Loading...
2000 10-10MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING OCT. 10, 2000 The meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:05 p.m. by Chairman Keith Borup: Members Present: Keith Borup, Sally Norton, Bill Nary, Richard Hatcher, Jerry Centers Others Present: Steve Siddoway, Bruce Freckleton, David Swartley, Shelby Ugarriza Borup: The October 10, 2000 meeting of The Planning and Zoning Commission for Meridian. We apologize for being a little bit late. The City Council was using the room earlier and they just left. We will be dispensing with minutes at this meeting. We will have to catch that at our next scheduled meeting. We will have roll call of the Commissioners. Our new Commissioner, Jerry Centers -- we would like to welcome Jerry. He has come with a lot of experience and background in the lending industry. We appreciate having him here and looking forward to his contribution and input. Having said such we would like to go ahead and start with our agenda. We’re kind of excited it’s a short agenda tonight. Borup: The first item -- actually the first two -- I think we would like to open both of these at the same time continued – Nary: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Nary. Item 5 Public Hearing: AZ-00-019 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 100.71 acres from RT to R-4 by Kevin Howell for proposed Cedar Springs Subdivision – northwest of Meridian Road and Ustick Road: Continue Public Hearing to December 12, 2000 Item 6 Public Hearing: PP-00-018 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 99.83 acres for 333 building lots and 25 other lots in a proposed R-4 zone by Kevin Howell for proposed Cedar Springs Subdivision – northwest of Meridian Road and Ustick Road: Continue Public Hearing December 12, 2000 Nary: I was curious because there are a lot of folks in our audience and there has been a request on Items 5 and 6 that they be continued. I wonder if it would be wise to take that up first in case some of these folks are here for that. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 10, 2000 Page 2 Borup: Thank you. I didn’t get that message yet, so Items 5 and 6 have been asked to be continued by the applicant. Nary: It looks like there was a letter in our box today. Borup: I didn’t – Norton: To November the 14th . Borup: Is they’re anybody here for those two Items that was the subdivision? Nary: Cedar Springs. Borup: Cedar Springs Subdivision. Looks like the applicant has requested it to be continued to the November 14th . There will not be any presentation by the applicant. Was staff wanting to -- Swartley: Mr. Chairman, I was going to make the suggestion you could open those up to continue them. If these people here this evening have comments they would like to make and if they can’t attend on the 14th , they are more than welcome to do so. Or perhaps they are waiting to hear what the applicant had to say. But if they have anything they would like put on the record I think we should open it up, have them come up and make any comments they have and then we can continue it to the 14th and leave the hearing open. That’s just a suggestion. Borup: When we come to that that would an option for you to do you can put your testimony on record and of course on the 14th also. Item 1 Continued from September 12, 2000: RZ-00-004 Request for Rezone of .55 acres from I-L to L-O for a proposed Licensed Childcare Facility for 48 children by Wendell and Kasha Lawrence – Linder Road and Pine Avenue at 737 N. Linder Road: Item 2 Continued from September 12, 2000: CUP-00-045 Request for Conditional Use Permit for a Licensed Childcare Facility for 48 children in a proposed L-O zone by Wendell And Kasha Lawrence – Linder Road and Pine Avenue at 737 N. Linder Road: Borup: I believe we left that last time. There were some items to be worked out and information to come in. Have you got any more information on that, Steve? Siddoway: I do. Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission. Just to orient you briefly with the location, it’s the hatched area right here that is on the southwest corner or just south of the southwest corner of Linder and Pine. This is an existing site photo taken today looking to the left looking down Linder. The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 10, 2000 Page 3 building in the center is the subject property. You can see the adjacent land uses. This is Linder running along the front. The main issue last time – I wasn’t here, but as I understand it was parking. This is a revised plan that was submitted by the applicant showing nine stalls. Going off of Brad’s staff report that you should have dated September 7, Site Specific Item No. 2, the minimum of nine parking stalls would meet the requirement for 48 children but the maximum of 78 children. We also have the building elevations that were submitted along with the application. I think that’s it. That being the main issue, I’ll just put up the revised site plan. That’s all the comments I have at this time. Borup: Any questions from any of the Commissioners? Hatcher: Steve, Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Hatcher. Hatcher: Were we also waiting on a final report from ACHD or am I mistaken on this project? Siddoway: I do not know. Let me look in here and see if we have one. Hatcher: I’m not finding one and I don’t – Nary: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Nary. Nary: Now again, I guess part of it’s my recollection to. It seems like one of the issues that had come up at the last meeting was that we were unclear of based on what the site plan was. Maybe the applicant Mrs. Lawrence can explain this a little bit better tonight. How many – this CUP was asked for 78 children at the last hearing and we had some concerns on parking spaces and all those types of issues on what was available there. I think that was sort of left open maybe if you could help us a little bit. How many children are you for this CUP to be approved for? Unidentified: 48. Borup: Go ahead and state your name for the record. Lawrence: Kasha Lawrence. Borup: And address. Lawrence: 370 North Linder Road, Meridian, Idaho. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 10, 2000 Page 4 Borup: So you are revising that to 48 from the original? Lawrence: They told me that – I submitted 78, but we want to do 48. I didn’t know. I didn’t understand I needed to revise that as far as turn something in. Borup: Our paperwork today does say 48. Hatcher: The updated paperwork does, yes. Borup: Your new application for 48 children -- the new parking is adequate for the building. Hatcher: For the 48. Borup: Yes, for the 48. Hatcher: I believe landscaping was an outstanding issue which I think this site plan addresses on the front. Lawrence: Fence. Hatcher: Wasn’t there a fence— Lawrence: The fence is also shown on there coming off the building to the property line in the back avoiding irrigation ditches which are right on the property line to the south. Hatcher: That was submitted. Steve, what’s on – never mind. You are putting it up there. Norton: Mr. Chairman. This answers my question because ours didn’t have the fence. I know we talked about having a fence and also the parking spaces. This bigger one does show the fence that was one of our concerns. Borup: Does that cover any concerns – Hatcher: -- (inaudible) all the issues that I can recall. Borup: Then you understood you would be coming back – Lawrence: If we wanted to do 78 byes. Borup: Any questions from the Commissioners? Hatcher: None. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 10, 2000 Page 5 Borup: Thank you. Lawrence: Thank you. Borup: Anyone here from the public that would like to testify on these applications? We did open both one and two. Hatcher: Seeing none, I move that we close the public hearing for discussion. Norton: I second it. Borup: All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Borup: Do we have any discussion? Hatcher: I have no discussion. Borup: Anyone else? Would anyone like to make a motion? Hatcher: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Hatcher. Hatcher: I would like to make a motion that we recommend approval of Item No. 1 -- the rezone request of .55 acres from I-L to L-O for the proposed licensed child daycare facility of 48 children at Linder Road and Pine Avenue. Item No. 2 for the Conditional Use Permit for the same facility at the same location to include all staff comments and to reflect the additional information submitted tonight per our request last month and to bring last months testimony into record. Norton: I second that motion. Borup: Motion is seconded. Any further discussion? All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Borup: You just did for Item No. 1, didn’t you? Hatcher: One and two. Borup: One and two. I’m sorry. Item No. 3 Public Hearing: AZ-00-018 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 34.84 acres from RT to R-8 for a Church and vacant Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 10, 2000 Page 6 land for Valley Shepherd Church of the Nazarene by Valley Shepherd Church of the Nazarene – Meridian Road south of Overland Road: Borup: Item No. 3, public hearing for the request for annexation and zoning of 34.84 acres from RT to R-8 for a church and vacant property for Valley Shepherd Church of the Nazarene by Valley Shepherd, Meridian Road south of Overland Road. Mr. Siddoway. Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission. The vicinity map in front of you shows the subject parcel 34.84 acres large square along the west side of Meridian Road south of Overland. Currently vacant pasture land here is a site photo. The street over here on the far left is Meridian Road. You can see the sign. They have the sign out there right now, “Future Home of The Valley Shepherd Church.” That’s the current site as it sits in the background platted Bear Creek Subdivision -- is and there is an existing house to the north. You have our staff report dated October 6. As a condition of annexation, we are recommending a Development Agreement to be required. I would just point out Site Specific Requirement No. 3. That speaks to the back half of this parcel which is designed to drain into the future sewer trunk line. That portion of the ground will remain undevelopable until it is sewerable. That’s all I have. Borup: Any questions from the Commissioners for staff? Is the applicant here this evening and would like to come forward? Field: Good evening my name is Scott Field I’m with Roylance and Associates, 391 West State Street, Suite E. I represent the applicant, Valley Shepherd Church of the Nazarene on there proposed annexation application to the City. There were a couple issues I would like to discuss. Sort of a broad overview -- the church has been planning to construct a new church on this site for a considerable amount of time. There has been discussions in the past with Ada County. I would imagine that the City is well aware of this and that there has been a long term history. Do to more recent development they found themselves now contiguous to the City and would like to apply for annexation to the City. Because of that the applicant intends to construct a church on the north easterly corner of the property which is sort of up in this area here. I think you can see in the picture, although it is a little skewed out there because the pictures have been pasted together. The church is going to take up just that north easterly corner of the property with utilities being provided from that area over