There has been an evolution of homes in that neighborhood going north all the way from Cherry Lane to larger homes and when you get to Lansbury, the two homes immediately north of the proposed subdivision. The first home is 2500 square feet, a new home. And the one next to it is a 2300 square foot home; they are both on five acre tots. And of course we would have a concern writh reducing the size of the homes on the proposed subdivision. We think it would be harmful to our property values and also I have been made aware of another concern very recently and that is that there has been a problem evidently with some subdivisions with people buying a lot and building a home that is of a minimum size and to meet that adding what we might describe as a family room but in reality it has none of the amenities and so on and it is an undeveloped kind of room. I know one of our developers has had a problem with that and is trying to cure it. With that in mind I would like to suggest that we also have a minimum value of homes to avoid that kind of problem of let's say about $120,000 per unit. Johnson: Thank you Jack. Anyone else like to come forward at this time? Nancy Slonaker, 34 West Claire Street, Meridian, was sworn by the City Attorney. Slonaker: I own a home in Lansbury Lane and I am here this evening to express my concerns about the preliminary plat for Sparkling Springs Subdivision. I am also the Secretary of the Lansbury Lane Homeowners Association and delivered a letter dated December' 23, 1996 to the Commission stating the Board of Directors position in regards to the development of the acreage adjacent to the north of Lansbury lane. I have placed my comments tonight in writing to make effective use of my time. I respect the opportunity to voice my opinion, appreciate the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission's time and ask that you sincerely consider my concems and the concerns of my neighbors that are present here tonight. We all know that Meridian is the fastest growing City in the State of Idaho and I a must confess that I am part of the growth statistic. It appears that Meridian is quickly becoming not only a bedroom community to Meridian Planning & Zo~g Commission • January 16, 1997 Page 7 Boise but also the subdivision capital of Southern Idaho. However, 1 am a realistic member of this democratic society and realize one cannot curtail the force of free enterprise. I am not directly opposed to Mr. Carrie's proposed development even though I will miss watching the hawks sore and hunt over John Holman's field, but I am defiantly opposed to the request to allow 1400 square foot homes within this subdivision when Ordinance #687 specifically requires 1600 square foot homes. I feel allowing smaller homes in Sparkling Springs would detract from the quality atmosphere and intentional design of our single street culdesac subdivision. In addition to not respecting the ordinance restriction which was in place when purchased homes in Lansbury Lane with the understanding that adjacent developments would contain a minimum of 1600 square foot homes. The Board of Directors of Lansbury Lane has ~nrorked very hard to maintain the quality appearance of our neighborhood and expect a subdivision who plans to adjoin with ours via NW 3`d Avenue to also meet the minimum 1600 square footage as is required in Lansbury Lane. Recently one of my neighbors had a delivery person stop at her door looking for a residence in our area of an unknown address. This individual was told to drive north from Albertsons and tum left into the "first nice subdivision you come to". He pulled onto our street and began to search for his party. I feel we do have a very nice neighborhood and 1 hope that it remains this way in the midst of the surrounding development proposed. Additional I am concemed about the plat which shows drive way and lot access off of NW 3rd Avenue. In Lansbury Lane we do not have drive ways, street parking or lot access on NW 3`d Avenue. If Sparkling Springs plans to adjoin with Lansbury Lane at this point then I feel these requirements should be transferable. This was not designed as a major traffic bearing thoroughfare which I fear it may become as homeowners in the Western portion of Sparkling Springs will use Lansbury Lane as a traffic route to their homes. Naturally this is a concern to those of us who will experience the daily .affects of increased traffic on our now quiet street. I also requested in my letter to the Commission to ask Mr. Carrie to consider planting buffer landscaping between the subdivision boundary lines. I realize this recommendation far exceeds the minimum development requirements but would certainly add to the quality and appearance of his development. I wish Meridian would require more green space and landscaping within the new subdivisions to improve the overall appearance of our community. In closing I respectfully ask that you consider my requests. I ask for these changes not only because I am concerned about the value of my property but more so because I am concerned about the value of my community. Thank you. Johnson: Thank you, anyone else like to come forward? Any questions of the applicant's representative. Have you had an opportunity to review those comments from staff? We are going to ask you a few questions about that. Jacobs: Yes I have had an opportunity to review those. MacCoy: Having read them do you have any comments or problems with them? Meridian Planning & Zo~g Commission January 16,1997 Page 8 Jacobs: We do not have any problems with them. MacCoy: You noticed in there it talked about, item 14, to do with drainage in your area, ground water. Item 15, the ACRD requirements. Jacobs: We don't have a problem with that. MacCoy; How about item 16? Jacobs: ACRD is requiring a 50 foot in there and wa have discussed that with the (Inaudible) 50 right of way. That is what they have suggested. MacCoy: Let's go back to item 9, on page 3, that material. This is a great part of what we have been talking about already this evening. Jacobs: It sounds as though we would have to bring that back anyway as a separate request to get that annexation ordinance changed. MacCoy: True, I was wondering what your feeling was about heading that direction or going back to what was already used at Lansbury and the ordinance #687. Jacobs: I think I would have to look at the ordinance I am not familiar with it and its language and also sit. with the developers and get their input before I could answer that question. MacCoy: I recommend that. as a good approach, I think you should take a look at that in detail and see what you come up with. There have been some very good points made this evening and I would wish that you would take those away with you to study and come back with a recommendation that all (inaudible). Johnson: Any further questions? Oslund: Was this, your tots, were they laid out with the, I guess assuming that the minimum house size would be 1400 square feet. 1 guess the question is if you were to have to do 1600 feet for instance would this subdivision layout work? Jacobs: That I don't know, I would have to defer to the builder Jim Carrie, I don't know. We laid this out and presented it to him and they reviewed and approves that layout. As far as whether a 1600 square foot home would fit on that 8,000 square foot lot, I don't have any experience in that, I would think it would. Oslund: I have a question for staff or counsel, depending on what they need to get done whether it is a variance or amendment could that be done before we act on this or would that be unusual. I guess I am kind of concerned, the big question here is the Meridian Planning & Zo~g Commission • January 16, 1997 Page 9 minimum house size and to me that needs to be resolved before I would be comfortable saying one way or another. Fitrgerald: Well the answer I believe is clear that you need to deal with the ordinance first before you approve any plats that is contrary to the ordinanc®. MacCoy: That is what I was getting at, that is the way I read it too. Johnson: Mr. Borup, any questions? Borup: Not of the applicant, I do have one of staff on one of the items. Item #6, it is talking about perimeter fencing but you mention non-combustible, was that the intention? Stiles: Commissioner Borup, Commissioners, that is kind of a standard comment, we would not want it to be the non-combustible fence adjacent to Lansbury Lane. The non- combustible fence would be anywhere there is adjacent rural property that is still be farmed and that has the potential for burning weeds. The rest of it would be permanent cedar or some other kind of fence. Borup: That is what I was wondering, I have no other questions. Jacobs: The applicant is here and would like to speak to some issues. Jim Carrie, 550 E. 2"d South, Mountain Home, was swum by the City Attorney Carrie: I would like to comment on the .square footage application on this particular piece of ground. 1 think that we should be able to look forward to consideration on our plat regardless of that particular clause. To start with if we can't get the approval of our plat then we have no reason to ask for the change in the square footage. The area out there is zoned 1400 square feet. If in fact there are people that have put additional improvements into their properties they have done that knowing that the zoning was 1400 square feet. We plan on a nice development. We develop curvilinear streets, we have tried to develop some character into the subdivision. We plan on a very nice entrance in the subdivision and it will not distract from the present subdivision. I suggest that probably most of our homes will exceed 1600 square feet. But we would like to reserve the right to provide nice smaller homes of 1600 square feet if we choose to or we need to. A lot of people don't need that big of house and would still like to have a nice house. So we would like to have the preliminary approval of our subdivision and we would like to be able to reserve the right to come back in and ask for a variance of the annexation of the original property which was probably not handled in the correct manner to start with. Johnson: Thank you, any questions of Mr. Carrie? Meridian Planning & Zo~g Commission • January 16, 1997 Page 10 Borup: Just a couple of clarifications, one, was your last one you didn't think the annexation was handled in the correct manner. What do you feel was handled incorrect? Carrie: The owner of the property was not in compliance with it. The gentleman that had his permission to do the subdivision ran into financial troubles and did not attend the last meetings. The engineering firm that was concerned about collecting for their fees didn't have any interest in the property and they didn't care whether they agreed to the additional square footage or not. So the property owner really was not represented in a proper manner. That would be included in our request for variance. Borup: You mentioned that you felt, that most homes would be above the 1600 because the quality, had you had any thought to a minimum price, minimum value? Normally that wouldn't (inaudible) but if there was a reduction is that something that would be a consideration? Carrie: That is pretty hard to do