Loading...
2002 12-19Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting December 19, 2002 The regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:00 P.M., on December 19, 2002, by Chairman Keith Borup. Members Present: Keith Borup, Jerry Centers, David Zaremba, Michael Rohm, and Leslie Mathes. Others Present: Bruce Freckleton, Dave McKinnon, Nicholas Wollen, Sharon Smith, Jessica Johnson, and Dean Willis. Item 1. Roll-Call Attendance: ___X___ David Zaremba ___X___ Jerry Centers ___X___ Leslie Mathes ___X___ Michael Rohm ___X___ Chairman Keith Borup Borup: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. We'd like to open the regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission this evening. Start with roll call of Commissioners. Item 2. Adoption of the Agenda: Borup: The first item, adoption of the Agenda. Are there any adjustments or changes anyone would like to see in the Agenda? Maybe one that might be -- do we have anyone here to testify on Item Numbers 7, 8, and 9, which is on amendments and ordinances? Okay. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Commissioner Rohm -- or Commissioner Zaremba: Zaremba: I move that we delay the discussion of Items 7, 8, and 9 to the end of the meeting after Item 12. Rohm: Second. Borup: Motion and second to move Items 7, 8, 9 to the end of the Agenda all in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Item 3. Consent Agenda: A. Approve minutes of December 5, 2002 Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting. Meridian Planning & Zoning December 19, 2002 Page 2 of 116 B. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Denial: AUP 02- 007 Request for an Accessory Use Permit for a Family Daycare in an R-4 zone for Sherri Martin by Sherri Martin - 2215 E. MacKay Court: Borup: Okay. The next item is the Consent Agenda. Do we have a motion on Item Number 3? Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: I have one comment. On Page 10 of the minutes of the last meeting, near the bottom of the page, Commissioner Centers made a motion, Commissioner Mathes seconded it, and according to this, I did the honors of taking the vote. Borup: Oh. Okay. Zaremba: I would say that the Chairman did that, not me. That's the only change I have. Centers: Mr. Chairman? I have an additional change. On Page 70, where I made the motion to approve the Zoning Ordinance changes and it was key to the verbiage at the time, the last line where I state, cross out the word any, that should be in hyphens or -- and insert the or the, that should be in hyphens. It looks like it's all one sentence, if you know what I'm saying, because any and the were key words. That's the only thing that I saw. Borup: Okay. Yes. That was probably pertinent. All right. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: I move we approve the minutes of the meeting of December 5, 2002, with the two amendments just requested. Rohm: I'll second that. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Borup: Okay. The first items on the Agenda is, actually, Items 4, 5, and 6, all three are Continued Public Hearings. Meridian Planning & Zoning December 19, 2002 Page 3 of 116 Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Yes. Zaremba: We have an Item 3-B. Borup: Oh, I'm -- well, that was on the consent -- I'm sorry. That was on the Consent Agenda. Zaremba: We don't have to make any motion on that? Borup: Well, I should have paid better attention. Was your motion just for the minutes or was it to approve the Consent Agenda? Zaremba: Just the minutes. Borup: Okay. Then we do need a motion on Item 3-B. Zaremba: Sorry and would that motion be appropriate to accept this or to approve it or what do we do with this? Okay. Mr. Chairman, I move that we approve the facts and findings and Conclusions of Law for denial of AUP 02-007. Mathes: Second. Borup: Motion and second. Any discussion? All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Borup: And that was on there just to kind of clean up what we had moved on previously, but finalized that. Item 4. Continued Public Hearing from November 21, 2002: AZ 02-024 Request for annexation and zoning of 15.4 acres from RUT to R-8 zones for proposed Cobblefield Crossing Subdivision by CMD, Inc. - 4450 North Linder Road: Item 5. Continued Public Hearing from November 21, 2002: PP 02-022 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 73 building lots and 15 other lots on 15.4 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Cobblefield Crossing Subdivision by CMD, Inc. - 4450 North Linder Road: Item 6. Continued Public Hearing from November 21, 2002: CUP 02-032 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a PUD for 64 single-family detached homes, 6 single-family attached homes and 1 single-family existing home on 15.4 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Meridian Planning & Zoning December 19, 2002 Page 4 of 116 Cobblefield Crossing Subdivision by CMD, Inc. - 4450 North Linder Road: Borup: Now Items 4, 5, and 6. Again, these were Continued Public Hearings for the November 21st meeting, so we'd like to open each of these hearings, AZ 02-024 and PP 02-022 and CUP 02-032 and at this time start with the staff report. McKinnon: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. I have got some overheads I'll direct your attention to. As you remember from the last time that I was at the Commission about month ago, we talked about this piece of property with frontage both on Linder Road and on McMillan Road, the odd-shaped piece of property. As you remember, this Site Plan is for 73 building lots and one existing building that's located down in the southwest corner of the property. As you remember, there was quite a bit of discussion about the dog bones and the pork chop islands in the middle. There was some discussion about adding a stub street, which has now been added. What