there. The remaining property at this time does not have any plans per se. They’re some long term things, but nothing has been really decided upon or finalized and they’re aware of that. But that in mind here, I would like to discuss a couple of the conditions that are being proposed to go along with the annexation. First of all, just to point out or maybe remind you, the key thing with the annexation is the fact – with the plans they have right now for development there’s infra- structure and facilities in place or close to the properties that can be easily Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 10, 2000 Page 7 extended and provide sewer and water service to the site. The area that is being proposed to be developed -- some of these conditions, however, tend to deal with the future potential development of the property and tend to get rather specific. I guess I would question whether things wouldn’t be appropriately addressed at the time of an actual development application of the property verses an annexation application of the property. Where I think we’re looking at more so is that is this property suited to be incorporated within the City limits and is it conceptually possible to develop this property in a way that’s not going to place any undo burden or hardship on the City or the surrounding properties. I think many of these things would be better, like I said, addressed at the time if the westerly portion of the property in the future is proposed to be developed. Discussions are obviously going to be carried on with the City, the engineers, the planning staff, ACHD and so forth. For those reasons, I would respectfully request that some of these specific conditions as far as regarding. For example, the sewer issue that Mr. Siddoway brought up rather than specifically stating that the western half of the property can not be developed until that future proposed sewer line extension is made just simply be modified to state something to the effect of that it won’t be developed until adequate or approved sewer is available to property. There are possible alternatives to what’s being proposed here that I think could best be discussed among the affected parties at the time that a specific development was being proposed rather than just a blanket requirement being thrown upon it during the annexation process. A number of these items here deals – are fine they are development specific but they also site City Ordinance. If the applicant is going to elect to be incorporated or included within the City limits, then they are going to abide by the current ordinances so there really aren’t objections there and again, those things can be addressed in the future. With that in mind I would just like to reiterate that I think that some of this stuff is too specific and too development oriented to be approached during an annexation application and should be addressed at the time that a development application is submitted. The staff has suggested recommended approval of this application and I would encourage you do that subject to the recommendations I have made. I would be happy to answer any questions you may have. Borup: Mr. Field, there is really only three site-specific requirements and two of – are really more statements than requirements. Is that what you are referring to, or are you referring to some of the items in the general requirements? That you thought was too specific. Field: I was primarily referring to the sewage issue on Item No. 3. If I had – Borup: I try to hone in – your recommendation would be revising staff’s statement where they say the area shall remain undeveloped until such time as service is available. Their statement to the future Black Cat Trunk Sewer -- your recommendation be until it is available for sewer service -- approved sewer service or something along that line. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 10, 2000 Page 8 Field: Something to that affect that would – we all know that things change in the future. This Black Cat Sewer Extension -- who’s to say when exactly that’s going to happen. I think it would be a severe encumbrance to the property and to the applicant to be tied to something that we don’t even know when exactly it’s going to happen, where as some sort of a statement such as approved sewer connection – Borup: I don’t think that’s really much different than what staff has said. I think they just want the applicant to be aware that annexation is not guaranteeing sewer service to that westerly portion at this time. Field: The applicant is fully aware of that – Borup: I think that’s why that was restated so there was no misunderstanding – Field: I guess my point being is we just like to ideally not be specifically tied to a future improvement project. The only other thing I saw on here – you asked if there were several things. I noticed Item No. 4 in the general requirements dealt with streetlights. It says to be required at locations designated by the Public Works Department. Obviously, we don’t have any objections to streetlights. Again, I think that should be something that should be tied to a development and there should be some dialog potentially available – open between the development application and the City at that time. Borup: You know those things would come out in the site plan – Field: Certainly. Borup: I think all nine of those would be in at that stage. Any questions from any of the Commissioners? Anything else you wanted to add? Field: I don’t think so at this time. Obviously until you close the hearing, I will be available to answer any other questions you may have. Borup: Do we have anyone here from the public who would like to testify on this application? Come forward. Hepper: My name is Tim Hepper. I live at 448 West Victory Road, which is just south of this property. I just had a quick concern about the proposed zoning from RT to R-8. I was wondering what the proposed use was going to be for the R-8 zoned area. R-8 potentially could be zoned apartments or R-8 zone potentially. Borup: Essentially R-8 would be the 6,000 square-feet lot. Anything other than single-family detached housing would require a Conditional Use Permit. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 10, 2000 Page 9 Hepper: Right. Borup: I believe I’m right there? Hepper: With a Conditional Use Permit, that could potentially be in an R-8 zone, I believe. Even if it’s not the smaller homes would be the potential question I had. With Bear Creek going in, it sounds like they are going to have a really nice development there. We’ve got Kentucky Ridge, Thousand Springs -- all those are R-4 zones out in that area. Borup: Can I interrupt you a little, Tim? Hepper: Sure. Borup: We can probably get some clarification from the applicant. I believe the reason for the R-8 is because a church is allowed use in an R-8 where it’s not in R-4. My – Siddoway: Actually, the church will require a Conditional Use Permit in an R-8 zone. The reason for requesting the R-8 instead of the L-O zone -- which the church is a permitted use is that the Comprehensive Plan shows this area as single-family residential. So they had to request a single-family residential zone. Borup: There will be no (inaudible) R-4 either then? Siddoway: What’s that? Borup: No problem as R-4 zoning either then? Siddoway: No problem? I don’t know if – (inaudible discussion amongst Commission members) Siddoway: -- churches can have a Conditional Use Permit in R-4. Hatcher: I guess the questions come up. Why was it submitted as an R-8 instead of R-4? Borup: I’m correct. I remembered right. In R-4, a church isn’t allowed. (Inaudible discussion amongst Commission members) Hatcher: So it had to be an R-8. Siddoway: In order for them to comply with the Comprehensive Plan of single- family residential and have an option for them to build their church, the only Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 10, 2000 Page 10 solution was R-8. That was the same scenario. We annexed the LDS church on Locust Grove under a couple of months ago. They also came in under R-8 because it’s single-family residential in the Comprehensive Plan and they have a Conditional Use Permit for the church. Borup: A church in an R-4 isn’t allowed even with a Conditional Use Permit. Siddoway: Correct. Borup: I think that’s my understanding. That’s what I assume was the reason for – Hepper: I have no problem with the church. The only question I had was the – Borup: The rest of the property. Hepper: Yes. The square-footage requirement for the R-8 verses the R-4. There is a lot of R-4 in the area and I would like to see the remainder of the property potentially be developed as an R-4 subdivision or square-footages. Just because its R-8 doesn’t mean it has to be developed. Those square- footages -- it could still be designated R-8 and be built to an R-4 standard. That’s what I would like to see because that’s what's already out there in the area. Elk Run I think was an R-8 probably, but the circumstances on that were back up to commercial property Country Corner there and there is an automobile wrecking a little bit further to the east. That’s why that was originally allowed to be an R-8. Anything further south, there is nice subdivisions out there. I would like to see those remain – the remainder of that designation as an R-4 if possible. Thank you. Borup: Thank you. Anyone else? Jewett: My name is Jim Jewett I reside at 4002 West Teter, Meridian. I have a couple of questions. One. Has the City annexed property before and put a restriction on that it can’t be developed or isn’t that the reason why they annexed so they can develop? The other question is if I have a question too with the R-8 verses the R-4 in talking to the church in the past they are only going to develop a portion of it for the church. Why can’t that portion be R-8 and the rest can be annexed as R-4? That way the risk of an R-8 density not being there. I had the same concerns as the applicant in entering into a Development Agreement stating you can’t do something until something happens. I again question why we annex it if you can’t do something with it. Just leave it in the County. They have a Conditional Use now that’s approved to the County for the church. What’s the benefit of annexing? It’s a benefit to the City to annex. Borup: They get utility services, water and sewer. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 10, 2000 Page 11 Jewett: Is there not provisions to get services with a bubble fee or something if it’s outside the City? Borup: That’s an optional thing, but not necessarily guaranteed. Jewett: But it is an option. Borup: Well, the City doesn’t like to do that and there is really no reason to -- not with contiguous piece of property. I think we’ll find that’s the City’s general policy, unless it’s an unusual circumstance. It saves a lot of problems or potential problems. Jewett: Other than that the benefit to the City to annex property that can’t be further developed until something happens, what’s the benefit to the residents of the City of Meridian? What’s the benefit to me as a resident to have this annexed when we can’t develop it and grow the tax base? Hatcher: Can I answer that? Borup: Yes, please, Mr. Hatcher. Hatcher: The whole process of annexing -- the reason the entire property is being annexed is because of the way the application was submitted. If the applicant wanted to separate their property into two different parcels and submit an application for just the small portion that the church is going to be on and submit that, that’s going to be annexed and that’s going to be rezoned, then that’s all we would annex. That’s not what was submitted. What was submitted was the entire piece of property even though they’re only developing only a corner of it. That is not in our control or in the City’s control. Its basically they want to submit the entire property as one piece -- which I don’t blame them. I would, too. I wouldn’t break the property up. But as a City we have to look at the property as a whole. We can’t split it. Jewett: I understand that and I also understand that where they want to put the church would not be contiguous to the City limits without the whole piece. Again the question is what’s a benefit to the City – Hatcher: There is no benefit other than the tax bases. There is no benefit to the City. Our Ordinance’s are that we annex the entire piece of property unless the applicant wants to split the property and submit it in that fashion. Jewett: I’ve seen many applications where there has been a mixed zoning on an annexation. I asked why couldn’t that have been done here. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 10, 2000 Page 12 Hatcher: Again that goes back to the applicant -- if they wanted to submit planned development in a mixed zone. That’s not what the application is that is in front of us. Jewett: Does this body have the ability to make a recommendation to change an application to say submit your Development Agreement or submit your development? Show us the area you want the church to be in and let the remainder be R-4 then. Because R-4 is going to match the Comprehensive Plan that’s coming out. R-8 does not. Hatcher: We have the ability to make a recommendation pending what we feel as a body is the best, yes. Jewett: Because I agree with the one gentleman, I don’t think an R-8 development belongs out there. If that parcel is brought in and caused to wait 10 or 15 years to Black Cat Trunk to be developed they might be looking at wanting to do R-8 development out there at that point because they’ve got a zoning. I think we need to look at appropriate zone for the Comprehensive Plan today and R-4 is what Bear Creek was brought in at. Hatcher: You also have to remember the applicant is a church. If they want to develop that entire piece of property as church property they have to have a R-8. Jewett: That’s true, and if they want to come in two years from now and say we want to develop more church, they can come and rezone from R-4 to R-8. Hatcher: Right, and even if they want to come in and put R-8 apartment complex which is what you don’t want there -- if they want to do that, they still have to come back and tell us that’s what they’re going to do. And then we can shoot them down at that time if that’s what we desire. We’re not giving them a free reign to do whatever they want to do just by giving them an R-8 zone. I understand your concern – Jewett: I appreciate your comments. I just want to make sure our rezoning is appropriate for the area. I have no objections to the church whatsoever. I think that’s a good use on Meridian Road. The westerly half being next to Bear Creek is going to have a different use and I think that has to be addressed. Borup: Thank you, Mr. Jewett. Any other questions from the Commissioners. Commissioner Centers. Centers: I have a question of the staff, Mr. Chairman. R-8 is the only zone that can be tied to that for a church. You have no specific zoning other than R-8 for a church? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 10, 2000 Page 13 Siddoway: L-O is a zone that churches are permitted outright in that they wouldn’t even have to go through a Conditional Use Permit. The problem is that the L-O is limited office, but the limited office zone does not comply with the single-family residential land designation in the Comprehensive Plan. That’s the catch-22. Hatcher: Is that concurrent for both the consisting Comprehensive Plan and the future Comprehensive Plan we’re never supposed to talk about until it’s approved? Siddoway: I believe that the Draft Comprehensive Plan shows this parcel as quasi-public knowing that the church use was going on it. Centers: I had one follow up question. The R-8 zone is approved. This is a hypothetical. The church decides not to build, but sell to a developer with it the R-8 zone which is residential 8,000. Siddoway: Eight units per acre, 6,500 square-foot lots. Centers: Is that – Siddoway: That scenario could (inaudible) Centers: --(inaudible) happen huh? Siddoway: Only in the eastern portion of the lot where it is where services are available. Centers: Which is half of the parcel 17-acres? Siddoway: Approximately. I don’t know exactly how much. Approximately half. Centers: Which would equate to about 80 lots? 4 to an acre would be pretty close. Siddoway: The – Borup: We’re still going to need to be – maybe not. Have we ever annexed anything with a residential zone with a Conditional Use Permit attached to it? Centers: That’s what I was wondering too. Borup: That’s why I – Centers: For a church only. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 10, 2000 Page 14 Hatcher: We do have the Conditional Use Permit for the church. Borup: Right Hatcher: So – Borup: Back to Jerry’s question if the church doesn’t go in. Hatcher: We don’t have it yet if we were to approve an R-8 based on this conditional use. This church sold the property to a developer. The developer couldn’t just slap R-8 housing on that piece of property. It has a Conditional Use Permit attached to it. Borup: The Conditional Use Permit is to put a church on and not to put R-8 housing. Hatcher: That’s correct. Siddoway: But there’s not a Conditional Use Permit yet. Hatcher: That could be our – Borup: That’s the question if the Conditional Use Permit was for a church and then the church didn’t happen – Siddoway: This is exactly why we don’t often consider annexations without a development application along with it. The applicant is correct in saying that some of these conditions make more sense to be tied to a development application. When we do have an annexation request come through that is not tied to a specific development application such as a Conditional Use Permit, it is not uncommon in fact it is the common practice for the City Council to place restrictions on that annexation as to what it can and can not be used for. A recent example in my mind is the Magic View Office Complex that was annexed before the CUP came through. There is a list of uses they can not have in their Development Agreement that specifically list out uses that are not allowed even if the schedule of use control says they are permitted or could come through with a Conditional Use Permit. They do restrict them in order to get the annexation and in considering the use the property is to be used for. Borup: Back to my question would we be allowed to put conditions on a residential annexation. That essentially would prohibit residential development? Hatcher: It’s an R-8 zone. It’s not a residential annexation. Borup: That’s what I meant. An R-8 zone – Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 10, 2000 Page 15 Hatcher: -- (inaudible) church. We need to keep that in mind. Centers: All intent and – Borup: Any comment from our City Attorney? Swartley: No, Chairman. The Zoning Ordinance is too amorphous to answer that question. Borup: Would we have the authority to put – Swartley: You can make a recommendation to put provisions on that. You could do that, but whether or not the City Council would follow it. Borup: That would be a little different. Swartley: I can’t tell you what the history is. You’ve been here longer than me. Borup: I can’t think (inaudible) on a residential – Siddoway: You could require the Conditional Use Permit to come through with the annexation request. Swartley: Which is what I believe City Council has been asking of the applications. Correct? Borup: A majority of the time. There has been some annexations without, but very few. Hatcher: Mr. Chairman, this would be one we wouldn’t want to do it on. Borup: Commissioner Nary. Nary: I think if we focus on what was presented tonight by the applicant, the applicant specifically wanted those provisions excluded from this application for annexation. And it may simply be because the church is not ready at this time to come forward with the CUP or with a Development Plan. But I think both the members of the public -- Mr. Jewett and Mr. Hepper have brought up are very valid points. (inaudible) Commissioner Centers has brought to the discussion that the concerns that the neighbors have that we will annex this property on the belief and hope that that’s what’s going to get built there. Because there is a sign, there is not very good business and not very good sense for the City to this Commission or the City Council to do. We may totally believe that’s what Valley Shepherds intention is -- is to build that church there at some point in the future but economics really govern what happens. Right now, realistically, if we annex this property with an R-8 zone, six months from now it may be more Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 10, 2000 Page 16 economically viable for this Valley Shepherd Church to either sell that property to a developer who is going to say, “I have an R-8 zoning and I want to put R-8 houses here.” We’re going to him and ha over what kind of R-8 housing is appropriate. We are going to have a hard time backing down that we are the ones that put the zone there that said that was compatible on the hope and belief that a church was going to be and not houses. It would make more sense. Even the most recent example which we talked -- which was the LDS Church at Locust Grove. The church was already there. We didn’t have a concern into annexing into the -- and putting a zone on it because the building was already on the site. That’s why you don’t see -- like you said, very commonly, somebody asking to annex with no real concrete plan in front of either this Commission or the Council as to what’s going to be there. We totally can believe what Valley Shepherd’s intention is, but economics are economics, and realistically, all were doing is saying were basically buying that pig-in-poke saying “We believe you’ll build it and hope that’s what happens.” When it doesn’t happen, people who are going to have egg in their face is all of us sitting up here. So to me I think all we’re really asked to do is do we annex it or not. I think – what I’m hearing from all the folks maybe were not that comfortable in just annexing in this property when we have to make these concessions of trying to make the zoning fit what's going to be there. I think we would rather see the rest of the plans come forward and the development come forward more realistically. When that happens, then we know what were getting. Then these folks that are sitting out in the audience that are concerned that all of the sudden that are incompatible at least perceived to be possibly incompatible isn’t going to fit. All of the sudden we’ve got a mess that were responsible for. So I think all were asked to is do we want this or not. Borup: Let me ask – Nary: (inaudible) whole plan Borup: -- question then on – yes Sally was or do you – Development Agreement. How binding is a Development Agreement and what conditions can be put in that? Does the City Attorney have any comment on that? Swartley: Again, you could put any conditions you want in it, I believe. But we don’t have one. Are you asking us to come up with one is that what – Borup: No that’s one of staff’s recommendations -- Requirement No. 1. Hatcher: Approve annexation with a Development Agreement. Borup: Their recommendation -- that’s one of the conditions a Development Agreement is entered into. Swartley: You are wanting to know if we can put a condition in there that requires the church. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 10, 2000 Page 17 Borup: Only – yes, at this point. Swartley: I haven’t seen an agreement like that before, but I don’t see why we couldn’t do one. Perhaps Bill has a different take on that. But I don’t see why we couldn’t do one. Borup: Any other comment, Mr. Nary? Nary: I think the law in Idaho is a little fuzzy on this particular point, at least in my opinion as to whether or not Development Agreement at annexation is enforceable agreement or not. I don’t think there is one thing that says “can’t do it” and isn’t a thing that says “you can.” I think its a little bit different here again. What I heard the applicant say is we don’t really want to discuss that. We want you to annex us and we’ll talk about all that when we bring our Development Plan forward. I guess my discomfort is I want to know what that is before we do this. Before we annex them into the City, I would rather know what we’re getting. Although we could tie it to a Development Agreement and there is an issue – I guess in my mind, there is some issue as to the enforceability of that. I would rather see as we commonly do that Development Plan as part of this annexation. What I’m saying is if the applicant feels like all we want to do tonight is just deal with the annexation, I’m not really comfortable in wanting to vote for that. Borup: How about we get Mr. Field back up and we can ask him some – address some of this. Field: I can certainly understand your points and your concerns and so forth. Borup: Maybe first of all -- on the rest of the parcel. Was there anything in mind at all on future development? Field: In my discussions with the church I’ve heard probably four or five different things thrown out. I haven’t seen anything in the way of a drawing or a formal plat. I think its something that’s – Borup: Are they leaning for some type of single-family development in there on the western half? Field: Actually, no. I haven’t heard anything about single-family development on that property. Basically the things I’ve heard them discuss are more church oriented or associated with the church in their uses verses – I haven’t heard anybody say lets sell it to the highest bidder and see how much money we can put in our pockets on this thing. Borup: So they are looking more for future expansion, whether it’s in the ball fields or more buildings that kind of stuff you mean. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 10, 2000 Page 18 Field: What I’ve been hearing from the church is – looking at – long term or if there wasn’t a sewer issue, ideally, they would like this entire piece of property developed into church oriented uses. There are a lot of different ways that could go, obviously, be it athletic fields or whatever. To answer you question, there hasn’t been any discussion -- at least to me, regarding single-family development out there. Centers: Could I ask you the -- site plan here -- how much of the total parcel -- is that 5 acres of the 35? Field: I think it’s in the neighborhood of – I brought a copy here. This was some of the stuff that was submitted to Ada County. I believe it’s in the neighborhood of about 10 to 12 acres. It may say right on here. Hatcher: We’ve never seen that. Borup: We don’t usually get – Field: This was something here that was conceptual in nature, but its incorporating about roughly a third of the property, which is parking and the church itself and landscaping and what not. That’s really, I think, a majority of what is currently sewerable anyhow. Hatcher: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner. Hatcher: Do you, at this time, have any feel from your client as to a timeline? Some of the information that was submitted was three-and-a-half going on four years old. We’re looking at a revised annexation. Is there any timeline or progress report on how soon they plan on developing this property? Obviously, its money driven and congregation drove. Can you enlighten us on possibly some of that? Field: I can certainly try. I’ll back up just one minute there. The reason you Got some stuff that was several years old. It was two-fold one, we did want to present you with at least a concept to give you some feel for what was going on out there. What will hopefully be out there is going to be in form than that but its going to be similar. The fact that it has been several years that this has been going on -- the reason for that is during that time, the church has been actively towards getting this project rolling. They’ve been kind of putting their resources into the raw land and so forth and getting that ready. To specifically answer your question in conversations I’ve had with I think they are actively working with architects right now getting something ready. I think they’re going to be in a position here within the next few months to seriously put something forth to the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 10, 2000 Page 19 City. The representative from the church is in agreement with that. This isn’t like “Lets get it annexed and then we’ll have a meeting and sit down and figure out if we really want to go through with this is or not or do something else,” which is what I’m hearing as your concern here. It’s a case of we’re really close on some of this other stuff. Let’s go ahead and get the annexation process rolling, so when we get all this stuff finalized were already part way there and we can move full speed ahead with the Conditional Use, development and so forth to get the project In the ground. Hatcher: My second question was just along those lines of what was the church’s motivation for doing an annexation without CUP or development. Because it creates – *** End of Side One*** Hatcher: Is there any logical reason for annexation without a CUP? Field: One thing that comes to mind is the fact that obviously to put yourself maybe in the shoes of them, you want to be assured of as many things as you can be before you get too committed to the process. They’re moving ahead with other things while I’m saying this if the annexation is taken care of and safely in place there. Then they know and the congregation’s going to know that things are moving forward. Results are happening. I think the annexation wasn’t so much a case of lets try to just push this through then we’ll figure out what we want to do later. I think this is just a case of – this is something they’re working on other things. Churches can sometimes move a little slower than other developers or other organizations because its down by committee and there are budgets and everything else and it takes time. This was something that was identified that while some of the other issues were being worked out, the annexation portion of the project was at a point where it could be moved forward so that’s what's happening here tonight. Nary: Mr. Chairman Borup: Commissioner Nary. Nary: Mr. Field, I don’t certainly think your clients want to take steps backward and steps forward and things like that. I understand what you’re saying about time tables and trying to get as many things of the table as you can at one time. But I think at least what we’re hearing from the public and maybe what makes some sense to me is if it’s a short time frame that you are talking about -- realistically a short time frame that closer to the development stage where your going to be sitting down with the planning staff and really sort of ironing some of the details that are in here, then to me, it would make some sense -- all of that at one time to this Commission. I’m not sure that they should have that much apprehension that wouldn’t annex that property and that we would have a lot of Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 10, 2000 Page 20 the concerns. I think the concerns we’re concerned with tonight are ligament based on the public testimony that we’ve heard. The only other option at least to me and from what we’ve heard tonight is that if we recommend the annexation -- that we recommend an R-4 zoning which is compatible with the surrounding areas. If the church then once they decide exactly what they’re going to do and how they’re going to do that, they can ask to rezone it to an R-8, bring us the site plan, bring us the development plan, bring the Development Agreement or bring all those things. In four, six, eight – I don’t know. You’ve owned this property for quite a while, so I don’t know how long this is going to take. We could annex it now at a compatible zone, which is really R-4 from what it looks like to me compared to the other property in that area. That the point the church really thinks that there ready to come forward with a plan they can to rezone it to R-8 for the portions that the church is going to be on. And that would satisfy your neighbors and that would satisfy at least some of the concerns the Commission seemed to raise tonight. What do you think would work better for you for your client? Field: Well, I don’t think at this point they necessarily want to have a recommendation of an R-4 zoning. I can not say for certain that’s something they’re (inaudible) against either. There are certain things that we really need to speak with them about verses than just committing them to things. The R-4 property is more to the south. Isn’t that correct? Nary: That’s correct, but at least appeared to me from the testimony we’ve heard and the information from the staff that is the adjacent zoning to that property is all R-4. Hatcher: Adjacent to west. Field: I’m not trying to get into a compatibility discussion here. The purpose of that zoning was -- as Mr. Siddoway brought up, it was the zoning that was best suited for the Conditional Use Permit, and was chosen because it was the zoning that appeared to be the most streamlined to reach the end goal which was to have a church sited on that property. We do have several – we’ve got Elk Run to the north and Bear Creek to the east and so forth. I think that are denser zoning and so forth – Hatcher: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Nary. First of all to correct you, Bear Creek is not an R-8. Field: Okay. I apologize if I was mistaken. Hatcher: Quite frankly, it’s a rather large parcel subdivision. I think maybe one thing to consider and obviously I can appreciate having to go back to the client. One of the things, as Commissioner Nary brought up, I think is actually a very good suggestion. I think it would be a good faith measure upon this body and Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 10, 2000 Page 21 upon your client. We can improve the annexation and zoning to an R-4. Thus your client gets the annexation that they can go back to the congregation and say hey look the City is willing to commit to the annexation, were willing to give the utilities were a go lets proceed forward with our building design and so forth. And it would also be a good faith on the church that they were not out to throw up apartments and stuff like and we can understand the City’s concern. Then when its time to actually design the church and submit it under a CUP because you will have to a CUP because its in a residential zone. At that same time – it takes one additional application. It doesn’t take anymore paper work really