2009 05-07Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting May 7, 2009
Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of May 7, 2009, was called to
order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman David Moe.
Members Present: Chairman David Moe, Commissioner Wendy Newton-Huckabay,
Commissioner Joe Marshall, and Commissioner Michael Rohm.
Members Absent: Commissioner Tom O'Brien,
Others Present: Machelle Hill, Bill Nary, Pete Friedman, Sonya Wafters, Scott Steckline,
and Dean Willis.
Item 1: Roll-Call Attendance:
Roll-call
X Wendy Newton-Huckabay Tom O'Brien
X Michael Rohm -Vice Chairman X Joe Marshall
X David Moe -Chairman
Moe: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. I'd like to welcome you to the regularly
scheduled meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission for May the 7th. I'd like to
call this meeting to order and ask the clerk to call roll, please.
Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda:
Moe: Thank you very much. Next item on the agenda is the adoption of the agenda.
Commissioners, there are no changes to the agenda, so if I could get a motion to
accept the agenda?
Marshall: So moved.
Newton-Huckabay: Second.
Rohm: Second.
Moe: It's been moved and seconded to adopt the agenda. All those in favor say aye.
Opposed. That motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 3: Consent Agenda:
A. Approve Minutes of April 16, 2009 Planning and Zoning
Commission Meeting:
Meridian Planning and Zoning
May 7, 2009
Page 2 of 23
B. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP
09-002 Request for Conditional Use Permit approval for adrive-thru
establishment in a C-G zone within 300 feet of another drive-thru
establishment for Idadiv Credit Union by ZGA Architects &
Planners LTD - NWC of Meridian Road and Corporate Drive:
Moe: Next item on the agenda is the Consent Agenda. On that we have got two items.
Item No. 1 is the approved minutes of the April 16th, 2009, Planning and Zoning
Commission meeting and the second item is the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of
Law for approval of CUP 09-002. Any questions, comments, Commissioners?
Newton-Huckabay: I have none.
Moe: Okay. Could I get a motion to approve the Consent Agenda?
Marshall: So moved.
Newton-Huckabay: Second.
Moe: It's been moved and seconded to approve the Consent Agenda. All those in favor
say aye. Opposed? That motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Moe: Before I open our first public hearing tonight, good to see that we have got some
folks in the audience tonight. Thank you very much for coming. Basically, I want to just
kind of give you a rundown for the format that we go through here. I will open the public
hearing. At that time the staff will give a brief overview of the hearing. After they are
done, then, I will, then, ask the applicant to come forward. The applicant will have 15
minutes to, basically, explain their position on their project, whether they -- they are
asking for additional help or whether or not they are in approval of everything. After the
applicant is done there are sign-up sheets in the back for anyone that wants to come
forward and speak on this hearing. You would get three minutes time at that time.
Once everyone on the list has been taken care of I will, then, ask one more time if there
is anyone else in the audience that would like to speak to this hearing and they, too,
would also get three minutes. After that's all done I will, then, ask the applicant to come
back up and, basically, answer any questions that may have been asked during the
public hearings or rebut any other information that was talked about. So, after that time,
then, the Commission, then, would vote and decide how to go from there.
Item 4: Public Hearing: RZ 09-001 Request for Rezone of 7.65 acres consisting
of 25 single-family residential lots and 2 common lots (Lots 1 and 2 and a
portion of Lot 3, Block 2; portions of Lots 1 & 10 and Lots 2-9, Block 1,
Dove Meadows Subdivision No. 1; portions of Lots 11 & 12 and Lots 13-
24, Block 1, Dove Meadows Subdivision No. 2) from L-O to R-8 for Dove
Meridian Planning and Zoning
May 7, 2009
Page 3 of 23
Meadows by City of Meridian Planning Department -various properties in
Dove Meadows Subdivision Nos. 1 and 2 zoned L-O:
Moe: So, having said that, then, I would now like to open the public hearing on RZ 09-
001 for Dove Meadows, start with the staff report, please.
Wafters: Thank you, Chairman, Commissioners. The first application is a rezone of
7.53 acres of land from L-O, limited office, to R-8, medium density residential. The
property is located north of Fairview off of Hickory Way, midway between Locust Grove
and Eagle Road. The properties consist of 25 single family residential lots and two
common lots in Dove Meadows Subdivision No. 1 and 2. Surrounding uses are single
family residential properties and a church, Capitol Christian. A future land use map
designation for these properties is medium density residential, which is consistent with
the proposed R-8 zoning. A little history on these properties. All of these lots have
been developed with single family homes. The residential use of these properties was
authorized under a previously approved planned development, which allowed
residential uses in the L-O district. Because residential use of these properties lawfully
existed prior to the effective date of the current UDC, 9/15 of '05, the use and structures
are considered nonconforming per UDC 11-1B-1, as residential uses are prohibited in
the L-O district. As such, the use is allowed to continue as long as the use remains
lawful, is not expanded or extended subject to the provisions listed in UDC 11-16-4.
The nonconforming structures maybe be enlarged, repaired, or modified, provided that
the additions or modifications to the structure conform to the requirement listed in UDC
11-1B-5. The purpose of the amendment is to remove the nonconforming status of the
properties and zone them the same as the rest of the lots in residential sub -- or, excuse
me, Dove Meadows Subdivision, zoned R-8. No written testimony has been received
on this application. Staff is recommending approval of the rezone with the conditions in
the staff report. Staff will stand for any questions the Commissioners may have at this
time.
Moe: Thank you. Any questions of staff?
Newton-Huckabay: I have none.