we are looking at on the overhead right now is a revised Preliminary Plat. At the last meeting, there were a number of items that were requested to be changed on the Preliminary Plat and put back in front of you at this meeting. You should have a memorandum from myself dated today, discussing all the changes to the staff report. I will go over those really quick once I finish with the overheads. As you remember, we requested the stub street and the stub street has been added and the pathway for the pedestrian connection to the north has been added, that's Lot Number 13, and that will be a micropath connection at that location. The other changes were very minor. At that time -- again, this is what it originally looked like without the stub street. They are still keeping the park area, which is intended to be a pool area, a clubhouse for the subdivision. There are a variety of different housing types. There are some smaller lots in this subdivision. I provided those at the last meeting. That's what we have tonight. If you will grab the memorandum, I will go over really quickly the items that I have addressed. The first bullet point, again, on Page Number 8 of the original staff report, Item Number 5, final sentence should be deleted. That was that the application should address intended fencing design at the Public Hearing. He did address that at the last Public Hearing. We discussed the height of the fence to be a three-foot fence. Site Specific Comment Number 7 was the next bullet item on my memorandum. Please strike the requirement for the new public street. The applicant has provided that on a revised plat. The final sentence of that condition should remain. That was upon city approval the applicant has the option to convert the temporary stub street -- that was the stub street that was adjacent to Linder, the one that runs east and west, the small street in this location, that that could be changed to a 20-foot wide pedestrian connection with city approval. Site Specific Comment Number 8 was the 20-foot wide pedestrian connection. The applicant has added that. It's now Lot Number 13 in this location, the north-south connection. Please strike Item Number 8. Item Number 9 is the fourth bullet point that they revised the Lot 1, Block 1, and Lot 2, Block 1, landscape buffers. It's very hard to make out on the revised plat. You should have a copy of it that you can see how it kind of goes in and out, undulates, as we discussed it. Please strike that. Site Specific Comment Number 11, which is on Page 9 of the staff report please strike that in its entirety. That was dealing with the (Inaudible) Canal, which is up by Meridian Planning & Zoning December 19, 2002 Page 5 of 116 Linder Road. There was no irrigation easement that was shown on the site at that time. In addition to that, there was discussion at the last hearing concerning the irrigation ditches that pass through the subdivision and the way we solved that was by adding the common lot and relocating the ditch into the common lot and then running an easement across the back side on the north of the property. Site Specific Comment Number 12 please strike that. The applicant has made the street name changes down on the south. He's made that to match with Baldwin Park Subdivision. Item Number 13 was that the applicant be required to increase the driveway width around the islands to 29 feet that has been done by the applicant. Please strike that. On to my second page of my memo the first bullet point on that would be Item Number 15 on Page 9 please strike the enter comment. That had to do with -- just strike that in its entirety. That had to do with some caveats that needed to be required that dealt with the swimming pool, common lot area, the water features, and the 25-foot wide street road widening that has been addressed by the applicant. Site Specific Comment Number 16, Bullet Point Number 2 that would be the new development note regarding the residential house size to 1,150 square feet minimum. The applicant has made those changes on his revised Preliminary Plat. Then, finally, if you could turn to Page 13 of the staff report, that has to deal with site specific comments for the Conditional Use Permit, that they have a 20- foot street side setback and we had changed that language to be 10 to 20-foot. If there is any structures located with 10 to 20 feet of a side yard setback, rather, than, the statement within 20. That was a correction that we made at the last meeting that I wanted to point out to you to make that correction in your motion tonight. Those are the corrections that we need to make to the staff report, according to the revised plat. If there is any other discussion or questions that you might have of staff, we would take them at this time and turn the time back over to you. Zaremba: Dave, I have just one question on their -- the new revised plat that we got appears to have addressed everything we talked about and I think you're confirming that. The only thing that I question -- and maybe I'm not interpreting this correctly, but in the lower left corner of the new revised plat, it does show the existing driveway on the existing dwelling as coming out to Linder. I understood that that was being changed to not access Linder. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Zaremba, you're right in the way that it's depicted on the map. The actual approval was that there would be no direct lot access from Linder. That's one of the site-specific comments, that there shall be no direct lot access to Linder Road, except those approved by the City of Meridian and that's not one of those. The applicant is here tonight and he might be able to address whether that was just an oversight in the change of the Preliminary Plat, which is what I assume that is. Centers: Mr. Chairman? Dave, Page 7, Number 2, other considerations, stub streets, would that still be applicable, based on the changes? McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Centers, the additional considerations are not items that are adopted as site-specific comments or requirements. Meridian Planning & Zoning December 19, 2002 Page 6 of 116 Centers: I understand that. McKinnon: They are just items of discussion, but, yes, it would go away. Centers: I understand that but if we approve or deny, it's always including all staff comments right? McKinnon: Right. It includes the staff comments, but those are not -- Centers: That's the way a motion is worded. McKinnon: Right. Centers: So, Item 2 on Page 7, does that still apply? McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Centers, you could strike that. They have met the requirement of that. That would be appropriate to strike that. Centers: Do you see where I'm coming from? McKinnon: I do. I totally see where you're coming from. Borup: And I think, Commissioner Centers, what he's saying, that the staff comments start actually on Page 7 under site-specific comments. Is that what you were leading to, Dave? McKinnon: The items that go into the recommendation do not include the additional considerations. Centers: We should remember that. Borup: Yes. Yes. If we feel that anything that -- in the lead up to the Statute -- Centers: That should be in our motion. Borup: -- if you want them included -- Centers: Because we always -- Borup: -- and they are not. Centers: -- say including all staff comments so if we are not going to strike them all, then, we need to get specific on -- Borup: Definition of comments. Meridian Planning & Zoning December 19, 2002 Page 7 of 116 Centers: Right. McKinnon: Correct. Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Centers, let's just address that really quickly. The reason for the additional considerations is that among all of the Findings of Fact and the requirements that are -- and the required findings, from time to time there are items that are not addressed in the required findings that we feel, as staff, should be brought up and are appropriate for you to discuss. The additional considerations are talking points, items of discussion for you, that we would like to bring before you and would like you to include in your recommendation, if you see fit, and that's what they are there for, there are not there be adopted as a recommendation. Centers: I understand that, but they are your comments. McKinnon: That's correct. Centers: And when we make a motion we state including all staff comments. See where I'm coming from? McKinnon: I see where you're coming from. Centers: All right. Borup: But sometimes staff comments are on both sides of an issue, too. Centers: Correct but I don't think you can have it conflicting. Yes that's all I had. Borup: Anything from any other Commissioners? Okay. Do you have anything else, Mr. McKinnon? McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, I have no other comments at this time. Borup: Okay. All right. Does the applicant have a presentation they'd like to make? Come forward. Ralphs: Good evening, Commissioners. My name is Rod Ralphs. My address is 2730 North Greenbelt Place here in Meridian. I am here on behalf of CMD, Inc., the applicant. As staff as indicated, we are here to have a rehearing on the Cobblefield Crossing, a 73 lot subdivision, with 72 lots buildable, and one existing home. We have addressed some of the concerns -- or all of the concerns we believe that the Commission had back in our November meeting. I want to just reiterate -- the first point would be the east-west stub street on the far eastern side of the project. We have placed that in at the request of Council. I also wanted to point out that we have removed the 20-foot easement or roadway that we have proposed up into the flag lot, because we have addressed the east-west stub street, and now we have the contiguous exercise path with the workout stations on it without interruption. The other thing I would like to point out is when we were here in November -- I want to discussion Meridian Planning & Zoning December 19, 2002 Page 8 of 116 a little bit more about the Fence Plan. The fence along the flag would stay the same, but I believe what I had mentioned in that hearing at the time is that the entire subdivision was going to be surrounded with PVC or a vinyl-type fence. To the south, currently I believe we have in place a six-foot cedar fence from the adjacent subdivision. We are going to put here on Linder, on the front part, a matching type vinyl fence so between the two subdivisions it will be in harmony with that. Along the north and, then, where you see the dogleg, if you will, to the northeast and across the north, we would continue that with a six-foot cedar privacy fence in lieu of vinyl. Then, of course, there along the eastern boundary there -- all along there, with the exception of the stub street, would also have six foot cedar type fencing, privacy type fencing. One of the issues that staff had and the Commissioners had when we were here last was the source of the water supply. Since our meeting we were able to address that with Settlers. We would actually be pulling -- and I would refer the Commission to the flag lot on the revised plat that you have in front of you. There in the upper right-hand corner of the plat you will notice that there is a proposed pressure irrigation pump station, along with the 20-foot irrigation easement. That's that large Settlers Canal there that runs parallel to McMillan. That is actually our best water source with the grading of the land and that's where will be pulling from and we did get that from Settlers. We would be addressing our irrigation needs from that location. We did -- and I noticed that staff had pointed it out -- if we refer now down to the lower left-hand portion of the plat, we are in line to have