because prices change fast. Borup: That makes is easier then because normally they go up. Carrie: I think you are going to see them coming down pretty fast. Things are changing and changing rapidly. I don't know I am not in a position to volunteer putting that limitation on the subdivision at this time. That would be something, if you would like that we would consider in the future and answer that at the time that we would prepare the covenants. Borup: I was just throwing that out as a question if that might. Johnson: Well case in point would be that when this was annexed and zoned it was over two years ago. To put a minimum price on something two years ago or a little over two years ago would not be relevant today would they? Borup: No Johnson: That is why we have stayed away from minimum prices because of fluctuation in the market. Borup: Well the reason I raise that is because someone had made a comment earlier that may not necessarily only be the size of the house but the quality. There may be people a retired couple or something may not want a large home but may want something of a high quality. That is why I raise the question. Meridian Planning & Zo~g Commission • January 16, 1997 Page 11 Carrie: Exactly that is one area that we are looking at and we do a lot of business in that area. They don't want big homes, they like to have nice homes. Borup: But without something there, there is no way to control that. I think is what the neighbors are concerned about. Carrie: I have worked in subdivisions in the past where they had a price set and it gets very difficult to set values on property and even people have bought property if they sell it for less it creates a problem. If you have a builder in there that needs to exit for whatever reason it will create a problem. It is just kind of a tough combination. (Inaudible) Johnson: Anyone else? Thank you, anyone else want a final comment? Ron Winks, 138 West Claire, Meridian, was sworn by the City Attorney. Winks: I am also living in the Lansbury Lane Subdivision and I have some here to raise a few concerns concerning the proposed subdivision to the north of us. One of the concerns being I am a parent as well as being a homeowner, the parent of young children the ages currently of three and seven. Being concerned, currently we are on a single passage entrance in and out of this subdivision. With the addition of Sparkling Springs and an expansion into the 3id Avenue (inaudible) I am a little concerned of the increased traffic flowing through that. I am concerned mainly for the safety of my children, not only mine but the other children existing in the subdivision. There has already been somewhat of a concern as being on the entrance side of the subdivision as to the speed of vehicles currently coming into this subdivision. I feel that will only go up as if that road is opening. Second, I vwuld like to submit to you some photos of my existing home just to display to you the size and quality of homes that currently exist in Lansbury Lane. I consider my home to be a medium of the current homes and there are some that are smaller and some that are larger. I would like to submit just a general overview of not only my home but also the garage that exists also on my property. My lot is currently a little over 12,000 square foot with a 900 square foot alone attached to this property. I would like to submit this so we could submit and show you the quality of homes which currently reside there. We are concerned about if a smaller sized dwelling appears, the affect that vue are going to feel not only on the quality of our life but also the overall price of our homes. Thank you. Johnson: Thank you MacCoy: I have been out to this area, and f looked at it and you do have a nice place out there, all of that Lansbury group. I was concerned based on the material that is already sent into us as to what we were looking at. Since we are in an R-4 residential area you are going to end up with these homes or other homes in the area. So you are going to have traffic which is still going to be a problem for you. How do you view that? Meridian Planning & Zo~g Commission • January 16, 1997 Page 12 Winks: Well as I said being a parent I don't like the idea of seeing increased traffic, I think if we go into keeping the size of the road currently that we have on the NW 3i° that is going to minimize the amount of traffic. That is a very narrow road as it is right now. It is going to limit the amount of traffic that could actually even fit down that existing road. If you have access to people that as proposed in the plat that t have seen in the new subdivision access to two of the lots that I can see will access down that road to enter from a garage standpoint. That automatically is going to increase that traffic. Now if that can be changed to where that road size stays at the current size that it is then I think the traffic is going to be minimized because there won't be that urge to cut through that subdivision and sneak into the back way into your property. You will go down through the existing one slow down through your subdivision and make the turns and enter into your property in the proper manner. MacCoy: Let me take it from another direction. If the homes in this area we are talking about were the same quality and same square footage as yours do you have a problem with this? Winks: I still have a concern with the traffic, but 1 feel as if the size of the homes goes up the requirement to have access to 3rd Avenue is going to go down because I don't think the size that they are requesting would fit on the size the way it is divided out so that they would have to re-layout that subdivision. Possibly not even allowing access or attachment to 3f° Avenue because of the way it would have to re-layout for the sizing or maybe that would minimize that down to 2 existing lots instead of 4 of access to that. I think that would still then allow that requirement as it is in Lansbury Lane that all access be coming right off the main thoroughfare in rather than from an adjacent side street. I think that would minimize the amount of traffic going through there. Johnson: Anyone else? Mesa: Just wanted to make a point about the last discussion before this last one about a set price value. In the Lansbury Lane Subdivision this was the covenants item and feel it worked very well. It did have to get changed in the life of the subdivision once. But we are looking, how long does it take to fill up a subdivision maybe one to two years. When the initial developer wrote the covenants for our subdivision he put in a minimum price for the houses to keep builders from coming in and building. In our subdivision we have a 1700 square foot minimum, but keeping them basically from building a 1700 square foot shell of a house. I feel it worked really well, it did have to get changed once in the life, but I don't think we are going to have to do that again because basically we are pretty filled up. We have a couple more left and it worked for our subdivision I feel. That is all. Borup: You said there was a minimum price, what was it, do you remember what it was? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission • January 16, 1997 Page 13 Mesa: It went up to $130,000, I think the first was $120,000 when the first covenants were written and the developer changed it to $130,000, I am not sure about less than a year through. After it was first started. Borup: Thank you Johnson: Last time before I close the public hearing. Mike Holman, 1213 EI Pilar, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Holman: I am in favor of the subdivision with the layout that it does have. I am also the listing Realtor of the subdivision. My brother John Holman is the seller of the subdivision. I think that the developer that did this layout did a nice job, it has curvy streets, culesacs, it is not just a straight street going in where you see all garage doors and like tract housing. There are some lots in there that are bigger than the Lansbury lots as far as depth because my brothers property is a wider piece of property. (End of Tape) huge house and a huge lot to take care of. Being a Realtor a 1400 or 1500 square foot home can run up to a $120,000 depending on the items that you want in it. Looking at the property, Lansbury was approved in final plat before the proposed Green Haven was ever sent in for preliminary plat approval. Under the zoning at that time that property was R-4 which allowed 1400 square foot homes. So, when that subdivision was platted and homes were being built in there, Sparkling Springs, the proposed project was an R-4 zoning. If you go back towards the South, Waterbury Park, looking at a plat here, the minimum square footage in there is 1300 square feet. If you go across from Waterbury Park on Meridian Road to the east, that is called Fothergill Subdivision and that is a subdivision to the east and that is 1300 square foot minimum square footage. I think that 1400 square foot is adequate for the area and that is basically all I have to say. Johnson: Thank you, any quesfiions? Oslund: I am thoroughly confused now, I was confused coming in the door. But now I am really confused. What I was reading in the comments made me think that the subject property has made a commitment in the past in the annexation when it was annexed it would be a 1600 square foot minimum. Is that not true, I have heard both the owner and yourself say that it is not. Holman: A little clarification on that, what happened was the property went under contract with the developer an earnest money agreement and the developer had finance problems and didn't pursue the project. I think he was an out of state or California or somewhere, a developer. So the last meeting, he didn't even show up. My brother tried to hire JUB the engineer to go ahead and stop the process or continue the process. They want through and showed up at the meeting and somebody brought up Meridian Planning & Zo~g Commission • January 16, 1997 Page 14 1600 feet and nobody argued that the zoning was an R-4 which is 1400, nobody opposed it and it went through. That plat has since expired and the thing that I am curious about is if that is expired and it was an R~ zoning is the 1400 square foot would that still be in effect I don't know. Ostund: The condition of the, this was a condition of the annexation not the plat. So you are saying it is the Californians and the engineers that screwed up? I am both so you have insulted me. Holman: Maybe I should stop, anyway, the zoning at the time when the homes were being built in Lansbury was zoned for an R-4 which permitted a 1400 square foot. It is not like that had already been changed and they assumed that there was going to be 1600 square foot homes built there because of the zoning when it was developed. The zoning permitted 1400 square foot. Borup: There seems to have been a lot of things mentioned on the previous application falling apart at the end. And the potential developer not being at the last meeting. Unless there was some problem there aren't that many meetings, there is only one public testimony at P & Z and I believe the same at City Council. So there is only the first meeting at each for them to attend. You