Moe: Okay. None? I'm going to confuse everyone, because the city was not only the --
talking about it, they were the applicant for this as well. So, there will be no applicant
coming forward now, but we do have a couple of folks that were signed up. First would
be Carol Hall is it? Do you want to come forward? Okay. From the audience she's
fine. Donald? And I assume from the audience he's fine as well, so -- all right. Well,
that was easy enough. Well, at that point now, if there is anyone else in the audience
that would like to speak to this hearing now, you're more than welcome to come
forward. None of the scouts? All right. Well, 1 gave you a shot. So, Commissioners?
Rohm: Mr. Chairman?
Moe: Commissioner Rohm.
Meridian Planning and Zoning
May 7, 2009
Page 4 of 23
Rohm: I move that we close the public hearing on RZ 09-001.
Marshall: Second.
Moe: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on RZ 09-001. All
those in favor say aye. Opposed? That motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Moe: Mr. Rohm, you're doing so well.
Rohm: Okay. Mr. Chairman?
Moe: Yes.
Rohm: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend
approval to the City Council of file number RZ 09-001 as presented in the staff report for
the hearing date of May 7th, 2009, with no modifications.
Marshall: Second.
Moe: It's been moved and seconded to approve RZ 09-001. All those in favor say aye.
Opposed? That motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 5: Public Hearing: CUP 09-004 Request for Conditional Use Permit for a
daycare center in an R-4 zoning district for Pitter Patter Club by Pitter
Patter Club, LLC - 2371 N. Monaco Way:
Moe: At this time I'd like to open the public hearing on CUP 09-004 for Pitter Patter
Club and start with the staff report, please.
Wafters: Thank you, Chairman Moe, Members of the Commission. The next
application before you is a Conditional Use Permit for a day care center for 12 to 20
children in an R-4 district. The property is located at 2371 North Monaco Way, half a
mile north of Cherry Lane, a quarter mile west of Linder Road. The applicant has
submitted a site plan showing the floor plan of the existing 1,040 square foot house.
The fenced rear yard area, landscaping, and parking areas. Two off-street parking
spaces are required to be provided, based on the square footage of the home. Two
spaces are proposed in an enclosed garage and two spaces are proposed on a parking
pad outside the garage, which complies with and exceeds UDC requirements. A six
foot tall solid wood fence encloses the rear yard where the play area is proposed. The
proposed hours of operation for the daycare center are 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., which
may change depending on demand, but not later than 11:00 p.m. Monday through
Meridian Planning and Zoning
May 7, 2009
Page 5 of 23
Friday. The UDC specific use standards for daycare facilities allow daycares in
residential districts to operate between 6:00 a.m. and 11:00 p.m. There have been ten
letters of testimony in support of this application received from neighbors by the city. No
letters in objection to the application have been received. Staff finds that the site is
large enough to accommodate the proposed use, that the use will be harmonious with
the Comprehensive Plan and that the daycare will provide a much needed service in
this area and will contribute to the variety of uses in the city. The daycare should be
compatible with other uses and should not adversely affect other properties in the
general neighborhood if the applicant complies with the conditions of approval. While
staff recognizes the traffic and noise will increase with the approval of a daycare facility
in this area, staff does not believe the amount generated will be detrimental to the
general welfare of the public. Therefore, staff is recommending approval of the subject
Conditional Use Permit application with the conditions in the staff report. Staff will stand
for any questions the Commission may have at this time.
Rohm: Thank you. Any questions of staff at this time?
Marshall: No.
Moe: Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward, please. And, please, state your
name and address for the record when you come up, please.
Jansson: Hi. My name is Juanita Jansson and I'm with Pitter Patter Club, LLC. And
what else did you say? I'm sorry, I'm a little nervous.
Moe: Your address.
Jansson: The address is 2371 North Monaco in Meridian.
Moe: Okay.
Jansson: And the purpose would be to service the neighborhood. We have lived there
since 1985. We had the home built. And so where they -- one of the few that are still
there since, then, you know. And we are not living in the residence now, but it's still --
I'm still the owner. Have never sold or anything. I have been the sole owner of that
home. I have watched all the kids from the neighborhood grow up there and my kids --
now I have my own grandkids and I have always served -- I was always the
neighborhood cookie lady after work, you know, and so I'm used to having kids and
being so close to a school I thought it would be a good location to serve the community.
As far as traffic is concerned, we plan on servicing the neighborhood which was people
-- working mothers in the neighborhood. So, it's not like we are going to bring a whole
lot of traffic from the outside, we plan on catering within, so that would kind of eliminate
the traffic. Excuse me. Again, like I said, we are right around the corner from an
elementary school, which is Linder, and we'd like to open as soon as possible and we
would be -- we would be marketing to newborns all the way to kindergarten.
Meridian Planning and Zoning
May 7, 2009
Page 6 of 23
Moe: Okay.
Jansson: And that's it.
Moe: As far as the staff report itself, are you in agreement with everything within the
staff report?
Jansson: Yes.
Moe: Okay. Any other questions, Commissioners?
Rohm: Did you say that you -- there is nobody living in the home?
Jansson: No, I'm not -- no, I don't live in the home.
Rohm: So, it will just be used for daycare and --
Jansson: Correct. That would be correct.
Rohm: -- then, when there is no -- at the end of the day it will be unoccupied at night?
Jansson: Correct. At the end of the day we would clean up and disinfect everything
and get prepared for the following day and so we lock up at the end of the day. That's
correct.
Rohm: Thank you.
Moe: Any other questions, Commissioners?
Newton-Huckabay: I have none.
Moe: Okay. Thank you very much.
Jansson: Okay. Thank you.
Moe: On the sign up sheet Nicole. Okay. From the audience she signed up, she's one
of the applicants, basically. Okay. Next on the list would be Glen Olsen. Name and
address, please.