a direct access for the existing home onto Linder. This is an access point that currently exists and we would not want to remove that. We would create a handicapped accessible sidewalk on both sides of that to continue on with that berm and we are currently in the process of getting that approval through ACHD. It was pointed out about the north-south pathway. We have used that space and that was the Commission's suggestion that we include that as part of our pathway, along with including part of the easement for that ditch along the -- right there, you see that corner on the north line and, then, before the dog leg to the northeast. Another point I wanted to bring up was we have reduced the size of the -- and we had some fun with this, the reference to the islands that we had, the dog bones. We have actually reduced the size of the shaft of the dog bones by one foot and that is to accommodate parking. We want to be able to put parking not on the ends of the dog bones, but there where it goes on the inside. Having said that, the rounded part of the bog bone, you have 20 feet there from the edge of the wide part of the dog bone type islands to the sidewalk and, then, with the sidewalk you have the standard five to seven feet with curbing and sidewalk. We do want to be able to use that space and that was different than what we had approached you with in November, being able to use the space around those islands for parking. There would not be any on street parking along the roads where the houses are, but we did want to make use of the space there along the islands. I believe those are all the comments that I have prepared in response to the comments made by staff, some of the things addressed with the revised plat, and if there are any questions from the Commission, I would field them at this time. Borup: Questions from the Commission? Meridian Planning & Zoning December 19, 2002 Page 9 of 116 Zaremba: Yes the question that I asked of staff. You're saying now that you do want to remain the driveway access onto Linder for the existing house? Ralphs: We would like to and you will notice on the plat that it is a 15-foot wide driveway that would go and access through to the existing home. There was concern about the narrowness of the space from the front of the existing home out to Linder being able to put a driveway through there in light of the landscaping setbacks and we have approached ACHD with that. We are resolving that with them to be able to use that existing driveway. Currently, there are actually two access points off of Linder for that existing home and we would reduce that to just the one and it would stay at the 15 feet. Zaremba: And how far is that from the intersection? Ralphs: Looking for a reference point and -- excuse me one moment. I'm getting an indication that it would be about 100 feet there from that north curb radius and that would be an entrance that would be entirely dedicated to just ingress and egress for that particular home. Zaremba: But you're seeking approval of that through ACHD? Ralphs: Yes, we are. Zaremba: What if they don't approve it? Can you still make a driveway up the side? Ralphs: We will have to make one. Rohm: Mr. Chairman? It seems to me that at our last hearing that we discussed that pretty thoroughly and I thought that it was agreed that you would put the driveway parallel to the lot and dump it onto the interior street of the subdivision. Ralphs: That's correct. Rohm: I'm pretty sure that's the conclusion that we came to. Ralphs: We wanted to explore the feasibility, Mr. Commissioner, with ACHD about whether we could do that. I believe at our last meeting there was also some discussion about how wide that would need to be if we were to do that and there were discussions at 20 or 25 feet and we found that we could go with the 15. We are -- we are just running that by ACHD and wanted to take your take on it. Rohm: Okay. Well, let's run it by this unit here as well. Ralphs: Certainly. Rohm: I think that there is -- I'd like to hear staff comments on -- at this point. Meridian Planning & Zoning December 19, 2002 Page 10 of 116 McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, it's kind new -- it's something new that's been brought up at tonight's meeting. As you remember, at the last meeting, the reason that we allowed them to go -- the applicant to go to a 15-foot landscape buffer, rather than the 25-foot landscape buffer, was to accommodate the driveway. In no case would I allow the landscape buffer to go to 15 feet if we are not accommodating the driveway, the applicant would have to go to 25 feet for a landscape buffer if there is no driveway there. The only reason for that change that was required was because the driveway was not to be on Linder. At this point, we have no approval from ACHD for that and the ACHD report states that there shall be no direct lot access, except those accesses approved. It is our call to be able to make that a requirement, but if they are requesting that, I would request the condition be placed that they do a 25 feet buffer, rather than a 15, and not allow the in and out of the landscape buffer being proposed on the revised Site Plan. I'm not completely in objection to keeping the access, but if there were a way to eliminate the access and provide a full landscape buffer without any interruptions, I would prefer to see that and provide for a greater streetscape. Ralphs: I take it that's a no. Borup: Well, any comments on that? Ralphs: I appreciate that. Borup: That's the thoughts I had. You know, it's -- the reason for the reduced was to allow driveway access. Ralphs: Now, having said that, if we were able to get ACHD approval, but -- and part of the contingent on that would be to increase that landscape buffer to 25 feet, would we be able to explore either of those options or would you just prefer that we nix any