said he wasn't at the last, so if there is only one meeting how do you Holman; The final meeting for the preliminary, they had set up, everything turned in at that time the developer basically gave up on the project for the engineering firm to finalize their fees and go file a lien on the property. Borup: Was it tabled, was there an extension so the thing stretched out more than the one time? Holman: Yes, they had a second go around because they had to change some stuff from my understanding of it. Johnson: Any further comments? John Holman, 2835 & 2825 N. Meridian Road, Meridian, was sworn by the City Attorney. J. Holman: I heard my name mentioned a little bit tonight so I just came to listen in and I wasn't planning on speaking. But seeing as how we are talking. about things that are two years in the past I was in the audience that night and I was the one affected. I will give you the benefit of my first hand knowledge. I sold the property to a group called the development company, Meridian City Council had experience with them. They were the developers of the Elk Run Subdivision on the south side of the freeway. I sold them the property in the summer of 1994 and they went ahead and hired JUB engineers. I Meridian Planning & Zo' Commission • January 16, 1997 Page 15 signed an agreement giving them permission to come before the Meridian City Council and do the things they needed to do, permission to annex and permission to go ahead with the plat. The preliminary plat hearing was set for December 15, 1994. On December 8 I was notified by the developer that they were not going to go through with the project. I went ahead and called the developer's engineer, I told them that 1 was just told by the developer that they are having financial problems and they are not going to go ahead what are we going to do, we have the meeting in a week. I asked him to go ahead and represent me. He got back to me the Monday before the Thursday meeting and said that he could not represent my interest. He said that he was going to go ahead with the meeting anyway and represent the development company at that time because the development company had not canceled their contract in writing is what was required. So that Thursday came, Gary Lee representing JUB stood up here and under oath wenf ahead with the presentation. The 1600 foot condition was put on the annexation ordinance, there was nobody here to, I don't know who he was representing at the time. His client had backed out the week before. I had asked him to represent me he didn't. I thought it was going to be a condition of the preliminary plat and expire in a year but it went ahead and became I guess a condition of the annexation ordinance. That is what happened and JUB was up here wild tatting I don't know who they were representing at the time, it certainly wasn't me. Johnson: Thank you for the clarification. Anyone else? Seeing no one then I will close the public hearing at this time. We need to deal with the fact that we have an ordinance in place, #687 or whatever it is at this point that has not been either amended or the subject of a variance. Oslund: Mr: Chairman, I would move that we table this item pending either the approval of a variance or an amendment to the ordinance at which time it could come back to us for consideration. Borup: Second Johnson: Discussion? MacCoy: Is that the way we should be going is tabling? Johnson: Requesting advice from Counsel and staff on whether that is the proper chain events that should take place here. Crookston: You can proceed with the platting if the applicant desires you to have you proceed with the platting. But the only thing you can do is require the 1600 square foot requirement because that is what the ordinance says that is required on this land and that is how it was annexed. You can proceed with the platting, but until that 1600 is amended and they would have to go through the procedures to have that ordinance amended which is going to require public hearings before the Planning and Zoning Meridian Planning & Zo~g Commission • January 16, 1997 Page 16 Commission and the City Council you have to live with that 1600 square foot mandatory requirement of the ordinance under which is was annexed. Johnson: Thank you Wayne, we have a motion and a second, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Crookston: Mr. Chairman, I didn't catch that you tabled that to a date certain, plus you didn't have any indication if it is tabled it should be set to a date certain at a minimum. Johnson: That is correct, we need a motion to amend that motion. Oslund: Mr. Chairman I would like to make a motion to amend the motion, I would like to amend the motion to include a date certain of March 11, 1997. MacCoy: Second Johnson: Motion and a second, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #2: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING TO I-L, NORTH OF FRANKLIN ROAD, WEST OF EAGLE ROAD BY MICHAEL AND MICHELLE MURSAKO: Johnson: I will now open the public hearing and invite the applicant or a representative of the applicant to address the Commission. Keith Loveless, 3330 Grace Street, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Loveless: (Inaudible) staff report, we have no project, this is strictly a bare land annexation. It is within the zone, in your master plan, adjacent to City land. With the comments from all agencies we have had no problems with. Unless there are some questions we really don't have any problems with what has been laid upon us by all of the other agencies at this time. Johnson: Thank you Keith, any questions of Mr. Loveless? Borup: I have a couple Mr. Chairman, it looks like you do have a right of way to Franklin is that correct or an option on a right of way? Loveless: That is a maybe, that one comes and goes depending on the neighbors. But I think probably in the long term development it wilt occur. Meridian Planning & ZoTng Commission • January 16, 1997 Page 17 Borup: The applicant still wants to proceed even without that? Loveless: Yes, we have access to Lanark via permanent easement. Borup: Which was my other question, the easement to Lanark is right adjoining the road right of way, is that correct, the plat was not real clear. Loveless: That is correct, that easement was put together when ITD widened Eagle Road. That was the result of the widening of the roadway and ITD purchasing this easement for this particular piece of property. Borup: Then the question I had was they are talking about, are they talking about an additional widening there of another, or, they are not talking about taking more right of way then? Loveless: No, not to our knowledge at this time. They have a lot of right of way that is unused in that area yet for widening the intersection. Borup: There was a staff comment about dedicating any additional right of way. Loveless: None has been requested. ITD doesn't generally take dedications, they purchase all of their right of way. Borup: Staff comment said that there was currently some kind of structure on the property. loveless: It is out in the middle, it looks like some stacks of something, 1 have not even gone on the property to try and figure out what they are. Borup: It is not something that is being used? Loveless: Not to my knowledge it is not being used. It is something that has been left there, it was there when I was requested by these people that moved back out of Idaho reverse migration to the coast. So what we are looking at here is basically getting it under one jurisdiction instead of two for that type of zoning and what would go on there and be satisfactory to the City of Meridian. Borup: Do you know what that, the right of way to Lanark, what the width of that is? Loveless: Our easement? Borup: Well yes, is that what it is? Meridian Planning & Zor~Tng Commission January 16, 1997 Page 18 Loveless: Yes, it is an easement. Borup: Do you know? Loveless: It is 50 or 60 feet. I would have to look at my documents here to tell you exactly, I could if you want me to take the time to find the paper. Borup: That is fine, it leaves the other question, did you receive a copy of staff comments, you may not have gotten those, they were just the 14`" Johnson: They are dated today from Shari Stiles. Borup: There is discussion there on a landscaping set back on Eagle, I just wonder if there is a conflict between that and the (inaudible) Loveless: Which item number sir? Borup: Item #5 Loveless: We are not in disagreement with anything that has been put on it to date. These people just want to sell their property and the only way they think they can sell it is to get it into the City of Meridian and zoned so they don't have to deal with two agencies again. We are in your impact area and we would have to do a double application. Borup: t have a question for staff then, Shari, the landscaping set back would that be on the portion to the south? It just looked to me like there was a conflict between access onto Lanark and the landscaping easement both at the same location. Did you have reference just to that area, perhaps to the south of there that is possible to do? Loveless: There would be no way to do 35 feet up in the northeast corner because that is where we have to bring the road in. Borup: That was my question, my point. Loveless: Now I understand what you are hitting at. Borup: You still have something that could be worked around just have an access and then the road way Loveless: We have another problem in there and the people in that corner have leased a spot for a billboard sign within our easement. That is a problem (inaudible) it is not a matter for your concern. Meridian Planning & Zo• Commission • January 16, 1997 Page 19 Borup: Then staff comments would be the landscaping after the access entrance in from (inaudible) Stiles: They could change the direction once it gets into the property. Borup: Okay, I am straight now. Loveless: I believe we can live with that sir. Johnson: Any other questions of Mr. Loveless? Oslund: I have one, in the ACHD comments they talk about a study that is being conducted currently that is looking at interchange locations, future interchange locations on Eagle Road. One of those locations is Franklin and Eagle. Have they indicated anything to you about the status of your easement on Eagle Road. That easement is from the State to you and it is within their right of way right? Loveless: Eagle Road is their right of way. Oslund: Right, ACHD goes on to also say that the applicant has indicated they have an easement from the parcel to the north for access to Franklin Road, but you are saying that you don't really have it. Loveless: We have it, in fact we even have, I have a letter here signed by, back in August of 1996 from Mr. Sale acknowledging our easement at that time. Oslund: The easement to Franklin Road? Loveless: No the easement to Lanark. Oslund: Yes, that one I am not Loveless: The easement to Franklin Road has we think been taken out, the attorney has not been able to trace it all they way out because it is dependent upon an agreement with about four parties. It seems it is hard to trace to see what its current status is. Right now we are not sure that we have an easement to Franklin, we may have and we may not. Oslund: The only reason I am asking this is because without that access to Franklin if there is an interchange someday this, whatever gets built in there is going to be totally locked in without access. Loveless: Well we have access to Lanark and Lanark will not be shut off by any interchange, any improvements to that existing comer. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission • January 16, 1997 Page 20 Oslund: Except your easement may. Loveless: Well if they buy the easement they have to buy us access or they buy out the whole piece of property and change the whole configuration. They can't land lock us. Oslund: That is really not an issue for now. Loveless: It is a potential issue but that could be five years, that could be 30 years from now. Oslund: Right; but ACHD's comment just makes it sound that (inaudible) the applicant has indicated that they have an easement to Franklin. Loveless: We believe we do but we can't verify it. The attorney is still trying to do that. Oslund: That is all I have. Johnson: Thank you, anyone from the public or anyone else like to address the Commission on this application? Ted Sigmont, 3817 Star Valley, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Sigmont: I am the owner of the property to the north where the easement is located. It is a 55 foot wide ingress egress easement, it is not a right of way of any sort. It runs parallel with the Eagle Road highway. Being as we elaborated as long as we did here a few minutes ago. I made a note here real quick that talking with Larry Sale, I really don't know who Loveless has been talking to but talking to Larry Sale there will never ever be an interchange, an ingress, the easement the 55 foot wide easement going in through there, they have that easement. But to run a commercial business of any sort off of that piece of property according to Larry Sale that will never happen parallel to the intersection of Lanark and Eagle Road. So I don't know how they plan on, t brought that to Murasko; the applicant's attention when he bought the property that he needed to get right up there with the other owners that he bought from and obtain an access a deeded right of way access to Franklin Road at the time he purchased the property. He went up there and did as I am hearing now, I am not even sure if he has an easement. I thought he did. I kept telling him that you really need to get a deeded easement up there, Franklin is your access road for any commercial development on this piece of property. I don't know why he has having trouble getting it but he is apparently having trouble getting it. 1 don't know how he is going to get sewer to the property, that is one of the utilities. There is water, you mentioned water on Eagle Road, there is water up towards Lanark. I guess there is some way you can get down through the highway department's property to get water to the property I guess. Yes there was a shack built on the property of which this guy lived in all the time he was in Boise here. He has a Meridian Planning & Zon• Commission • January 16, 1997 Page 21 makeshift septic system on the deal there or whatever he has done. To my knowledge he has never had a permit to do this and while we are talking about it I would like to see the structure removed. It is a pretty ugly looking piece sitting there on the property. I guess that pretty well sums up the notes I have on here. 1 guess, do you have any questions for me? Borup: Just one Mr. Chairman, you mentioned some clarification things, have you got any concerns with the annexation? Sigmont: Well one thing will start leading to the other. 1 just wonder how you can annex it if you don't have access to utilities is really what 1 am worried about. And a right of way, a deeded right of way. You have an easement, it allows you to get on the property back and forth. But 1 don't know without a deeded right of way if it is a land locked piece of property. I don't know what your ordinances say you can do. If I can't stop it, right now I am opposed to it because there is no way to run, one thing lead starts leading to the other and you can't run a commercial business out of there at this point in time until, to have legal access. And right now there is not (inaudible). Borup: The staff report said ITD said that the easement is in their right of way. Sigmont: No, the easement is in my right of way Borup: Your comments conflict with the Idaho Transportation Department then, they thing it is their. Sigmont: The property is my property, the easement goes across my property what Shari, 35 feet she is requesting for landscaping on there, that was a good question because I don't know if that eats up 35 feet of that and it would only leave you 20 feet left. There are major problems with that. I am the one that pays the taxes on the property if that is answering your question. Borup: Thank you Johnson: Thank you very much, anyone else? Dale Ownby, 1824 South Sportsman Way, Meridian, was swum by the City Attorney. Ownby: Mr. Chairman and Commission members I didn't come here to speak on this tonight I just happened to be here. 1 can tell you without a shadow of a doubt there is a recorded 60 foot easement from the subject property south to Franklin Road. I was involved in representing Mrs. Green on this property and I can assure that there is a 60 foot easement there. The easement calls for any type of sewer line, water line, telephone line, electric lines, any type of utilities that need to go across that property. It needs to go across the 60 feet back to the subject property. Mr. Sigmont is correct the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 16, 1997 Page 22 55 foot easement is on his deeded property. It is not on the State property. Any questions? Johnson: You will stake your 10 handicap on that right? Ownby: Right Johnson: Thanks Dale, thanks for the input. Brad Miller, 3084 East Lanark, Meridian, was sworn by the City Attorney. Miller: My name is Brad Miller, I work for Ron Van Auker, we own a number of parcels on that street there. It is interesting, I appreciate what the previous gentleman said about having a utility easement that goes up to Franklin. Unfortunately I don't think the sewer line is going to run down Lanark and I don't think they have found a way to get the stuff that flows down the sewer line to flow up hill. So there is no way for him to access the sewer line I the future because Mr. Sigmont's easement with him is for ingress and egress only not for Utility lines. So there are some real problems with this parcel, it is a land locked parcel. It is a parcel that doesn't have access to sewer and frankly Mr. Murasko has shown blatant disregard to the adjoining property owners and to the various jurisdictions in town. You should talk to the irrigation people about what he did there and how they had to go in and correct the irrigation problem that he caused to the tune of about $15,000. So Mr. Murasko has built a residential unit there where he resided when he was in town. It is a classic example of a gentleman coming from California thinking he is going to make a killing here in Idaho and he went back to California with his tail between his legs. So, 1 think you ought to seriously consider this parcel because it could be a problem parcel. You build a building on there, you have poor access if any access to it and there is no way you can have a facility that would have truck traffic to it because you don't have adequate access to it. I think you ought to consider it because it could really become a problem with the access and other considerations. Thank you. Borup: Question of somebody, does everyone understand that this is just a request for annexation, they are not asking for any type of development or anything at this point. Are you saying that you are opposed to this being a part of Meridian? Miller: I don't know ff I am opposed to it being a part of Meridian but there will obviously it is annexed and zoned there will be a request to put some sort of building on there and I think that you ought to be careful. It is not a real nice piece of land and I don't (inaudible) viable project on there. Borup: At this point it is just speculation as far as what would happen in there. Miller: Absolutely, 1 don't know what you could put in there. ~ • • Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 16, 1997 Page 23 Oslund: I would just like to add that in the past there has been these kind of questions have been asked at the annexation and I think this is a good time to do it. Quite frankly I think with a parcel that looks or appears at least what we have seen tonight to have some of the problems it does I am in favor with dealing with those problems before we annex it into the City. After we annex it, it is very difficult to turn around and in fact the City has never deannexed a piece of property. I think this is the time to do it. Johnson: Anyone else from the public that would like to address the Commission? Loveless: As to sewer, once sewer goes down Lanark Street and crosses Eagle Road to Mr. Van Auker's proposed project on the east side of Eagle Road that we know about. There is no problem with acquiring an easement from the State of Idaho to run sewer within the Eagle Road right of way, we don't have to use Mr. Sigmont's property. The City of Meridian can get the easement for nothing by filling out a four page form, my parting can get it for $100 the last time 1 checked for filling out the same form. So that is a moot point. I find Mr. Van Auker's agents testimony tonight rather interesting because they have been contacting our Realtor telling us all of our bad problems and how cheap the property should be and if they want to sell it at that call us. So I find it a rather interesting scenario here tonight. I would, sewer access down the right of way is not a problem. I filled out a permit for a mile and a half in Idaho City at one time for a private parry. So it is not a problem to ge# there, it is a problem until it gets down Lanark we understand that. My client is aware and the Realtor is aware that sewer is not there, it is not being marketed as being there. It is being marketed with all of the problems that one sees and all of that is being revealed to these people. What we are trying to do is put it under full jurisdiction of the City of Meridian and not the County and the City. We are adjacent to the City now, we are not hop skipping around. I think your fears about trying to solve some of these problems at this level is moot until something happens with the whole comer up there and 1 don't think anything is going to happen on this piece of land until all the parcels there on that comer get usurped by one developer and something happens but this is a start. If other people aren't ready you have to take it one step at a time. Johnson: Thank you, anyone like to issue a comment before we close the public hearing? Seeing no one then I will close the public hearing at this time. MacCoy: Mr. Chairman, I move we have the Counsel prepare findings of fact and conclusions of law for this project. Oslund: Second Johnson: Motion with a second to have the City Attorney prepare findings of fact and conclusions of law, all those in favor? Opposed? Meridian Planning & ZonlTfg Commission • January 16, 1997 Page 24 MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #3: PUBLIC HEAR-NG: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A CHILD CARE CENTER FOR 12+ CHILDREN AT 1302 EAST FIRST STREET BY RAYMOND CHACE: Johnson: I will now open this pubic hearing and invite the applicant or the representative of the applicant to address the Commission. Raymond Chace, 586 W. Criterion, Meridian, was sworn by the City Attorney. Chace: We have put in an offer to purchase the property at 1302 E. First Street, City of Meridian and request the conditional use permit for a child care center for 12 or more children. I sit on the Board of Directors of the parent company, v~ have reviewed the comments from the City Engineer, the Planning Director, the Fire Department. I attended the ACRD hearing and have reviewed the Central District Health and the irrigation questions in the proposal. We are prepared to comply with all of the facts and findings in the outline and comments. Which specifically I should probably address. The driveway, we are prepared to pave with cement the existing driveway and expand it to the 24 by 30 foot wide curb that was recommended in item C of the ACRD comments. As far as the engineering goes we will light it appropriately and conform to the City's guidelines. Johnson: Thank you very much, questions of the applicant? MacCoy: Yes I do, you mentioned you have seen the City's comments that is the January 13`" sheet. Chace: My comments are dated January 10ch MacCoy: I want to make sure we are talking the same thing. (Inaudible) we will just wing it from here. You know we have a fence height requirement, you are aware of that? Chace: Yes I am. MacCoy: How about your gates being lockable? Chace: As they surround the play area, yes. MacCoy: Signage is in accordance with our ordinance, no blinking lights, not neon. Your outside lighting should not be a nuisance to your neighbors and that always seems to come back and haunt us because people say that to us and then do whatever they dam well please. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission • January 16, 1997 Page 25 Chace: My understanding is that an inspector and engineer comes in as we are not necessarily converting but shaping up the property. We will be in compliance. MacCoy: What about, are you familiar with the ADA, the handicapped code, federal code? Chace: That would be used in the rear, to the property. MacCoy: (Inaudible) do you plan to have a facility that will take care of kids that are handicapped? Chace: No, we are not able to take handicapped children, however we can conform to the ADA Federal guideline. MacCoy: Which is the ramps and the hand rails and (inaudible) Chace: That is correct in the event that children's parents or guardians are incapable of climbing stairs. MacCoy: (Inaudible) as a business to take care of the handicapped because there is the other part which was already mentioned here (inaudible) parents may also have the same problem. Chace: I will just interject, I just received a copy of the January 13th sheet that you mentioned, I will submit a floor plan of the house to scale. I do not have it with me, prior to the next meeting or should I have it in sooner than that? Johnson: Well as soon as you have it done so it can be distributed would be the best, that would be the ideal situation. Chace: Very good, our appraiser is scheduled to go out next week. Johnson: Any questions? MacCoy: One other thing, have you, I am just curious about this one here. Your neighborhood people, have any of them come to you and told you of a problem they have got with this or anything? Chace: No, my understanding is area was surveyed and sent out via certified mail and we have not received any complaints at this point. Johnson: Mr. Borup, any questions? Meridian Planning & Zon• Commission • January 16, 1997 Page 26 Borup: The turn around area, there is going to need to be a turn around the cars can tum around and head back out if they not backing out. I assume you were already planning that. Chace: Yes Borup: Do you feel like you will be okay on parking and a turn around area and the area that you have in there? Chace: Yes I did receive an off site parking design and dimensional table from the City of Meridian which I passed to our contractor which he was able to fairly easily comply with. I don't know if you want that. Fitzgerald: Can I ask you two questions, what is your hours of operation? Chace: Normal day light, 7 a.m. to 5:30 to 6:00 p.m., we will have no overnight hours of operation. MacCoy: How about Saturday? Chace: As far as I know no Saturdays, Saturdays and Sundays will be closed. Fitzgerald: Do you have any swimming pools, or canals or ditches around the area? Chace: There is a, on the south side there is a pump, it is covered however and my understanding is that it is in compliance with City ordinance. I think it is a valve for the irrigation ditch. Yes it is approximately 67 feet east of First Street on the northern border, I am sorry on the southern border where the fence to the post office is. It is covered and secured. That is a way, probably getting more to your question that is away from the play area. Probably 45 feet away from the play area so there are two fences that separate children from that particular hazard. Johnson: Thank you Mr. Chace, is there anyone from the public that would like to testify? Dale Ownby, 1824 South Sportsman Way, Meridian, was sworn by the City Attorney. Ownby: Just for clarification in regard to the Nampa Meridian Irrigation ditch that is (Fnd of Tape) out near the sidewalk that is between the curb and, the back of the sidewalk, it adjoins the sidewalk. The one that is back, like Mr. Chace, approximately 64 feet that is covered with a grate, a steel grate, all the rest of it is underground. It is my understanding that the boundary line is the center of the ditch. However the post office chose to put their chain link fence on the south side of the ditch so the ditch is Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 16, 1997 Page 27 exposed on this side. However it is all covered. So they did not put their fence where the boundary line is. That is all I have. Johnson: Thank you Dale, anyone else? I will close the public hearing at this time MacCoy: Mr. Chairman I move we have the Counsel prepare findings of fact and conclusions of law for this project. Borup: Second Johnson: We have a motion and a second to have the City Attorney prepare the findings of fact and conclusions of law on the conditional use permit application for a child care center, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #4: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A 2,800 SQUARE FOOT RESTAURANT WITH A DRIVE THROUGH WINDOW, 2 '/ STREET AND FAIRVIEW AVENUE, BY JACK IN THE BOX: Johnson: I will now open the public hearing and invite the applicant or representative of the applicant to address the Commission. Tom Spader, 334 Lakeside Avenue South, Seattle, WA, was swum by the City Attorney. Spader. I am the applicant for the project, Tom Spader of Freiheit and Ho Architects on behalf of Foodmaker Inc. and Bodice Oil Company. We are applying for a conditional use permit for a fast food restaurant 2,800 square feet with a drive thru. What we were proposing here is a single story wood frame building with the associated site improvements which include all the necessary parking, grading and drainage, irrigation requirements and landscaping. We got a copy of the comments, staff review comments as III as the comments from the Ada County Highway District. We see no problem meeting their requirements and recommendations. MacCoy: Are you comments dated January 13? Spader: Yes they are. Johnson: Questions of the Commissioners, starting with Mr. Borup? Borup: Actually I have none. Johnson: Mr. Oslund? Meridian Planning & Zo~g Commission • January 16, 1997 Page 28 Oslund: None Johnson: I know you do Malcolm. MacCoy: No in this case here I have gone through it and I don't have any Johnson: Jack in the box has some great ads going right now, I like the football player one, that is my kid, I get a kick out of that. We will probably have some comments, we might have to call you back. Anyone from the public that would like to address the application? Spader: One of the things that I might add, one of the comments from the County highway department was about the right in and right out access. I have revised our site plan and have copies of that. Johnson: If you could submit a copy of that we would appreciate that. Anyone else from the public? Seeing no one then I will close the public hearing at this time if that is all we have got. MacCoy: Mr. Chairman, I move that we have the counsel prepare findings of fact and conclusions of law for this project. Oslund: Second Johnson: Moved and seconded we have the City Attorney prepare findings of fact and conclusions of law, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #5: PUBLIC. HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR BUILDING EXPANSION AT MERIDIAN AUTOMOTIVE AND MACHINE, 505 EAST FIRST STREET, BY JOHN NESMITH: Johnson: I will now open the public hearing and ask the applicant or a representative of the applicant address the Commission. James Gibson, P.O. Box 19, Eagle, was sworn by the City Attomey. Gibson: The application is for a relatively minor expansion of the existing Meridian Automotive and Machine shop located at this address which is at the intersection of First Street and the rail road. The reason behind the expansion is not particularly to expand the business but rather to get more of the vehicles inside which are presently stored outside for greater security and convenience. As you probably have experienced Meridian Planning & Zo~g Commission • January 16, 1997 Page 29 when you take a car to get fixed you have to wait awhile for the right part to get there. This is to take up part of the waiting time. We have reviewed the staff comments and have worked with Ms. Stiles and she has been very helpful to us. We, our comments are dated the 13th of January. We have some comments regarding the proposed conditions if we may. Condition #1 regarding the curb, gutter and walk, we have reviewed of course with Ada County Highway District and had our meeting with them and know their conditions. We do have some concern that presently Bower Street is at relatively undeveloped. It is paved in the center but not fully to the sides and there is no curb, gutter or walk on either side. The applicant doesn't have any objection to putting curb, gutter and if it is wanted a walk there however it appears that there is going to be some kind of a drainage problem beyond the project rf in fact this is constructed in that manner. There was a storm drain there but some neighboring construction appears to have obliterated that. So we are questioning where the run off from the streets is going to go. Presently it goes into the gravel area which would no longer work after the sidewalk is put there. However we don't have any objection just that question. The drainage form the street is really beyond the scope of this minor project but rather it is a public works question. Comment #2 about the location of the driveway on Bower