Olsen: Glen Olsen. 2368 North Glennfield Way.
Moe: Thank you.
Olsen: We -- I own the home immediately behind the daycare -- or the home that's
proposed. I have a document that I got the signature of my -- of myself and the
Meridian Planning and Zoning
May 7, 2009
Page 7 of 23
neighbors directly adjoining the property that asked that the Commission reject the
proposal, so I have that and with signatures --
Moe: Would you, please, give it to the clerk.
Olsen: My main concern -- I don't know, do I need to speak into something?
Moe: You're fine.
Olsen: My main concern is based on the neighborhood -- we don't have a
neighborhood association. That has expired and is gone and so if there were
covenants I, obviously, think that this probably would not go through. But my concern is
not necessarily that the daycare be provided, but that -- well, there is several concerns,
but I do think that it will alter the character of the neighborhood. It's not doing well as it
is and the neighborhood's kind of going downhill and I think this would add to that.
That's kind of my overall opinion. According to Ada County's web site it's an 11 -- it's a
1,040 square foot home with one bathroom and there is up to 20 children that could be
provided into that home. I don't think that would probably be adequate without some
significant remodeling and changes to the home. Also, the Meridian city web site refers
to the code where daycares are allowed Conditional Use Permits and it refers to off-
street parking for the safety of the children. It also refers to a pick up and turn around
areas and I have that, but I'm sure you're familiar with those rules. But I have the cite if
you'd like to look at it. It's 11-4-3.9. And so my concern is that the property is not very
big and that the impact on my property becoming -- and the adjoining property
essentially becoming a commercial building, with dropping off -- and I know they are
looking to service the neighborhood, but Linder Elementary draws from a huge area
where people would be dropping off -- and I don't believe that the off-street parking for
four cars if you're pulling in and out of that neighborhood would be sufficient to take care
of the same -- and care for the safety of 20 -- up to 20 children being dropped off there.
Also it's in and out. Those cars would be backing up and if it were in and out one way,
but if you have little children coming in or being picked up that an in and out driveway,
essentially, for four cars isn't going to be adequate, unless there is some way to get
those cars to get out of there without backing in some shape or form and maybe the
staff has had other experience, but looking at the home at least from that standpoint if
it's going to max out up to 20 children, I think you're asking for problems. But that's my
opinion. Also, the other aspect of it was that -- well, those were my main concerns.
Obviously, it's the property behind me and I would rather not that that take place, but my
-- the reasons for that are I think it will reduce my property value, make my home harder
to sell than it is, and neighbors adjoining on both sides of the property agree with that
based on the document. So, that's, essentially, my concerns with approval of this
conditional use.
Moe: Any questions?
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair?
Meridian Planning and Zoning
May 7, 2009
Page 8 of 23
Moe: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay.
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Olsen, are you the only one of the three who signed that
document that are here?
Olsen: No. I signed it and the two neighbors adjoining and their addresses are on the
form.
Newton-Huckabay: Right. But they aren't here this evening?
Olsen: One is here, yes
Newton-Huckabay: Okay.
Olsen: And I believe she's next on the list.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay.
Moe: I would ask the question -- I understand that there were two neighborhood
meetings that no one attended. I'm wondering were you aware of those meetings?
Olsen: We got the letter notifying me of the -- and I just made a note that this hearing
would be held, I didn't read far enough if that was in the letter that was sent out if there
was a meeting. But I knew this was being held and this is what I planned for. So, if I
missed it it was not because I intended to. I would have been there had I read probably
the letter farther.
Moe: Okay. Any other questions?
Rohm: Just a comment.
Olsen: Yes.
Rohm: Probably should have read the letter.
Olsen: And no question, but I also know that that's why I'm here.
Rohm: Well -- and so noted.
Moe: Thank you very much.
Olsen: Thank you.
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair?
Moe: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. I'm sorry.
Meridian Planning and Zoning
May 7, 2009
Page 9 of 23
Newton-Huckabay: I don't have a question for you, Mr. Olsen --
Olsen: Okay.
Newton-Huckabay: But can you go back to like a map? I maybe seem dense here.
Where is -- I'm trying to put this -- where is the school? I'm trying to get my bearings,
so --
Wafters: I believe it's just south and east of there, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay.
That big lot.
Friedman: No. That's a park.
Wafters: Is that a park? I'm not absolutely sure.
Newton-Huckabay: Oh. How about if I look at that map. Okay.
Friedman: I don't think so, because there is no access into it.
Wafters: No, that's not it. It may not show on this map.
Rohm: It's not right below the word site just due south?
Wafters: No. I believe that's a common area.
Marshall: That's got -- that's got lots all the way around it. It's got to be a park.
Rohm: Oh.
Wafters: The applicant can probably answer that question for you.
Newton-Huckabay: Where is Chateau Drive?
Moe: Yeah. Can you come up and show us -- or tell us where the school site is?
Wafters: No. Go right up and point to it.
Janson: This is not on.
Wafters: It's not on?
Moe: Now nothing's on?
Wafters: I'm sorry, I didn't know that wasn't on either. Is it still not on?
Meridian Planning and Zoning
May 7, 2009
Page 10 of 23
Jansson: You wanted to know where the school was?
Newton-Huckabay: Yeah. Please.
Jansson: Okay. Can you scroll down a little bit? The school is right --
Friedman: Well, that's about as -- unfortunately.
Jansson: Okay. So, if you come back out from the home out this way and you turn
around right in here. Here is the school. You turn in here and the school sits right --
Friedman: It is there.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay. All right.
Jansson: Were the arrow's at that's where the school's at.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay.
Marshall: It is on that site. You were right.
Wafters: Didn't have a big enough view of the map.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay. So, this is Chateau Drive.