to change it from an R-4 to R-8. Think it’s a win-win situation for both parts. Because our other option as a board is either to deny this zone or to do its as an R-8 with a whole bunch of tacked on Development Agreement’s and requirements you don’t necessarily want right now. Field: I think your absolutely right. I mean our whole goal here tonight is not to try to force this issue or – and you’ve obviously made some very valid concerns looking out for the best interest of everything here. With that being said, I think probably at this time -- you’ve got some issues and there are still things out there on the table I think that we could maybe talk among ourselves, come back and better with you. Because we want to make sure everybody’s – ideally, like you said, a win-win situation where everybody’s happy with the outcome. I guess probably at this time the appropriate thing to do rather than to try to drive this forward would be to I guess I could request – Hatcher: We could table it – Field: -- table it – Borup: Continue it – Field: -- continue it would be the term. Give ourselves some time to discuss how we feel would best address the situation and come back to you and discuss this more once we’ve had an opportunity to evaluate your concerns. Centers: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Centers. Centers: What you are really saying is the R-4 -- you’re not wanting to accept that with the annexation if that were – Field: Not at all. What I’m saying is without having an opportunity to sit with down with the church members and discuss what's transpired this evening. I’m not really in a position to say one way or another. They may say an R-4 because of the situation that’s going to work within our plans our framework so fine we’ll come back and do that if that’s what you feel comfortable with. It maybe a Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 10, 2000 Page 22 situation where there may be some other reasons which we can present to you why we feel R-8 is which is being requested tonight is the appropriate zoning for the property and could elaborate further at that time. Borup: Let me ask a question. Maybe you might want to discuss that, too. If the applicant would feel comfortable with an R-8 zone with a restriction that would allow church development only. No other – Hatcher: Can we make a motion with that if a church doesn’t get built, it resorts back to its original – Borup: There has been -- I no we’ve done others – (inaudible discussion amongst Commission) yes, I believe so you can things can be de-annexed or – Hatcher: Build the church as R-8, otherwise it stays in the County. Is that what I’m hearing? Borup: I don’t know if its that simple. Hatcher: Does it resort back to an R-4? I mean – Borup: No, I don’t know that we would go to back to an R-4. I think go back to the annexation. That gets complicated – Hatcher: So then it would be permanently fixed as an R-8 and could only be built as – Borup: -- a church. Hatcher: -- as a church until someone else comes in and says they want something different. Borup: Yes. Hatcher: Or a church gets built. Borup: Another applicant could come in with another application. I’m just throwing that out as another alternative. It doesn’t make a lot of sense to me to have an R-4 and then turn around rezone it R-8. Hatcher: I think it makes perfectly good sense it’s a good faith measure upon the City to the church and it’s a good faith measure from the church to the City. Doesn’t take much to change it from R-4 to R-8, you don’t have to do it all in one fail swoop. Borup: There is something for you to discuss. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 10, 2000 Page 23 Field: Certainly. I guess I request a continuance at this time. Hatcher: Whatever your applicant would like or your client would like. Field: I think we need to discuss some of these things that you have brought up tonight so I guess I request a continuance at this time. Borup: I think in this case its not going to delay your overall project. Field: I think you’re absolutely right. Borup: Do we have a motion to continue? Hatcher: Mr. Chairman, I would motion that we continue. Centers: Second. Hatcher: Item No. 3 -- the annexation and zoning request for Valley Shepherd Church of the Nazarene to November 14, 2000. Nary: Is that one getting pretty full already? Borup: Yes, that’s what was just mentioned. November is filled. Was the applicant looking to having information by the 14th or do you need a little more time, hopefully? Hatcher: Don’t continuations take top priority? Borup: Were you planning on having information by November 14, 2000 or would you like a little more time? at this point it looks like we’re full on the 14th , so it would take us a second meeting in November. Hatcher: Continuances take priority over new items so we can put it on the 14th . Field: The 14th would be fine. Borup: How full is our agenda already? Siddoway: There is 11 new public hearings scheduled. Borup: Plus the one we continued tonight? Siddoway: Correct. Borup: So that would be 13? Plus this would be 14. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 10, 2000 Page 24 Hatcher: What ever is on the bottom of that list gets bumped. We shouldn’t be bumping the continuances. Borup: If it looks like its going to get bumped then we’ll go onto our second meeting. Nary: Mr. Chairman, the applicant said they could be ready by November 14 would they – do they have a preference would they prefer – Borup: That’s what I was trying to find out. Nary: Would you really rather have it on November 14? Borup: Okay. I guess the rest of the agenda we’ll work out. So we (inaudible) be prepared for a second meeting in November. Norton: Was that motion seconded? Centers: Yes I second it. Borup: Motion second any other discussion? All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Item 4 Public Hearing: CUP-00-047 Request for a Conditional Use Permit to modify existing Conditional Use Permit of front landscape setback in a C-G zone by Sam Fishel for Centennial Motors Used Car Lot – west of Meridian Road on Franklin Road: Borup: Before we go onto Item No. 4, a few came in. Item 5 and 6 -- the public hearing for Cedar Springs Subdivision was continued to November 14 by request of the applicant. If there is anyone here that would like to testify on that we would open the hearing and take any testimony, but the applicant will not be doing a presentation. Item No. 4. Steve, I understand the staff presentation is verbal. We have nothing in writing. Siddoway: That’s my understanding, too. First of all, the Centennial Motors -- since Jerry Centers may or may not know where it is, its on Franklin Road on the south side, west of Meridian Road in this cross-hatched area here. Most of you will remember a variance request that came through within the last couple of months that reduce the landscape requirement against the existing mobile home park here from the required 20 feet between incompatible land uses to 10 feet. That variance was approved. The applicant was also requesting a reduction from the 35-foot landscape set-back requirement to 20 feet. There was an existing Conditional Use Permit in place that required 35 feet. There was not a Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 10, 2000 Page 25 variance that could be granted and had to modify the Conditional Use Permit. That is why this is before you tonight and really the main issue of it. the rest of the conditions of the Conditional Use Permit are not in question. This is a current site photo taken today. The yellow building in the center is the applicant's building took sort of a photo mosaic along Franklin Road so you could see the adjacent land uses. This would the area along Franklin Road right here in the front where the reduction from 35 feet to 20-foot has been requested. With that, I will stand for questions or let the applicant make his case for the need for that. Borup: Steve was there – when this was before City Council there was public testimony and discussion et cetera? Siddoway: This hasn’t been before them. Borup: Wasn’t a variance? Siddoway: The variance went before them but all that was discussed was the side variance. Borup: So the Franklin Road variance wasn’t discussed at all? Siddoway: I wasn’t there. the applicant may be more better suited to respond to that. I don’t know if it was discussed at all or not. Certainly, the only thing that could have been decided -- that was that the side variance. Whether or not the front set-back was discussed -- Borup: (inaudible) realized they couldn’t act on it because of an existing – okay. Mr. Fishel, maybe you can enlighten us on some of that. Fishel: My name is Sam Fishel. My business is at 225 West Franklin Road in Meridian. Where do I begin? There is six very important points that I would like to make for the reasons for the set-back. It was discussed in Planning and Zoning and I was led to believe – Borup: Planning and Zoning or City Council? Fishel: City Council. I was led to believe we could do it all at one time. Well, we discovered that the City Council could only make a decision on the variance. The front parcel was an amendment to the Conditional Use Permit which only the Planning and Zoning had authorization to do that. Therefore they gave me the setback on the side and they would have given me the setback on the front but they couldn’t comply with that. That had to be your decision. I was set and ready to go – Borup: That’s why I asked that because I think I was at that meeting I was remembering something else. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 10, 2000 Page 26 Fishel: I was set and ready to go. The money has been allocated and everything and we’re coming close to winter time. I’ll give you the same points that I gave to the City Council. Number one, if you’ll see the six-foot fence along the – right there, yes. If it was zoned -- if that property line was zoned today, that would be a four-foot fence allowing view of the front line. As Mr. Nary said, “economics is economics” and you take 20 cars off the front line and I turn the cars at a 500 dollar profit every 60 days that’s 60,000 dollars a year that you would be taking away from my business. That’s about the profit I’ve been making per year. Number two, the County took 25 feet of my property off the front line at pennies on the dollar. I had to turn around and give them a check for the sewer, the sidewalks and that kind of stuff. I don’t know what the proper name for it was but I had to give them that money plus more money for the improvements along Franklin road. Also that little lava rock building on the right hand side -- if you – that building is setting right at 20 feet from the sidewalk now. If we landscaped 35 feet in, then you wouldn’t see my cars at all and as you know the front line is the most important part of an automobile used car lot – used car dealership. When you ride by, the first thing that you do is to look at the front line to see if there is anything there that you would like to purchase. Economic reasons – also the landscaping all along on this side is like a ten-feet across at Giesler’s. There’s no landscaping in front of the Farmer’s Club there. There’s no landscaping on the other side and I would think that 20 foot would just – Borup: At this point, is there any 35-foot landscaping along Franklin? Fishel: Troutner Business Park is the only place and this is where the confusion could be. We’re not developing a parking lot and that’s what it’s been referred to as a parking lot. The parking lot is up next to the building. I have an outside showroom and that’s what I need to do to get my cars closest to the front as possible and also make it as pretty. The plan that I have submitted – it complies with all City, State and County Ordinances – the recommended trees – the recommended landscaping, even more so than the requirements of the City because I would like to have a beautiful piece of property when it’s developed. Yes, sir. And this is a 20-foot setback. With these signs here, here and up here, a new canopy here and landscaping – also I can utilize my lava rock building which that can (inaudible) 225 ½ West Franklin and that will be – utilize that building also. With the 35-foot setback, it would be impossible. I couldn’t – Borup: Mr. Centers, do you have a question? Centers: That’s 20-feet that you – Fishel: Yes, sir. This is 20 feet. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 10, 2000 Page 27 Centers: So the 15 feet – that you really put it in perspective and the way I look at it is five yards. Fishel: About the length of an automobile. I will carry 20 cars across the front there. If the County hadn’t taken so much of my property and at the time that the Conditional Use Permit was permitted to me, Franklin Road was not developed at that time. When I had a Conditional Use Permit for the lava rock building there and for about 40 cars – well, when I bought the property and I leased it out to the barn folks until I got a financial base strong enough to take over the whole property, I didn’t realize that I had to have a Conditional Use Permit for the whole property. I thought it would be for a used car lot. So the City Ordinance Officer came out and told me that I had to have a Conditional Use Permit for the whole entire property. This was in 1997. So, in order for me to operate a business, I went ahead and submitted for the Conditional Use Permit and the Planning and Zoning told me at that time, “Well, don’t worry about it. Go in for a variance and after the road is put in, then you can submit another landscaping plan and do it that way.” So that’s what I did. I didn’t realize that we had to go before you folks again. I thought I could do it all at one time, but anyway, I realize that two months later that we’ve – so I need your help. As you can see, backhoe is there. I spent roughly $15,000 up to the point that I’ve hooked up a sewer in 1998, immediately after the street was put in. I started my project, but it cost a lot of money. First, I had to get engineering blueprints on for the water retainment on site. Well, that’s another $3,600 and $5,500 for hooking up the sewer. Blueprints for – this cost $3,500 for a computer enhancement. So, I’ve spent $15,000 and we just put the drain in. We just got it done yesterday. That was for $13,500 for that, so we’re looking $125,000 to be spent on this property. I want it right, and we’re doing it right as far as we can go, but I do need to utilize the land as much as possible. The front line is the most important part of the – my showroom is inside the building there. Borup: Any other questions from any of the commissioners? Nary: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Nary. Nary: I think actually my question is more for Steve and the staff. Was that 35- foot buffer there was because the road was two lanes at the time when that was issued is that – Fishel: Yes that is correct. Borup: Also the City was trying to do a little bit on 35 foot for entrance corridors or possible. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 10, 2000 Page 28 Nary: That’s what it appeared to me. It looks like the road way was different and the 35 foot maybe made more sense back when the road way was a little narrower then it is now . Siddoway: 35 feet has been the standard request of all Conditional Use Permit on arterials, entry corridors specifically since before I’ve come. The previous application -- was it 97 -- that was before I came on staff. Since that time 35 foot landscape setbacks being requested along entry way corridors has been a standard requirement on Conditional Use Permit’s. it was required at that time the draft Landscape Ordinance which is going through hearings process right now would require 35 along an arterial such as this. Nary: My next question is, is that if we were to grant this modification, is this going to be this little island that’s sticking out and every other business on both sides as they get developed along the way are going to be 15 feet further back. This is going to look very odd comparison to the rest of the business’ on that side of the street. Or is every other business going to say we want 20 feet too. Because this one is and so we want to be next to it. Siddoway: Let me say one quick thing. I’ll give it to Mr. Fishel. He is right that most of the existing businesses do not have landscaping. If Landscape Ordinance goes through as currently proposed as these properties get developed in the future they will have 35 foot landscape setbacks or they will have to get a variance. Borup: a lot of those on the south side the buildings are to close to have the 35 foot – Siddoway: -- (inaudible) buildings on the south side are to close (inaudible) – Borup: -- north side I meant. I meant the north side. Siddoway: You meant the north side? Borup: Well maybe both. Both sides(inaudible) – Fishel: Most everybody on the north side -- they don’t have to get a Conditional Use Permit they have done there landscaping voluntarily. It is existing business on the north side. Borup: But they don’t have the 35 feet? Fishel: No sir. They have about 10 feet. And the Amoco station across the street has no landscaping. The closest – I also own the farmers club property and 3rd Street is going to be coming in there and at the development of that property. I can see and I totally agree a parking lot has ample room for a 35 foot Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 10, 2000 Page 29 setback. Once again I am not developing a parking lot I am developing an outside showroom. The parking lot is up next to the building. I think it would look so weird and no one – it would be by the building with that fence up six foot. You’re not going to be able to see a car in this corner right here as it stands even at 20 foot and 10 foot because this car is going to be out in here. Also the trees cover up I’m going to have to keep them trimmed up in order to do that. We’re trying to comply and to develop the property the proper manner so it would be best for the dollar value also. Nary: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Nary. Nary: Mr. Fishel, if I look at that visual simulation the picture at the bottom, basically, if you had to comply with that 35 foot setback, that strip of grass that’s in front of those where those trees are located on the left hand side of the entrance (inaudible) the other side of that row of cars approximately. Fishel: 35 feet would be at the back of this little pick-up right here. Nary: Right so basically there would be a grass strip or a landscaping strip or buffer that would eliminate that front row. That’s your concern. Fishel: Yes Sir and also – Nary: (inaudible) – Fishel: -- the lava rock building I couldn’t even utilize that at all. Nary: But it wouldn’t eliminate your ability to put those cars there they would just be another car length back – Fishel: -- can not park the cars on the grass. Nary: It would just push them back 15 more feet. It wouldn’t make them less visible to the street. Fishel: Yes it would. Of course it would. The Farmers’ Club is blocking the visual from the west. And that fence is blocking the vision from the east. You go to Boise they have 20 foot landscaping all up and down Franklin Road. They – Combs’ Car Corral, the Acura store and Peterson’s sometimes they park their cars on the grass and they only have 20 foot landscaping which is against the City Ordinance of course. They still that on special occasions. All I’m trying to do is survive and not to give so much of my land away. I’ve already given 25 feet. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 10, 2000 Page 30 Borup: Commissioner Hatcher. Fishel: And it was a gift to the County -- I mean they just stole because (inaudible). 25 feet means 60, 000, 70,000 dollars to me per year. I cut down my size you got to have parking up next to the building got to have this, got to have that so I need that. I need it bad. I’m begging you. Borup: Commissioner Hatcher. Hatcher: Mr. Chairman what I wanted to bring up for discussion purposes. I think we all can appreciate the situation that Mr. Fishel is in. I think one of the things we need to take into consideration is the condition of the adjacent areas. There is practically no landscaping on the north side nor will there be under its current conditions until existing facilities get demolished and are completely rebuilt. Which isn’t going to be practical because there is a railroad track shortly behind that property. The properties adjacent to this project are a mobile home lot which very well in the future be removed and redeveloped. At that time the condition for 35 foot landscaping for that project could very well be implemented. Borup: I think the mobile home lots are individually owned lots. Fishel: Yes, sir. They are. Hatcher: Are they individually owned so it’s not a leased – Fishel: No sir. Borup: That would be quite an undertaking. Hatcher: I (inaudible) my statement that would be quite an undertaking. All the more support Mr. Fishel. The other side of his project your not going to get 20 feet let alone 35 feet of landscaping in front of a building that is only 19, 20 feet from the street. Again to be able to adequately use that property you’re going to have to tear down the building throw 35 foot landscaping. Fishel: Also that lava – I’m sorry. Hatcher: Basically what I’m seeing here is Troutner Business Park other developments down the road where there is a little more flexibility a little more room okay. But I tend to support the 20 foot even though I’m an advocate of green I tend to support the 20 foot variance in this situation. Because quite frankly 20 foot of grass in front of this project is a whole lot better than nothing at all and any of the other adjacent spaces currently out there. Centers: Mr. Chairman. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 10, 2000 Page 31 Borup: Mr. Centers. Centers: I would support that with a 35 foot I think what you would find when that becomes official in the future. I think you would find banks quite willing to do the 35 foot maybe 50 I think it depends on the business. I think in this situation I think it will end up looking very nice with the 20 feet. A different business the 35 feet might be applicable but I don’t think its that applicable in this case. Hatcher: Our street ways should be aligned and lined up and not have these stepped things normally under normal conditions. But I don’t think that applies here. Borup: Because were already – might mention this Commission approved a project just down the street on the corner a reduced setback. Hatcher: Which one was that? Nary: Where the daycare is? Borup: No the one where the building is being built right now just down the – on the Meridian and Franklin right on the corner there. Hatcher: Home Federal? Borup: No. Fishel: On the other side of – Nary: Farm Bureau Insurance I think. Borup: Is that who’s going in there? and I don’t remember what the reduction was but down to like 15 feet I think I was less than 20. Hatcher: And they had Meridian to deal with not just Franklin. Borup: Right they had two corners. They did commit to some pretty extensive landscaping. They increased their landscaping by – Commissioner Norton. Norton: I think we’re all pretty much in agreement. This looks very nice and you can see the cars, 20 setback. Hatcher: My opinion it’s a no-brainer. Borup: Do we have anyone else here who would like to testify on this application? Seeing none it looks like we can move on Commissioners. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 10, 2000 Page 32 Hatcher: Mr. Chairman I move that we close the public hearing. Nary: Second. Borup: Motion second to close the public hearing all in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Borup: Do we have a motion? Hatcher: Any discussion? Borup: Any discussion? Hatcher: If not I’ll do a motion. Borup: I think we’re in agreement. I was at the City Council and my recollection was it went pretty much along the same lines as the Commission has mentioned. There was some discussion about the building not be usable you know the existing building and et cetera. Nary: Mr. Chairman I also agree with Commissioner Hatcher that we do need to look at the individual characteristics of the different property as we go down Franklin. And we’re always asked that every time we do have a standard. We always have to look at the individual characteristics of the topography of the lot and what they’re going to build there and all of that. I think 20 feet of landscaping is better than 35 feet of dirt I think its going to look a lot better. Norton: As long as we’re discussing I noticed the beautiful signs in the rendition and we are working on a Sign Ordinance so I just wanted to let you have a heads up on that one. Fishel: Thank you very much. Borup: Any other discussion? Hatcher: Seeing none I’ll make a motion. Mr. Chairman I motion that we recommend approval – hold on a second. Little clarification it came back from City Council to us they couldn’t act on it. yet we’re turning around and recommending approval so they can act on it. or are we approving something? I didn’t think we had that power. Borup: We’re modifying the existing Conditional Use Permit. Hatcher: What are we doing? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 10, 2000 Page 33 Nary: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Nary. Nary: I wasn’t a t the City Council meeting but what I would imagine is the City Council because this is at least a fact finding body is saying that’s are responsibility to make that all in formation is complying with our code. And we’re comfortable with making that recommendation then. I think still think the final approval is theirs. Hatcher: Still theirs. Nary: Unless something changed since last month. Borup: Anything to add to that Steve? Siddoway: This wasn’t sent back (inaudible) this was not the application that was before them. We had a variance before them. This is not a variance from the Ordinance this is a modification to their Conditional Use Permit. It requires a separate application. Borup: I think they thought the variance was supposed to handle this – Hatcher: Needed a – Borup: -- the side setback was an Ordinance where this is not an Ordinance. Hatcher: Very well. Mr. Chairman I would like to recommend approval to City Council for the modification of the existing Conditional Use Permit submitted as CUP-00-047 for the front landscaping setback in a C-G zone by Sam Fishel for Centennial Motors at west Meridian Road on Franklin. There were no staff comments. Norton: I second. Borup: Motion second, any discussion? All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Fishel: I have a question Mr. Chairman. Borup: That wasn’t as bad as you thought was it Mr. Fishel? Fishel: Sam Fishel 225 W. Franklin Road in Meridian. May I continue my project? We’re fixing to pave and landscape and do everything during the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 10, 2000 Page 34 November. In other words they’re going to lay pavement probably no later than Friday or Monday. Borup: This goes on to City Council. Fishel: I was under the impression it would end here. That’s what the City Council told me. Nary: Technically Mr. Fishel they have to make the final approval. They can change it modify it – Fishel: Do I have to resubmit and go through the – Borup: No this will automatically go to – probably whether you can continue – how comfortable you feel that they would – Fishel: They were all 100 percent unanimous agreement. The only thing is – Borup: This is a technicality – Nary: Theoretically Mr. Fishel if you do get it built and they for whatever reason they deny it. You may have to tear it out. Fishel: Okay that will be fine Thank you. Hatcher: Do we have some housekeeping before we adjourn? Borup: Yes we do – well was they’re anybody else here – Hatcher: -- voted on that. Borup: Lets vote on that. I’m sorry five and six. Hatcher: We have to open five and six you’re right. Nary: I guess we need to open it if the folks (inaudible) – Borup: We still have people here in the audience and we’re done with our agenda. Is any body here for what item. Just viewing – same thing because there is an opportunity if anybody wanted to testify on five and six that option is – Nary: Mr. Chairman did the applicant for five and six leave when we discussed the continuance or were they even here? Borup: They’re right here. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 10, 2000 Page 35 Nary: One of the things before I guess we talked about moving this to November 14 and I understand what Commissioner Hatcher said earlier that continued projects should take priority. But you also have 11 other people you’ve notified to be prepared for November 14 you have the applicant here for this one. It sounds to me at least in looking at it this may be a fairly lengthy hearing that may take some time you do have the applicant present. To me – I guess what I was planning to do was make a motion that we move this to the December meeting. So it gives ample opportunity for notice to the public secondarily, gives the applicant time to deal with some of the issues that may be present in the staff report they may want to deal with. And it doesn’t necessarily push those 11 people into December or January that are already prepared to come in November. We’ve set another over into November so we’ve got a fairly big stack as it is. To be fair to those folks and not wanting to be here until 2:45 in the morning. It might make more sense since the applicant is here to move this to the December meeting rather than try to set a special meeting at the next one. Or even to set this at a special meeting in November. Either one but it just doesn’t seem fair to me to shove this off to November 14 with the assumption Items 9, 10 and 11 can come back another day. Borup: I agree with that I don’t like special meetings. But I am hesitant to keep pushing everything forward also. Nary: With the volume that it is time it would make the most sense if we set a special meeting in November and we make this obviously the first item that’s going to get set on that. If things look like on November 14 that look to large to time consuming – Borup: -- it could get moved to this one also – Nary: -- we’ll have a date that is already available and we don’t have anything set on it. Borup: Would the applicant come forward so we could ask him a couple of these things. We need to open the hearing. The reason I say from the looks of things this project is way down the road anyway with the sewer issue. I don’t know if having the thing in January you are going to delay the project any. There probably hasn’t been any further discussion with the school district either. Looks to me like sewer and the school district are the two main issues. Norton: Do want to go ahead and open the hearing. Borup: We have to open it anyway to continue it. Hatcher: And lets talk to the applicant about it for 5 or 10 minutes. Borup: Or less. Let’s open Items No. 5 and 6. I’m assuming no staff comment. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 10, 2000 Page 36 Item 5 Public Hearing: AZ-00-019 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 100.71 acres from RT to R-4 by Kevin Howell for proposed Cedar Springs Subdivision – northwest of Meridian Road and Ustick Road: Item 6 Public Hearing: PP-00-018 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 99.83 acres for 333 building lots and 25 other lots in a proposed R-4 zone by Kevin Howell for proposed Cedar Springs Subdivision – northwest of Meridian Road and Ustick Road: Siddoway: I’ll just mention that you have our staff report. Norton: We’ve got it. Borup: Would one of the applicants like to come forward? Just any comment on our discussion here. Essentially we will – go ahead state your name. Lee: My name is Gary Lee with JUB Engineers 250 S. Beachwood in Boise. We did submit a request to the City to continue the public hearing so we would have an opportunity to arrange and meet with the school board. Borup: That was for the school board also. I thought your letter said highway district? Lee: There is that issue that is coming up as well. The tech review isn’t until Friday. Borup: So they would have that by next month. Lee: They would have basically – Borup: Would they have a draft report by then? Lee: They should have the draft report by next Wednesday. Our goal is to meet with Meridian School District Monday or Tuesday of next week. To get some of these things resolved as far as their needs. Borup: Is your preference to have this on the November meeting or does December or January make any difference? Lee: We’re aware of the sewer situation and right now I suppose unless Bruce has any ideas on when that might occur. That’s going to hold us up anyway as far as construction. The same time the developer wants to be ready to go and offer as much input to the design team, Keller and Associates on alignment for Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 10, 2000 Page 37 the sewer. Which means we need to get down the road on our preliminary plat approval for roads, streets. So we can work with them on that alignment. Borup: Is that other project coming along timely? Freckleton: To this date we do not have (inaudible) – Borup: From the other developer? Freckleton: We’ve got a pre-ap with the other developer. (inaudible) plan of course he’s not comfortable granting any easements until he has the final plat excuse me the preliminary plat is approved. Borup: But there is a preliminary design. I assume their preliminary design has a sewer going through it somewhere. Freckleton: We have a route we would like to take the sewer through yes. Borup: They haven’t even done a preliminary design. Freckleton: (inaudible) preliminary plat. Roughed out. Borup: Does that allow for the sewer to go through the project? Freckleton: Yes. Staff raised some concern with the preliminary plat Borup: So staff is holding it up then. I don’t know if that answered anything Gary. ***End of Side Two*** Nary: -- might be the best rather than a special meeting we may have to bring it up at the November meeting but to set it on the December meeting. I don’t know if this – Borup: Or a second November meeting. Hatcher; But it doesn’t sound like it’s a priority to make a special meeting for it. I would concur we schedule this continuance for the December meeting. Nary: We’ll just bring it up at the November meeting if there is anybody here again that came for that they think that’s when it is. Its going December that’s when our regular