Street. There is a typographical error in the report and it should be a minimum of 50 feet west of East First Street right of way and we have not problem with that. The other conditions, 3, 4, 5, 6 we don't have any question about. Number 7 talks about the landscaping, the landscaping will be irrigated. The question that we have is what the pleasure of the Commission would be as to the location of additional trees. Please note that this property has been there for a long time. I has been used for a car sales lot since 1948 to 1993. The property was somewhat visually deteriorated before Mr. Nesmith and the present business became the owners and operators of the facility. Considerable improvement has been made in terms of landscaping and repair, replacement of paving, and general sprucing up of the appearance of the facility. We would ask the Commission though to remember the nature of the facility. It is not a shall we say a luxury sort of development but rather it is a car repair place. It needs to appear that way, We are questioning where the additional trees might be wanted if we put additional trees along East First Street they would somewhat intertere with either the site triangles or the sign and they wouldn't as we can see it do much to benefit the community through the trees. It would seem a tittle strange to put them along Bower Street considering what that street looks like. Now again we question whether there would be much benefit there. The other side of the property is along the rail road right of way and trees could be put along there if that is desired. We note to further comment number 12, regarding the beautification of the right of way corridor considered as part of future pathway light rail plans. 1 am not sure what plans are going to develop there but we know that something is in the wind. And possibly a few trees could be placed along that side if in fact that is the pleasure of the Commission. Otherwise it is hard to envision where we would place trees that would have any particular beneficial impact. Comment number 11, we believe the last part of the comment is really the most appropriate part that the location of the building and the fire resistive construction should meet the requirements of the building code and the building official and fire Meridian Planning & Zo~g Commission • January 16, 1997 Page 30 department. We certainly will do that, we believe that the particular ordinance sited here speaks more to a residential subdivision development and the separation of buildings there rather than the separation of commercial buildings which have a fire rated wall in a commercial district. So we have discussed this item with the building inspector Daunt Whitman and he understands our intent to have a fire resistive wall near the property line there. We believe that would be the most effective way to address what we believe the separation concerns would be. That is fire protection, if you put a fire resistive wall there that is the best practical protection that we could come up with rather than a space of ten feet. To move on item #13, speaks to the property as, not to be used as a sales lot. The application is not to convert it to a sales lot as mentioned before for many years this was a sales, an automobile sales lot. That is not the intent of the application though to do that in any way. The owner does not sell vehicles as a business there but rather repairs them. It does occasionally and I say occasionally happen that a car is placed there with a for sale sign in it. We don't want a condition to be generated that would prevent that exclusively on this property. The placing of a car with a for sale sign is permitted on virtually any place where legal parking can be done and that is all would ever be considered here as part of this question. Number 14, we vwuld ask some consideration on the screening of materials and so on. If you can envision an automobile parked awaiting repair. We don't want that automobile to be screened in such a way that security officers can't see it at night. It would be, it would create a dangerous situation. We are all in favor of screening unsightly equipment and mess and so on from the public, that is a clear principle. However, the screening say of parked vehicles is not a value but rather would be counter productive because it creates a great security problem where officers can't see who is breaking into your car when it is parked behind a screen. Other than that, I believe that addresses our concerns. Mr. Nesmith, the owner of the property is present and may be able to address some questions that are not strictly of an architectural nature. Thank you Johnson: Thank you, questions of the applicant? MacCoy: Yes I have some, this is all based on both the submittal material that you people put in and as well as the January 13th comments by the City. First place before I forget it, what you just mentioned the last part just now. 1 do agree with you, if you are going to shield something you will shield the mess side and (inaudible) that would help our police department keep your place (inaudible). You are going to pave the, I drove by here several times, I drive by there all of the time. But, the parking side on East First, what kind of pavement is that right now? Gibson: Along East First Street, it is an existing asphalt paved lot. We are not proposing to change that. MacCoy: (Inaudible) repaired there? Meridian Planning & Zonlhg Commission • January 16, 1997 Page 31 Gibson: Repaired? MacCoy: Yes, falling apart, you are going to have to go in there and resurface it? Gibson: Not significantly no. MacCoy: You have already taken care of your handicapped parking with the sign, which I was glad to see that. Regarding signs, your present sign is fairly new. Gibson: I believe it is and we are not proposing any change to the signage. This facility as you have probably looked at the site plan it is entirely behind the existing facility and we are not proposing a change. MacCoy: That brings up my next question is looking back there when I drive by on Bower Street, all of that material you have there is that what you are going to put behind a fence. someplace or hide it. What are you going to do with that stuff? Gibson: Probably Mr. Nesmith could address that better, but yes the stuff can be screened, it is the autos that we don't want screened. MacCoy: I understand that, but it looks like you have a lot of space already used back there and you are going to have to make some movement in order to put this building up. Gibson: That is actually one of the main reasons for putting the building up so that some of the stuff can be put inside rather than outside. MacCoy: Speaking of the building, is that going to be a sheet metal building or what? Gibson: We are proposing a building that will have metal siding on two of the sites and possibly on the third exposed site. The other, the fourth site adjoins the existing building. MacCoy: You are not planning on putting a fire wall in there. Gibson: Yes it will be a fire wall, and we have not yet determined with the building official which way we want to go whether it will be metal on the outside or whether it will be a masonry wall. MacCoy: I just wanted to clarify that. Gibson: Could be either way. Meridian Planning & Zo~g Commission • January 96, 9997 Page 32 MacCoy: Back to your parking lot, the one on East First Street, it seems to me that you had that thing overlaid or sealed here not too long ago. You has striping put in at that time. Gibson: 1 believe that is correct, the parking lot itself has been there for a long time and it was majorly repaired and resurfaced and there was striping put in at that time. The question about striping now is because there appears that some modification of that parking lot of the parking layout wilt be necessary to accommodate to required location of the drives. There is one other drive question, may I address that now, the access directly onto East First Street right near the railroad. The ACHD had some concerns about that and recommended that a variance be generated to allow that access to remain with a right turn only. The applicant is willing to do that however would also be willing to also eliminate that access which may be the best solution in the bottom line anyway. MacCoy: I think you are right it would be best because it, as you drive over that because of the way that East First it is almost a blind spot there. Gibson: Well it is, it is right at the intersection at the rail road and there is a significant difference in grade there. So the applicant shares the concern and vwuld be willing to just eliminate that access or do what ACRD recommended the variance to allow just a one way tum there. MacCoy: Well I would personally like to see you eliminate it because you can, I have actually gone by there on foot just to make sure that I was correct and you can see your two truck coming through there but you cannot see some of the cars which are must lower and they become a hazard and I have seen some pretty close calls out there. Gibson: It is a valid concern and we are willing to consider that. MacCoy: Do you plan to do any more with lighting around your building outside? Gibson: There mould be essentially porch would not be relighted that is not part of th on the new part of the building. lights on the new building. The whole site a project. But there ~nrould be minor lighting MacCoy: Which would be non-glare. Gibson: We would be very careful comply there. Johnson: Mr. Borup? Borup: I have somewhat of a comment, I think most of the City staffs comments and recommendations on the road were all generated from ACHD's comments. So I don't Meridian Planning & Zo~g Commission • January 16, 1997 Page 33 know the problem on the drainage. Have you discussed that with ACHD on what they recommend. There is not, 1 don't think there is a lot of the choice City has on some of the road things, that is pretty much determined by ACRD. Gibson: Perhaps our best request of the Commission would be that the applicant comply with the ACRD requirements. You are absolutely correct. That is where the requirements came from. If ACRD determines that drainage can't be done there then that is one thing. It is probably in the ACRD hands rather than in ours. Borup: You had some concerns on the trees, where to put them to comply with the City ordinance to comply with that. Has it been determined how many we are even talking about here? Gibson: The ordinance speaks to one to 1500 square feet of paving, that would equal about 3 or 4 more trees if in fact Borup: Three or four more, you have one there now? Gibson: There is one existing, we propose to put one in a location that we thought was logical and to meet the to#al calculation if in fact that is the pleasure of the Commission we would have to add three or four more and vue have trying to figure out where to add them. Borup: Just an additional comment on Mr. MacCoy talked about the screening and I certainly agree with the comment on not screening the car storage area. I wondered if something specific might be in the design and what areas would be screened for the other storage if that could be incorporated. Has that been determined at this point? Gibson: That has