Jansson: So, basically, it's from here --
Marshall: There underneath the site.
Wafters: tt's tucked back in there, isn't it?
Friedman: Yeah.
Newton-Huckabay: You were right, we were wrong.
Marshall: That surprises me that it's completely surrounded by lots.
Rohm: Thank you.
Newton-Huckabay: Thank you.
Moe: Thank you very much.
Jansson: Thank you.
Moe: Next on the list -- is it Callie? Would you like to come forward, please.
Meridian Planning and Zoning
May 7, 2009
Page 11 of 23
Eckhart: Excuse me. My name is Callie Eckhart and I live at 2381 North Monaco. My
house is directly affected. I am to the north of them. I would like to voice several
concerns of mine regarding the daycare. One is with the down turn of the economy,
obviously, home values have gone down. I know me personally my house value has
dropped significantly and I can't afford for another -- another thing to hit me to lose more
property value on my home, so -- sorry, you'll have to excuse me, I'm a little nervous, so
-- my husband and I are first time home buyers and we chose this area specifically
thinking, you know, this was what we could afford and the nicest neighborhood and we
never -- we never thought we'd come across, you know, a vacant home being turned
into a daycare that was our neighbor. So, it's kind of a shock for us that it's going to be
a commercial building. So, that's -- that's my main concern is our home value is going
to drop significantly, so -- I used to live by a daycare and we chose to move, because of
everything. Traffic, the noise, the -- everything that's involved. So, I know what it's like.
I personally know what it's like and I chose to move away from it and never thought I
would unwillingly have to live next to a daycare that's going to provide services for up to
20 children again, so -- as well as my daughter's room, who is 11 months old, is
probably less than five feet away from where their two off-road parking spots are. So,
6:00 a.m. -- possibly 6:00 a.m. Right now it's 7:00 -- could change. My daughter is
going to be woken up every day, so a big concern of mine. As well as they have only
been a few months. I don't know if it's changed significantly or not, but it's a high traffic
road. Like was said, the school's near by. There is a lot of traffic that goes up and
down that road. I don't like it, but it is a safety concern of ours as well. The reason I
didn't show up to the two meetings is I'm a working mom and it just -- it didn't fall under
my schedule. I don't have a flexible schedule to work with. So, would have been there
and I know Nicole and -- one of the applicants. They are great people, but Ijust -- I just
wasn't able to attend those meetings. So, it's nothing that I wasn't, you know, just
blatantly ignoring the fact that they would like to talk about it, so -- I was able to come to
this meeting. I just -- you know, I figure if this is a concern of theirs -- or, you know, that
they want to start this as a career -- I know that there is tons of commercial spaces
available, you know, if this is really like a life long dream of theirs. You know, there is
lots of opportunities for good deals on commercial spaces. I just don't want it next door
to me in a subdivision. You know, I lived in a -- I moved to a subdivision to be a
subdivision, not in a commercial area. So, I just -- I ask that you take into consideration,
you know, my home value, my neighbor's home values, my daughter, and the kids'
safety. So, I appreciate it.
Moe: Thank you very much.
Newton-Huckabay: Thank you.
Moe: Any questions? Okay. Thank you very much.
Eckhart: Thank you.
Meridian Planning and Zoning
May 7, 2009
Page 12 of 23
Moe: Carolyn Hall has signed up and, then, crossed out. You were signed up on this
as well. Okay. Not a problem. Okay. From the audience -- wrong form. That's it, then.
If there is anyone else that would like to speak, you're more than welcome to come up.
I don't see anyone that wants to come up. So, Commissioners, questions?
Comments?
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair?
Hill: Mr. Chair, applicant rebuttal.
Moe: Thank you very much. Sorry about that. Would the applicant like to come
forward, please, and discuss what you heard them talk about. And, again, please, state
your name and address for the record.
Jansson: Okay. Juanita Jansson. 42371 North Monaco. So, the first question or
concern that our back door neighbor addressed was the number of children. Now it
sounds like -- like 20 may be a huge number, but when we are talking infants, it's not
like they make a lot of noise. And even if they cry it's not going to go outside the doors.
As far as six year olds, when they go out to play in the backyard in the first place it's
fenced. Secondly, they will be monitored and it will be a time frame. It's not like they
are going to be outside all day long. It's no different than the school. They will go out
for a little bit and, then, they will come back in and so that's going to be monitored -- it's
going to be regulated. It's not like they are just going to be outside making a lot of noise
all day long. It's -- again, as far as the noise is concerned, I believe it's no different than
living next to Linder Elementary. From Pitter Patter to the school you can hear the
school at any given time during recesses, lunch, and breaks you can hear the children
to all the neighbors and I don't know how far out you can hear it, but you can hear the
school. So, the fact that the daycare being there I don't think that would increase the
noise anymore than hearing the school. And plus at the school you have different
recesses and breaks and lunches. You have two or three different lunches, because of
the -- you know, the school's growing and they have the first lunch and second lunch.