meetings are so that at least people are going to be a little more attuned. If this a project they are going to follow and they think its important then it makes more sense to me to keep it on our regular agenda at least to make sure the people are informed enough to be available if they want to Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 10, 2000 Page 38 be heard on this. But it doesn’t sound like its urgent that kind of splits the difference of January verses a special meeting in November I guess. It still keeps the developer and applicant on track a little bit. It gives us time to make sure that folks who wan to come can be here. Borup: There may be time for testimony depending how that meeting is. Nary: Certainly Mr. Chairman if we feel at the beginning we can bring it up if there’s folks here that say December is a bad month that’s a holiday month I can’t be here. The problem in sort of testifying in a vacuum when there’s really no presentation is awfully difficult for people. Borup: Usually they spend a lot of time on stuff that the question would have been answered in the presentation. It wastes time. Nary: I just think seems like we’re stacked so heavy in November and the applicant is here and there is not an urgency. But we do need to keep to on track that would make the most sense rather than a special meeting – we put this on the December – Hatcher: No I would say December. Borup: Any comment on that Gary? Lee: I wouldn’t want to go any later than that I don’t think. We want to be right on the heels so the project that’s holding up the sewer with our application. We want to have our preliminary plat approved and our final plans started when that sewer gets to our boundary line. So we want to be hitting the ground running. Nary: At least setting this in December at this point you are not going to have that agenda filled up yet this would be a first item (inaudible). Lee: Be a great Christmas present to be number one. Borup: Especially if something is worked out with the school district it may not be a real time consuming application either. Some of the last subdivisions granted they are a lot smaller than this. There has been no public testimony and very little discussion and it doesn’t have to be half of the evening. The secret there was that they were in agreement with all the staff comments. Lee: That may not be an easy route for us in this case. You’ve seen their comments I don’t know if you read them yet or not. Borup: Yes. Lee: We do have some responses to that. If you would like to see those early we can send them to you. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 10, 2000 Page 39 Borup: It sounds like – Nary: What I would move Mr. Chairman is that we continue the public hearing in this matter on Items 5 and 6 AZ-00-019 and PP-00-018 to December 12, 2000 meeting. So therefore the public hearing is still open for comment and such. We will put I ton the December meeting and obviously it will be the first item. Borup: Is that a motion? Nary: Yes. Norton: I second that motion. Borup: Any discussion? All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Borup: As Commissioner Hatcher mentioned we do have a couple of – at least one other housekeeping thing. We discussed it last time and that was a meeting date. Sounds like the City Council is moving ahead with taking our Tuesday. They are going to meet every Tuesday in the month. They’re going to be holding three City Council meetings a month and one workshop on the other Tuesday. They are going to be holding two public hearing meetings and one in house meeting I believe. Department reports et cetera and since this is an Ordinance item they would like us to pick a date that can be written in the Ordinance. Are you going to be writing that? Swartley: No I won’t be. Hatcher: You might want to -- Borup: Last time we talked – last time I we were going between Monday and Wednesday I thought Wednesday was kind of where it was heading. Hatcher: Also want to mention that Will had expressed the desire the to have them on Thursday’s because it works well his office and his staff. Nary: I think the Monday – I think the City Clerk’s office prefer not to have it on Mondays because the developers are concerned about having to be with both of the Boise Planning and Zoning Commission and this Commission on the same night. Hatcher: Mondays are extremely bad for me. Norton: There are a lot of holidays that are Mondays. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 10, 2000 Page 40 Borup: There are a lot of holidays and if we get the reports on Friday, you’ve got the weekend only for us to review it. We would lose Monday night for that if – Nary: In the big picture of things, Thursday works better for me. Norton: If we did Thursdays – the first and third Thursday – that would work. I have commitments on the second and fourth Thursday. Hatcher: I wouldn’t care about first and third Thursday as long as it’s fixed and we don’t fluctuate. That’s been the hardest thing for me. Borup: That’s because we’ve only had one designated date, and the second ones always had to be worked in. Hatcher: I can work with a fixed date. Nary: I would concur with that. It’s a lot easier if you have a fixed date. Hatcher: It’s first and third Thursdays. Borup: And Thursdays is good for you, Jerry. Centers: Yes. Borup: Looks like that’s what it will be. Wednesday is a better night than Thursday for me for next year. Norton: Wednesday is good, but – Borup: It varies from – well, this year, Thursday will be better and next year Wednesdays. It depends on the year. Nary: What I also will say is that if he is going to at least ask the Council that we not really start this until January, if preferred since we’ve already sort of set our schedules – Borup: From what Will had said, as my understanding, it’s going to take at least that long to get the ordinance in place. So, that’s our intention – yes, that’s going to start in January or no sooner than. Hatcher: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Hatcher. Hatcher: I will not be present the first Thursday of January. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 10, 2000 Page 41 Borup: What is that? Hatcher: I don’t know. I just know I won’t be here. Borup: Okay. Is that New Year’s Day? Hatcher: It’s the 4th , yes. Borup: An intention would be the first Thursday would be our normal one. The 3rd is if it’s necessary. Nary: The first Thursday would be every month. Borup: Unless we’d want to be the other way around, but I don’t know how the other way around worked very well. Nary: The first Thursday is a lot easier to me – to set it – and whether or not you want to – you can put it in the ordinance and we can set our calendar that at least we may be available the 3rd Thursday of each month and we’ll have set dates if we need to move. We have a long agenda. We have to move something. Borup: If it’s like this, it’s going to be about half of the time. This month and last month, we wouldn’t be using it. Nary: And if the Council decides to give us a little more things to do, then we’ll use them both anyway. Hatcher: I think it would be prudent to let the rest of the board know that the last six months have been cake walks compared to what it was a year ago. Borup: One other item that Mr. Berg reminded it might be time to bring it up – probably two years ago, we voted on a policy at that time for the Chairman to serve a minimum of one year. Essentially, after that time that it would be revisited and then this Commission would have option of electing a new Chairman – electing a Chairman – either the same Chairman again or a new person. The intention, I think, was to give everybody an opportunity, or those that wanted an opportunity. Also, at least at that time, there was a little more longevity among the Commissioners, too. Hatcher: Mr. Chairman, I have a question for you. Borup: Yes. Hatcher: Do you have any desire to step down or relinquish your current obligations? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 10, 2000 Page 42 Borup: I’m comfortable where I’m at, but I wouldn’t be uncomfortable if someone else felt like they’d also like to. It would be up to the Commission, but then just bear in mind that that’s something that we probably want to look at on an annual basis. Hatcher: Do we need to fix a date every June or every July? Borup: It was August, I think. We’re you here when that was done? Hatcher: I know we talked briefly. Borup: They’re reviewing the whole minutes. Maybe January would be a better time. I don’t know if the time matters. I don’t know how the August came up. I think that was just the day we had the discussion or something or whatever month it was. I’ll have to go back and double-check that. Hatcher: I quite frankly motion that Keith continue on for another year. Nary: Probably the only thing that I would modify is that if we want to revisit, January makes the most sense. Borup: I think revisiting it probably does make sense. Nary: It’s easy to remember if we do it in January than if we do it – Borup: Rather than the middle of the month. That’s been the problem. The middle of the year thing was hard to – I think that’s why it kind of got overlooked. Plus, it was in when Commissioner McCoy was the Chairman and he had been – I can’t remember how it came up, but it had to do with a motion from some previous Commissioners. I think I remember. I’m remembering. I didn’t think that’s such a bad idea. There’s a mechanism for some rotation if so desired, rather than being an undetermined time with no – because it’s not in an ordinance, other than the Commission will elect the Chairman. Nary: This is 2000, so would we revisit this at January of 2002? Are you willing to make a commitment to January, 2002? Borup: Yes. Nary: Well, then I would make a motion that – Borup: Still, something comes up in the meantime. Ugarriza: Do you want to revisit it the month before the end of the year so the person can take over with the new year? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 10, 2000 Page 43 Borup: That would probably be a good idea. The way it is right now, if the Commission changes their mind, I think we can still do it any time of the year, technically. Ugarriza: Does their need to be a vote? Norton: There was a motion on the floor. Borup: Did you make a motion? Okay. Norton: I’ll second. Hatcher: December of 2001 – that Commissioner Borup remain as the Chairman and that we revisit the Chairmanship each December of each year with the next being December of 2001. Borup: I think it came up. One of the Commissioners wanted it to be a new -- I’m sorry. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Borup: One of the Commissioners wanted to be automatically new Chairman every year, and then the other discussion was that you may not have someone that wants to and I think it was decided – the original one was that there would be a new election every year and then it was added that the same person can be voted in. Hatcher: I think that’s fair. It doesn’t matter who. I don’t think there’s any term limits in this level of – Borup: I don’t think so. Norton: Is there more business? Borup: Not unless anybody else has anything else. Norton: Then I move to adjourn the meeting. Hatcher: Second. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:55 P.M. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 10, 2000 Page 44 APPROVE: _______________________________ CHAIRMAN KEITH BORUP ATTEST: _______________________________ WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CITY CLERK