not been £nalty determined. We can certainly determine and illustrate that. Borup: Oh, one other, have you discussed with the fire department on their comment? Are you aware, he just had a comment that it possibly may need to have a sprinkler system and I don't know what he needs to do to determine that. Gibson: We do, we will resolve that question completely. Oslund: I have two quick comments Mr. Chairman, t promise. First on the trees you asked our opinion, that is just, it is just my opinion, but I think the best place is if you have three or four trees is to put them up in front and in particular if you take out that ane drive way close to the rail road track. I don't think you are going to have a real big problem with site triangles. If that is all you are working with I think that is the best place. Second issue is you have got a lot of stuff in the back on the out door racks. personally like that kind of stuff, I am into transmissions and stuff, but do you have a Meridian Planning & Zo~g Commission • January 16, 1997 Page 34 chain link fence around there at the perimeter of the property right now. Has any consideration been given to maybe like using a vinyl slat in that to try and screen it a little? Gibson: Certainly, that is the obvious choice there. Oslund: That is all I have. MacCoy: One thing I want to look at though for you Greg, looking for the trees, they don't have a real tall sign, he is going to watch out the trees that he puts in there don't block his sign. Johnson: What you are saying is we can wUrk this out with the landscape people I think is what we are really trying to tell you here. Gibson: If you can word the condition that would (inaudible) Johnson: I have two quick questions and I am looking for answers. Does the applicant own a dealers license? Gibson: I would have to defer to Mr. Nesmith, but I do not believe so. Johnson: I would like and answer to that, and secondly, is there any contemplated impound business. There is a towing business, do you have any plans for an impound lot? Gibson: Again I should ask Mr. Nesmith. Johnson: Okay, I would like answers to those two questions, that is all 1 had. Anyone else? Anyone from the public that would like to address this? If not t will try to get an answer from Nesmith if he is here. John Nesmith, 112 SW 12`", Meridian, was svwrn by the City Attorney. Johnson: Just those two questions, do you own a dealers license? Nesmith: No I don't. Johnson: Are there any plans for or are you now in fact conducting an impound business? Nesmith: Yes we do. Meridian Planning January 16, 1997 Page 35 & Zoning Commission Johnson: Okay, there was a comment in here from staff, not to put words in their mouths, a signfficant number of cars was the phrase 1 believe they used on the property 24 hours a day. Is a good number of those part of the impound, how many would be, that sort of thing. Nesmith: Actually that tends to rotate as insurance companies come and get their vehicles. I would say about 10 to 15 cars on the average are maintained. The derelicts as we call the ones we get stuck with we haul off. There is a determining factor whether they have to be impounded according to Ada County, Boise City, depending on the department. Meridian City would also do some for those guys. They have to sit at the particular place so that police and insurance agents came come and look at them until they are determined either dead and we are stuck with them to where we have to haul them off and dispose of them. Or to where the insurance companies come and get them and then somebody disposes of them. Johnson: That is a concern from my standpoint. I am a little familiar with impound lots and some cars that are missing end up in them for a long time before they are discovered missing. They tend to deteriorate and collect dust and that sort of thing. They also become a target for vandalism. Nesmith: There is actually a supplemental lot that as far as an existing property that we also own at 41 East Bower that we actually use as our primary storage lot for most of our impounds. Johnson: Impound lots become unsightly and that is my point. Is there any special licensing required for that to have, and that (inaudible) Nesmith: I believe Ada County we have a permit to take care of their impounds. Johnson: Assuming that this is a permitted use on that property and it is something that I need to check. I would hope that the additional storage space created by the building would house the impound cars. I find that personally unattractive. Nesmith: Actually I agree and that is something that vve keep rolled out as far as the vehicles that are unsightly I haul them off and take care of them. It is something that is no different then when we are working on automobiles occasionally we get stuck with ones that people just dump, they don't want to work on it and I have to go through the Legal motions before I can get rid of them otherwise I vwuld be in violation of the law. have to go through it. Johnson: This is a little bit off the subject, but the public as I understand it has to be screened from access to impound lots is that true or not true? Don't they have to be in a secured spot, if you impound a vehicle which is somebody else's property until Meridian Planning i?< Zon'tfig Commission • January 16, 1997 Page 36 proven otherwise don't you have to protect the public in some way through either locked gates, screening, is that being done now? Nesmith: Yes it is, that is where we have a supplemental lot that anything that, that is where actually 90% of the stuff is stored. The address that is in question, 505 East First is only used probably 10% of the time. It is not used very often in supplement of both places. Johnson: That is all I have, any further comment? Thank you Nesmith: I only had as far as James was concemed, when we are talking about as the screening. I guess there is some concern as far as the parts is concerned, I guess I can shed a little light to it. There is some part storage that we use because we have a machine shop facility as well that we have to have some sort of engine storage, core storage. I have tried to put it on pallet racks and tried to make things as sightly and organized as possible to not create a big pile of junk like you see most places like that have. As far as screening goes, the only thing that concerns me is that seeing as though they are adjacent to the storage facility is cars, that, I guess I would be willing to do partial screening but my biggest concern is talking to the local police is that basically it provides height zones. I guess we had an incident of some of the juvenile, I guess I can't put it on the juvenile delinquents, that is the experience that we had of people that would break in and do that. So that is my only concern that any screening it would still provide those guys when they drive by and scan our back lot it is still going to give them a little hide zone. I would be wilting to do it but I think it is going to be a problem. MacCoy: Welt it is a valid concern. Nesmith: I talked to Gene Trakel is the officer I talk to quite a bit, he is on the night duty and they caught some guys breaking into a vehicle and actually they kind of had them set up because they were watching them get into the back lot. But I guess the fact that they can go by and spot light them and they popped back over the fence. I guess the idea is if I am working on your car it is supposed to be safe when it is locked. Johnson: I believe staffs comment was specifically geared towards equipment and materials as opposed to vehicles. Nesmith: I guess my only concern, I agree, but I guess I try to limit that to being organized and trying not to be unsightly. Because it is in conjunction with storage vehicles and it is kind of at the same place. I don't know how 1 would differentiate between the two. Meridian Planning & Zon'tFig Commission • January 16, 1997 Page 37 Borup: Could there be some interior screening not, I think you are referring to screening out at the road, would screened cars and everything else in there, maybe some interior fence or interior screening separate from the cars maybe a consideration. Nesmith: I just don't know how that would be done and still offer access to the parts seeing as though they are set up on a pallet rack where a heister has to come up to it. Borup: I am not sure, I thought most of it was along the building and maybe just the screen Nesmith: No, I think the only parts, because I have taken a clean up everything, the only parts that are stored and there are three pallet racks. Everything else is all clean gravel besides there are some scrap receptacles for our waste products that are developed and I separate that stuff out because we recycle all of that stuff. MacCoy: You are working with the Meridian Police Department right now though. Nesmith: Absolutely. MacCoy: I think that is your best avenue for that. Nesmith: Those guys actually do a real good job. MacCoy: We also have that concern and we (inaudible) that is one of our concerns (inaudible) Nesmith: I guess they have enough room beside the vehicle (inaudible) Johnson: Thank you, any one else? Any further comments? I will close the public hearing at this time. MacCoy: Mr. Chairman, I move that we have the Counsel prepare findings of fact and conclusions of law for this project. Oslund: Second Johnson: Motion and a second to have findings of fact and conclusions of lew prepared, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #6: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR MODULAR BUILDINGS, 1830 NORTH CINDER ROAD, BY MERIDIAN ASSEMBLY OF GOD: Meridian Planning & Zo~g Commission • January 16, 1997 Page 38 Johnson: The applicant is at the podium and prepared to be sworn in. Patrick Drake, 1830 N. Linder Road, Meridian, was sworn by the City Attorney. Drake: We are proposing a conditional use permit to allow two modular buildings for a three year period for additional classroom space that we need for our growth. We have had a chance to review at length the comments from Shari Stiles as well as the other agencies and municipalities and are willing to adhere to their recommendations. I am open for any questions that the Chairman or the Commissioners might have. Johnson: Thank you, on this January 10`" letter from Bruce Freckleton and you may have already answered this, but his concern was what are the buildings going to be used for. Will they be occupied and will there be any rest room facilities so you probably already handled that. Drake: It will be class room space and at this point in time we are not looking to have rest rooms in the buildings no. Johnson: Any storage? Drake: No Johnson: Does anyone else have any questions? MacCoy: Yes I do, looking at, where you plan to locate this is that area before you get to your portables is that an asphalt paving already existing? Drake: There is asphalt paving, then there is a space of gravel and then there is the cleared grass area. We are looking to put the modular buildings in the grass area and as per the comments of the City we would go ahead and construct an asphalt sidewalk for people to have access to the two new buildings yes sir. MacCoy: What about the handicapped code requirements, what are you going