So, with Pitter Patter with the children -- when the children come out, again, it's going to
be just -- you know, I mean right now I couldn't tell you exact minutes, but it's going to
be limited, so it's not -- again, it's not like they are going to be outside all day long
making noise. As far as -- excuse me. As far as the parking is concerned, there is
plenty of parking and we meet the requirements for the parking as far as off the road
and, then, there is also -- it's no different than when you walk -- when you park your car
in the front of the house, because you forgot your purse or you forgot your bill book and
you get out of your car and run in the house to -- you know, to grab your things and get
back in the car. It takes, what, five minutes, maybe ten minutes to get off and you say
good morning and drop your children off and, you know, let us take them and so it
wouldn't be that -- that far as far as impact on the traffic. And, again, that's assuming
that someone wanted to park, you know, in front of the house. There is plenty of
parking. It wouldn't take very long. But the parking is there. We do meet all the
requirements for the parking and so I don't think parking is an issue. Again, if you look
on the map you will see that -- can luse -- can I point? So, the house sits -- where the
Meridian Planning and Zoning
May 7, 2009
Page 13 of 23
house sits there is -- where the house sits there is plenty of -- there is a circular drive on
Tracy where someone can either come in here -- I'm not doing this right. It's -- and the
parking in here, they can reverse and there is -- it's okay. But there is -- what I'm
saying there is plenty of room, it's not like it's going to impact or be in the way or
anything like that. The parking, people coming in, it's only the morning hours when --
usually working mothers, working parents that come and drop the children off and
usually that's when the morning traffic is minimal, is usually mothers or fathers dropping
their children off. There isn't a whole lot of traffic. And I know from experience, again,
because I have lived there since 1984 or '85 when the house was built. So, I know that
-- I know exactly how that operates. As far as the house being vacant, it's because it
was -- I had the renters move out and we came in and worked on it and did a lot of work
and that's why the house has been vacant. But for the neighbor, again, it goes right
back to the noise. I don't think the noise is going to be anymore -- any louder than
listening or hearing the children from elementary, the noise that everybody's used to
that live there. I mean if you live anywhere in that school area, you know you always
hear the laughter of the children on the playground and that's a sound that you get used
it and it's like it doesn't affect you. And so a daycare next to a neighbor, you know, most
of the children will be small, so it would be minimal. So, I think I have addressed
everything.
Moe: Okay. Thank you. Anymore questions, Commissioners? Thank you very much.
Jansson: You're welcome.
Moe: Well, Commissioners, any comments?
Rohm: Before we have some comments, let's just go ahead and close the hearing.
Can we do that?
Moe: That would be fine.
Rohm: Okay. Mr. Chairman?
Moe: Commissioner Rohm.
Rohm: I move that we close the public hearing on CUP 09-004.
Newton-Huckabay: Second.
Moe: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on CUP 09-004. All
those in favor say aye. Opposed? That motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Rohm: And I have some additional thoughts.
Meridian Planning and Zoning
May 7, 2009
Page 14 of 23
Moe: There you go. And I figured you might.
Rohm: Yeah. How about that. My personal opinion on these daycares within our
community, the city code that we have has specific statutes, so that the daycare can be
put in the community that we live and it's there so that we can have community minded
daycare centers that will serve within that subdivision and my personal opinion is they
have met all the requirements of the application and I think that the majority of the
people that they will serve will come directly from within their own area and it would be a
good addition to the city.
Moe: Thank you, sir.
Marshall: Also considering that Monaco appears to have a fairly high traffic level
already relative to a residential road, I can't see that -- I'm just not convinced that it's
going to cause a considerable traffic issue. You already have a number of cars on
there, you're not adding significantly to that number. It appears that it meets all code as
far as parking and I agree that it's only a few minutes to pick up and drop off kids. You
have got, essentially, two spots in the driveway and out on the road looking at that. And
having that elementary school within fairly close proximity, you're going to hear those
kids at the elementary school as it is. I hear them in my subdivision and they are
considerably further away than this. I -- to be honest, I'm convinced that it would serve
the greater good of the community.
Moe: Okay.
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair?
Moe: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, any thoughts?
Newton-Huckabay: Yes. I have some thoughts, actually. Going through the letters that
we received in favor of the daycare, I noticed that all of them are either on Chateau --
there is one that is actually on Monaco that we received. If I was going to embark on
this endeavor, the people that I would be politicking the most with would be those
people whose property touched mine. All three of which are not in favor of having a
daycare center next to them. I would put burden on all of you for not showing up at --
reading the letter, going to the meeting, getting together. I think that was negligent by
all three people. I usually don't have an issue with daycare centers in neighborhoods,
but it seems to me that the vast percentage of applications that we get are residences
where the person lives in it and wants to watch children in their home. Listening to Mr.
Olsen and Mrs. Eckhart, I find myself thinking if one of my neighbors on either side of
me chose to do this, I would not be very happy, irregardless of what condition my
neighborhood was in or what the value of my home was, that just wouldn't be what I
moved into my home for. Now, had I moved into a home and it's the second one in the
subdivision or at some kind of an intersection, something like that, I think that something
like that might be more reasonable. But I find that the majority of the folks in favor of
this wouldn't be living next door to it. I think that for myself I have to give a little bit more
Meridian Planning and Zoning
May 7, 2009
Page 15 of 23
weight for those three people who would live next door to it and I -- I don't know that this
would be appropriate. If it was a residence and you were talking two or three to six
children I would have a little bit different opinion, but I don't think that I would be in favor
of this Conditional Use Permit. I understand that it does meet all the criteria of the code,
but at the end of the day it is a conditional use and I don't feel like it fits the spirit of the
neighborhood.
Moe: Okay. Thank you very much. I guess what I would point out, again, is it does
meet all the criteria and, basically, one of the main things that this body does is we have
to review to verify that it does meet all conditions. Your point in regards to the sign up --
the ten letters and whatnot, them not, basically, being right next door and whatnot, I
anticipate that some of those are going to be residents that live nearby that are planning
to possibly use this facility, like Mr. Rohm spoke about the fact that the neighborhood
itself would benefit by having a daycare there. So, therefore, I, actually, think that it's
probably a good idea that the daycare be approved.
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair?
Moe: Commissioner.
Newton-Huckabay: I'd like to ask a question of staff. By the mere fact that something
meets all of the criteria of the code in a Conditional Use Permit, does it -- for example,
when we have an annexation we may deny that based on the fact maybe it's not in the
best interest of the city. Do we have that same leeway on a Conditional Use Permit? Is
there some component of form, fit, and function in that area?
Wafters: Chairman Moe, Commissioners, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, yes, there
are a set findings with the Conditional Use Permits that we have to be able to make to
approve a Conditional Use Permit. Staff did review those findings and believes that we
-- we can meet those findings in this instance.
Friedman: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, yeah, and there is also a bit of difference
between, for example, an annexation and a Conditional Use Permit, because an
annexation is, essentially, a contract whether or not -- up or down vote whether we feel
it's appropriate if it comes into the city and so forth. Conditional use permits going way
back are those activities that have been legislatively identified as being just permitted,
but require an additional level of review and the ability to attach conditions to. So, it's
not like you have a single family home that's permitted by right. Now, if you were to find
that there was an absolute threat to the public health, safety, and welfare, you could
recommend -- or you could in this case vote for denial. You also have the ability to
limited -- by code limit the hours, limit the number of clients that may be allowed in one
of these daycare centers also. Or if the majority of the Commission does feel strongly
that it -- even though it complies with the provisions of the code -- I suspect you would
have to have very strong reasons and findings to demonstrate how you feel it does not
meet those specific standards. And Mr. Nary can correct me if I'm wrong on any of that.
Meridian Planning and Zoning
May 7, 2009
Page 16 of 23
Nary: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I'm not going to correct Mr.
Friedman. He's correct. The only issue -- the difference -- the significant difference
here probably for Commissioner Newton-Huckabay is at an annexation it is an absolute
right of the city to choose whether or not it is compatible with the city in general, whether
it is appropriate for the city at this particular time. With a conditional use the
presumption that the court looks at is that in the exercise of your scrutiny of the
ordinance that it is -- it is more heavily favored that it is allowed in that area subject to
whatever conditions you think are appropriate to make it compatible with the
neighborhood. Now, those conditions as Mr. Friedman just stated would be hours of
operation, level of service that they can provide, number of patrons they can use in that
-- how that would impact those neighborhoods. The value of people's homes is not
something the Supreme Court in the state of Idaho has recognized as anything for this
body or the City Council to consider in making that decision. So, although the folks that
live in those houses that are immediately adjacent may believe it may impact their --
their value of their property, the Supreme Court has not said that there is any way to
gain that evidence or any way to use that as criteria for conditions. So, all the court's
looking at is philosophically what they are saying is the city has already made a
legislative decision that a use like this could be used in this area subject to whatever
conditions are necessary and appropriate to make it compatible in conformance with the
rest of the neighborhood. So, those are things like building heights that you deal with
sometimes, hours of operations if it's a business, those types of things. So, it's a
difference from both a legal perspective, as well as a philosophical perspective as to
what you're evaluating today. What you're looking at is what conditions, if any, beyond
what the staff has suggested that you think are appropriate to meet whatever the nature
and quality of that current neighborhood is, what you may need to maintain that. So,
long lawyer answer, but really the difference is it's not quite as simple as an annexation
where you could make a choice that it doesn't fit the city at this time.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay.
Moe: Thank you very much, Mr. Nary.
Newton-Huckabay: Well, I guess it's just kind of like wearing Army boots with an
evening gown, you can do it, but it just doesn't look good. I would like to, then, if the
options are, then, limit -- 20 is a large amount of children in a residential daycare center.
Rohm: Well, we can certainly put a limit less than the application, so if you've got a
number that -- that you feel comfortable with, you know, I'm willing to listen to additional
thoughts in that area.
Marshall: I would like to ask if there is a code regulating the number of staff, the square
footage, limiting the number of children within a daycare facility and what code -- I
believe there is some state code along those lines and what that is.
Friedman: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, our -- the code does set the hours of
operation. We have put a limit on the children in the various types of daycare centers,
Meridian Planning and Zoning
May 7, 2009
Page 17 of 23
but as far as the operational aspects of it, the numbers of staff ratio to client, health and
sanitation and so forth, those are all regulated by -- by the state through the Department
of Health and Welfare and through their licensing procedures and, of course, other than
family home daycares they are required to be licensed.
Nary: Mr. Chairman?
Marshall: Do we have any idea what that is?
Nary: Yeah. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, you have closed your public
hearing and now you're asking for additional facts, so you might want to consider
reopening your hearing. If your concern is the number, the provider may be able to
provide you some of that. Currently in the state of Idaho the day care operation 12 or
more children not related to the applicant is required to be licensed by the state. The
legislature in this current session has considered a cap of seven to be, then, licensed by
the state and that was approved by the house and was sent back to the senate and
hasn't been voted on yet, so it's still pending. So, 12 is the number that is current in the
state, but if you want more specifics as to what does that mean when they -- when they
license it -- but, again, you may want more facts from the applicant, because right now if
you were to just pick a number it would probably be argued that it's somewhat arbitrary,
since you really don't have any evidence in front of you as to whether ten would be
more appropriate than 20 or 15 is adequate, whether that's adequate for what the
applicant's asking for, I don't know. So, you might want to do that.
Moe: Well, I guess I would ask -- I would ask Commissioners is does that really matter
at this time, because we know for a fact that they have to be licensed, so, therefore,
they are going to have to meet the criteria to begin with. So, I don't know that the count,
not unless you really do want to, you know, reduce it down, it's going to have to meet
the guidelines anyway.
Marshall: I think those things need to be explored only if we want to explore limiting that
beyond what's been provided here.
Rohm: And I suppose my final thoughts on it are that if, in fact, the state licensing
states that they can have that number, then, far be it from me to say otherwise, just from
personal feeling. And that's not to disagree with Commissioner Newton-Huckabay,
because I do believe it is a little bit like wearing a pair of Army boots with an --
Newton-Huckabay: Evening gown.