to do about that? Drake: We would meet all of the codes with ramping, etc. MacCoy: Hand rails and the whole works, you are going to have handicapped parking back there so you can handle that and that it is (inaudible) Drake: To the best of my knowledge yes. Meridian Planning & Zon'TFig Commission • January 16, 1997 Page 39 MacCoy: And just from the information it is, I guide you to the stand point to look at the actual documents for that because there have been so many things happening both in Boise as well as Eagle and here where they make the parking space width which everybody assumed that is fine for the handicapped. They forget the fact that they, some of those vans have side loading and you need the extra space for that. Also the location of the parking things so that if a person gets of that van or car or what have you they don't have to cross any time of car traffic. Just curious, once you have had the use of these two portables what is your future use of these? Drake: To go ahead and move those off campus. At this point in time the church has grown so fast that the space is really not adequate with the land we own. We hope to move within the next two years, so we would physically take them with us and probably put them on a slab for permanency. MacCoy: That was one of the questions that came in from some of your neighbors as to what you were going to do with a portable forever and ever. Drake: We thought it would be pertinent to put a specific time period on it and we actually propose a three year period in writing when we first submitted it sir. Oslund: Just a point of interest, once this expires, what is the mechanism for expiration of the conditional use permit? Stiles: We will send in the police department. Drake: Subtle but effective. Oslund: I trust these guys don't get me wrong, we have not seen one of these and 1 am just wondering how a temporary permit operates like that. Just send them a letter and say the time is up. Stiles: I imagine that is what we would do. Oslund: Let's say their plans changed and they decided they wanted an extension, that is something that would have to come back to P & Z or is it something handled by staff or Council? MacCoy: It would go back through the Planning and Zoning Commission if it is going to change the conditional use permit. Drake: I think there is a comment also on this one that is dated the 13t" item 6, there is an annual review process as well I believe. Stiles: if they start getting unruly. Meridian Planning & Zon• Commission • January 16, 1997 Page 40 MacCoy: (Inaudible) Borup: Just a question, ACRD had quite a few requirements, you said you did review all of them? Drake: We had an opportunity to meet with them in person went through the list with them and we had an opportunity to meet with them in person and went through the list with them and we are willing to do the improvements they requested. Borup: They had quite a list. And just out of curiosity, you said you were running out of space there. It looks like on the submittal that you have a lot of area behind that you use now, does the church own that property also? Drake: It is not being used at all right, it is just open field. Borup: There is room there for future expansion though, I am just curious why moving rather than utilizing that land. Drake: We have done our demographics already and have taken a look at it and in due diligence there doesn't appear to be enough parking and adequate space to build a larger facility in the future. We run three morning services that are completely full, we definitely need to build a new building soon. So we hope to start on that with the various municipalities. We will probably just, we are looking to negotiate with land that is right on that same street about a mile further north and get to a larger campus. Like the valley the church has grown real fast as well. MacCoy: Back to your existing (inaudible) those tvuo light poles that are shown at the top of your plan, the (inaudible) Drake: Yes they are MacCoy: I am just curious how much of your existing building what is your seating capacity (inaudible) Drake: I am not sure that I can answer that question for you sir. The three services that we have that are full 1 believe the capacity is about 300 people. For each sitting for each service in the auditorium itself. MacCoy: That is on chairs. Drake: No we do have pews. MacCoy: Commendable. Meridian Planning & Zon• Commission • January 16, 1997 Page 41 Johnson: Anybody else? Thank you very much sir? Anyone else from the audience? Brian Goold, 1497 Storey Street, Meridian, was sworn by the City Attorney. Goold: I just have a small comment to make. I moved into Meridian at that address about 3 '/: years ago, my house at that time appraised for $82,900. If you are not familiar with Storey Street it does not have curbs, it is not a very attractive street as those that are being built today in the subdivisions. My house is probably one of the few that have not appreciated in fact it has depreciated. The current value is $81,900. In the City of Meridian I think that is terrible. Johnson: Unusual Goold: Everybody else is appreciating three to five to six to ten thousand a years and mine is going down. Apart of that 1 believe is from the acceptance of the Smith's that has been put in or approved down the street. And I have a problem with a temporary buildings right there in my back yard. Basically my backyard opens up into a farmer's field which is next to this church. 1 believe it would be a discredit to those homeowners that live on Storey Street to allow more of their property values to decrease. Our street has homeowners only on one side and that is the side that borders the view of this church. Those are my comments. I sure would hope that you would take those into consideration. I am in a flux I guess, 1 am in a hole somewhere in Meridian that everything is going backwards where the rest of the City is going forwards. Johnson: t appreciate your comments and I apologize for assuming what your comments were going to be. I would be interested in the source of your evaluation that is all for my own curiosity. Goold: I find that portables are unsightly. Johnson: I am sorry my question is how did you arrive at the devaluation of that source is what I am asking. Goold: My next door neighbor currently has actually two houses down sold his house for $79,900 it is the same equivalent square footage. The only thing my house has that is different than his is mine does have air conditioning and a finished garage. My next door neighbor right next to me is selling his house for $80,900. When 1 bought the property 3'/z years ago it was worth more than that. Johnson: I was wondering if there was a current appraisal or just what the market is dictating. Meridian Planning & Zon• Commission • January 16, 1997 Page 42 Goold: Well all of the houses on that street are not like the ones you talked about earlier today. They are anywhere from 1000 to 1200 square feet, 1250 I think is the biggest of them all. It is for small families that are first time home buyers. Why buy a first time home if you can't get out of it. Currently if I were to sell my house today I would lose money just on selling cost. I wouldn't be able to pay off the mortgage to get out of the house. That is not what a starter home is for, starter home is for you to build equity and to take the next stair step up to the next level of the home. tt is not happening on Storey Street. One of our problems that we have noticed in the last 3'/ years is that when the street was constructed the lots were too small, your houses are very close together with one another. Also the street itself is not very well, when it adjoins to Linder you cannot see the street sign. If you were to come from Ustick and drive down Linder you will miss Storey Street because you wvn't see the sign or the entrance. Then when you do get on the entrance it is not paved all the way to the edge. It is paved in the center, but on both edges where you are coming in or going out it is gravel and it is muddy and it is dirty and whenever it rains or snows or whatever it looks disgusting. Johnson: Those are exactly the type of things we are trying to avoid. And some of our comments earlier regarding the application number 1 tonight was (End of Tape) Goold: Believe you me, I am in the financial industry and I have had clients that live in subdivisions that are adjoining us and with similar square footage and similar amenities and their houses are $92,000 to $95,000 is what the are selling and refinancing their homes for. Like I said I am stuck in this hole and I have nothing against a person's faith or how they worship. I think it is great that the church is growing, I think it is great that he has three full services but I would be more inclined to vote in the affirmative 'rf he was increasing the size of his building and maybe those were temporary portables for maybe six months. But for maybe three years it is basically permanent in my sight. I don't believe those portables will help my property value at all. Borup: Can I assume that your taxes have gone down as well? Goold: No my taxes have gone up. In fact my taxes have gone up every year, and the one year that vve declined the school district increase then we turned around and got a 10°k increase on our assessment values. So it didn't matter if you voted for it or not you were going to get an increase in your taxes that year. Borup: So apparently the County assessor Goold: Doesn't like me either. Borup: Has not agreed with their evaluation. Meridian Planning & Zo• Commission January 16, 1997 Page 43 Johnson: Any further comments or questions? Thank you very much, do you have a last comment? Drake: In reference to the gentleman's comments, I am sorry that has been the case, don't think we are related to that. We purchased a four acre parcel of land between Story Street and the existing facilities which vue have no plans to develop whatsoever so there is a four acre buffer. I don't know if I can approach the Commission to show a copy of the plat book as to where Storey street is related to our existing structures. The two modular buildings we are looking to construct would be the same company that builds the modular structures for the school board. They are going to be attractive buildings, we won't be there three years. We will be good neighbors in the mean time but we will be moving fairly soon. Johnson: I appreciate those comments, at this point I will close the public hearing. MacCoy: Mr. Chairman, I move that we have the Counsel prepare findings of fact and conclusions of law for this project. Oslund: Second Johnson: Motion and a second to have the City Attorney prepare findings of fact and conclusions of law, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Oslund: Mr. Chairman, I move that we adjourn this little soiree, this meeting. MacCoy: Second Johnson: Motion and a second to adjourn, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:37 P.M. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) APPROVED: ~~r/,9/ JIM OHN ON, AIRMAN ,ice Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission • January 16, 1997 Page 44 ATTEST: " .~'~ AM G. BERG, JR., TY LERK =`` ~T~ S$AL y ~ :.~ ~ ~