Rohm: -- evening gown. But that being said, I still think that it's -- overall it's going to be
in the best interest of the community to approve this and that's where I'll end my
comments.
Moe: Okay. Having said that -- I mean if, in fact, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, you
would like more information, you're more than welcome to reopen the public hearing
Meridian Planning and Zoning
May 7, 2009
Page 18 of 23
and we can get that information to continue. I have no problem with that whatsoever, if
that's what you would like to do.
Nary: Mr. Chairman? And, Mr. Chair, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay and other
Commissioners, I did look up here while I was sitting here. They do have that staff -- or
that state statute that was signed by the governor, was approved by both the house and
the senator and it does require that facilities over seven that .are not related to the
provider, require a state license. So, if that helps you. But it was approved by both
houses and signed by the governor.
Newton-Huckabay: Thank you.
Moe: Thank you.
Newton-Huckabay: Chairman Moe, it appears to me that the question of number of
children is not necessarily going to impact Commissioner Marshall's or Commissioner
Rohm's decision on this and it would only be feasible to reopen the public hearing if it
would.
Moe: Okay.
Newton-Huckabay: So, I would say someone can make a motion and we will vote our
conscience.
Moe: Okay. Commissioner Newton-Huckabay has made her comments, so can I hear
from any other?
Marshall: Mr. Chairman, after considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I
move to approve file number CUP 09-004 as presented in the staff report for the
hearing date of May 7th, 2009, with no modifications.
Rohm: Second.
Moe: It's been moved and seconded to approve CUP 09-004 for Pitter Patter Club. All
those in favor say aye. Opposed?
Newton-Huckabay: Opposed.
Moe: That is one opposed. That motion has been approved.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 6: Public Hearing: ZOA 09-001 Request for Zoning Ordinance /Unified
Development Code (UDC) Text Amendment to modify and clean up
specific sections of the UDC for Outdoor Storage and Parking .Unified
Development Code Text Amendment by City of Meridian Planning
Meridian Planning and Zoning
May 7, 2009
Page 19 of 23
Department -See application for details of all sections proposed for
amendments:
Moe: Thank you. The next public hearing I'd like to open is ZOA 09-001 for a request
for zoning ordinance for an outdoor storage and parking, Unified Development Code
text amendment by the Planning Department.
Friedman: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. The proposed UDC
amendments are primarily clarifications to the standards for off-street parking, storage,
and landscaping in the UDC. They are to clean up some areas that we have found to
be problematic or areas where we have been making interpretations and so we are
memorializing those and formalizing those. Essentially, what we are addressing are
some of the screening requirements in the industrial districts where it just doesn't make
sense to require screening where you might have abutting industrial uses that are not
viewed from a public right of way or viewed from a residential property or, in fact,
impacted any residential properties. We also have situations where we require five foot
property -- buffers or perimeter buffers in parking lots, but we also try to encourage
shared parking and so what happens when you have two users sharing a parking lot on
two separate lots, but, then, we are requiring a five foot perimeter buffer in between
those lots. So, we are trying to clarify that. Another area that we are looking at is it's
come to our attention that we have had some issues with the long-term parking of large
recreational vehicles, boats, trailers, and those sorts of things in driveways and so what
the code amendment we are proposing is that essentially we limit the parking of -- in the
street setback to registered automotive vehicles and motorcycles and that sort of thing
and that the recreational vehicles, the boats, the trailers, any other things you can think
of, be parked and screened either in the rear yards or in the side yards. We don't put a
limit on the number that can be parked back there, but we are requiring -- I don't believe
we are limiting the number of vehicles that can be parked in the rear yard or the side
yard. I could be wrong.
Rohm: Sounds reasonable to me.
Moe: I guess what I would be curious about is how are you going to enforce that?
Friedman: Well, this came to us through code enforcement and this is exactly -- that
exactly, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, was the genesis of this amendment where we
had asituation -- I don't know all the specifics, but it had to do with a couple of large
vessels that were parked in driveways for quite a period of time and I guess they were
rather imposing and people living on either side were getting tired of kind of looking at
these large vessels sitting out there in the street, so we do recognize, however, that
even if they are moved into a rear yard or into a side yard, that the maximum height of
the fencing -- they have to be screened to a height of six feet. So, yeah, there will be
probably some intrusion -- visual intrusion of larger boats or trailers in those areas, but it
will be like many of our issues, it will be response driven. So, without going through
these line by line, that in a nutshell is what we are trying to get to. We have had some
industrial users come to us and said, you know, there is some areas where you require
Meridian Planning and Zoning
May 7, 2009
Page 20 of 23
this perimeter landscaping, but we abut another industrial use and we have trucks that
need to maneuver in there and it kind of interferes with the maneuvering of the trucks
and this and so -- so, the real key is where we are really not having a view issue from
the public right of way or from -- again, from residential properties, that we are looking to
at least give the director some room to waive some of the stricter application of
screening requirements onto those industrial properties.
Marshall: I had a couple questions.
Moe: Sure.
Marshall: And I'm not sure how this has worked in the past. How does this affect car
lots and, you know, unregistered vehicles? You got lots of them. How about mechanic
shops where a vehicle has been towed to and is sitting there waiting to be worked on,
waiting to be repaired, but is not functioning, possibly unregistered at the time --
Friedman: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, this is -- what we have done is we have
broken up the parking requirements and so what we have done is we have put these
parking standards -- you will see under 11-3 -- 11-3C-4, parking, it's parking and use
standards. We used to lump all our parking use standards together, so the underlying
area for single family detached townhouses secondary, single family and attached
dwellings, so now what we are doing is we are starting to segregate the parking
standards for residential areas, as opposed to the commercial areas, which -- which
Commissioner Marshall just mentioned. We are taking that into account,
Commissioner. We are really addressing -- trying to get out the parking of recreational
vehicles in residential neighborhoods.
Marshall: So, this doesn't address --
Moe: This doesn't address the car lot --
Marshall: Got you. Okay. And, then, talking about the areas -- the industrial areas
backing up to the railroad right of way.
Friedman: Yes. That's correct.
Marshall: Are we not requiring screening up against the railroad right of way or we are?
Friedman: We are for -- we are for all -- for the commercial districts, the traditional
districts, essentially Old Town. But not the industrial districts. And we have proposed
for the industrial districts, the way this is written is that we are requiring -- we are
proposing at least to require screening 100 feet back from the road -- from the fronting
road, so perpendicular to the road 100 feet back in the industrial district. So, really,
what you would be seeing as you're driving -- say you're driving -- I'll use Franklin as an
example in an industrial area. If you're driving down Franklin under these requirements
you would have a solid screen required 100 feet back, so at least kind of the view that
Meridian Planning and Zoning
May 7, 2009
Page 21 of 23
the driver gets from the public street is -- I mean undoubtedly you might see 100 feet
past that, but, generally, we thought 100 feet would be an appropriate distance to
require that screening back there and not all the way around, because, again, you're
going to have industrial users on either side and the railroad behind there. But still in
the Old Town and the commercial districts and so forth where the storage areas butt up
against the railroad or potentially the residential on the other side of the tracks we
wouldn't maintain the requirement for screening.
Marshall: My concern there being that what happens, hopefully, in ten to twenty years
that that railroad becomes -- railway becomes a light rail, how does it -- how do those
yards look, then, to the multitudes traveling that?
Friedman: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, hopefully in ten to twenty years if that
becomes a reality, if we follow the example that other communities are following and
you're starting to get more rail transit, then, you're going to start getting a whole different
change in the complex uses adjacent to those rail lines. You will start seeing more
mixed use or something like that. It may be that's -- those industrial areas start
transitioning out or being purchased and -- I mean Portland is a good example and
some other communities are an example where you start seeing more mixed use
developments along those rail corridors. There is also examples where, you know, the
rail does -- you know, again, I think of Seattle -- as you come into Seattle on the train
you still go through an industrial area and you still see all kinds of things, plants --
airplane plants, things like that.
Marshall: Well, I can foresee easily a lot of mixed use at the stops along that rail --
Friedman: Right. Yeah.
Marshall: But in between those stops industrial still tends to thrive in a lot of areas.
Friedman: Again, we -- we kind of thought at least in our -- at least our logic was that
the view from the majority of the general public that are traveling along -- along the
roadway and, you know, if you're on the Amtrak and you're coming into Meridian you
might see the back, you know, storage of some piles of lumber or something, but that's
a good -- good question and a good concern. We are just trying to respond to some of
our current industrial users and are saying, hey, why are you making us spend the
money to fence these storage yards when my neighbor's the only one that really looks
at it or the industrial guy behind me or the train that goes through a couple times a day.
So, trying to balance the visual integrity and the interest of our present industrial owners
and users.
Marshall: I just -- I have been on a few of those trains and been through some of those
yards and you kind of go, oh, glad I don't live here and --
Friedman: Yeah.
Meridian Planning and Zoning
May 7, 2009
Page 22 of 23
Marshall: -- I'd hate somebody to do that with Meridian eventually, if that becomes a
mass transit corridor, which I do believe is hoped and planned for.
Friedman: Yeah. Yeah.
Marshall: And currently we still require fencing off from that area; right?
Friedman: Yeah. Currently we are proposing -- we are proposing now that at least just
in the industrial areas that be relaxed somewhat.
Marshall: I understand. I like most everything else. There is that one I've got a little bit
of a -- I mean planning issue with, because it's very difficult to go back in in the future
and if that becomes a light rail or even as I have heard mention even today just to take
buses and put the rails like you do with pickups and run buses up and down the rail and
start a transit rail that way, you're going to have a lot of people looking at Meridian and
that's their view of Meridian right there and that concerns me. Other than that I like
everything else.
Moe: Any other comments, Commissioners?
Rohm: No, I have none.
Marshall: In the same breath, though, I also like the idea of encouraging industrial
growth and doing what we can to, you know, relax the rules when we can, too. So, I'm
a little torn there.
Moe: Uh-huh.
Newton-Huckabay: I guess I -- Mr. Chair, I don't really have any concerns with that. I
don't think that -- they could be overthinking it for me. So, I would -- I'm comfortable
with the text as written.
Moe: Okay. Well, having said that, then --
Rohm: Mr. Chairman?
Moe: Commissioner Rohm.
Rohm: I move that we close the public hearing on -- got to put my glasses back on.
ZOA 09-001.
Newton-Huckabay: Second.
Moe: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on ZOA 09-001. All
those in favor say aye. Opposed? That motion carries.
Meridian Planning and Zoning
May 7, 2009
Page 23 of 23
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Rohm: Mr. Chairman?
Moe: Commissioner Rohm.
Rohm: I move that we forward onto City Council recommending approval of the text
change for ZOA 09-001 with no changes.
Newton-Huckabay: Second.
Moe: It's been moved and seconded to approve ZOA 09-001. All those in favor say
aye. Opposed? That motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I move we adjourn.
Marshall: Second.
Newton-Huckabay: Second.
Moe: It's been moved and seconded to adjourn. All those in favor say aye. Opposed?
That motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:04 P.M.
(AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.)
A E
~.
VID MOE - C IRMAN
A
JAYCEE
~I~
DATE APPROVED