access from that existing home onto Linder? Borup: Comments from the Commission? I mean it's a real awkward access. Zaremba: I think there will come a time when the homeowner will not want to access onto Linder, when that becomes a five lane road and a major thoroughfare, which isn't all that far away, they may not appreciate having to exit directly onto Linder. Centers: Well, I wasn't at the first hearing, but I think of other subs, including mine, and there is no access. As you know, that is cumbersome. I think the preference would be to eliminate the access. I can see why you're doing that, though. The garage is in the back there on that existing home. Do you have enough side footage there to run the driveway down and around back to that -- Ralphs: It will be really tight. What we did discuss would be coming in with an access off of the main road there in the subdivision. Thank you, Dave, and it would come along the west side of the home so it will be really tight, but -- Meridian Planning & Zoning December 19, 2002 Page 11 of 116 Centers: Or turn the house. Ralphs: What's that? Centers: I think that would be the preference of everyone, including staff, and, then, you get it resolved tonight. Ralphs: Okay. Borup: I don't know if that makes for a very -- a very good-looking front yard landscape. The whole front of the yard is all driveway. Centers: Right and because I wasn't here, while there is a lull here, what's a workout center? Ralphs: You see them in some of the parks. I'm not sure we have seen them here in Meridian. Centers: They can stand and jog? Ralphs: Well, no. Yes, they have a walkway or a path that goes along there, but the workout centers -- I think we have them on the greenbelt in Boise, they have like pull-up stations or places where people can do sit-ups or that type of bouncing walk. I think we also have them over there at -- I want to say Chief Joseph Elementary, they have some of those there in their playground area. They are just stations where as people walk they can -- it's just an extra amenity that will go along that greenbelt area. Centers: Okay. Thank you. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Mr. McKinnon. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I have got a question for the applicant, if that would be okay. Rod, you addressed the fact that you guys have eliminated the ped pathway -- on the Site Plan that's up on the map right now, just for everybody's information. It's the stub street that was originally proposed. There was some discussion to whether or not, once we put in the new stub street, which is the stub street that now goes east-west, that if that stub street went in, the site-specific condition of approval would be that if that stub street went in, that you keep that access as a pedestrian pathway at 20 feet wide. Tonight you're proposing to eliminate it in its entirety? Ralphs: We have eliminated it in its entirety and just to make that pedestrian pathway run the entire length of the greenbelt. We have the undulated pathway to accommodate landscaping and for trees and things like that. Meridian Planning & Zoning December 19, 2002 Page 12 of 116 McKinnon: Okay. Well, let me just point out one thing to the Commissioners, if I may. This is the Site Plan, the overall Site Plan. If there is no break, this would be the entire length of this little stove pipe or flag that runs up, there would be no break in that, there would be fencing the entire way up with no ability for people in this subdivision to access this subdivision. The reason for the staff comment for the stub street down at the east would be that there would be at least pedestrian access between the two subdivisions, if not vehicle access between the two, at the flag location. Staff would not support the entire elimination of the stub street, but would support a pedestrian pathway, if that's -- and it sounds like the applicant has a different interpretation tonight than what's in the code -- what's in the staff report tonight. Zaremba: I may have misunderstood, but I was expecting this plat to come back with that totally fenced and no cross pedestrian access. I felt it was a trade for the lower street that you put in that you didn't have before. Ralphs: And that was our take on that as well, Mr. Commissioner. Zaremba: I guess I remember it differently. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner, if you remember it differently, that's great. We would need to strike Page 8, Number 5, the final sentence. The final sentence of that is that the applicant shall address -- wait. Not that one. It's the final sentence of Number 7. Upon city approval, the applicant has the option to convert the temporary stub street within the 50-foot flag strip to a 20-foot wide pedestrian connection. Borup: Didn't you already strike that whole -- McKinnon: Struck everything but that last sentence so if you want to strike that, add that strike. I don't see that it would be all that hard to create a pedestrian access in the middle of that. Essentially, it would fill the pathway that would go perpendicular to the one that's there, just a 20-foot wide easement, and if it's a three foot tall fence, it would be something easy to eliminate and it would allow at least some sort of interconnectivity between neighborhoods. Ralphs: If I could address that, Members of the Commission. The difficulty in placing that easement would mean that we would end up binding the two adjacent subdivisions to where we felt that easement would have to be and we have no idea when that easement would ever be granted or if that would ever be developed and by sticking it there, I don't know what kind of binding type of access we want to take on the next subdivision coming through, forcing them to have to maybe put something in that would work better elsewhere. We would just as soon wait on that and if there is a striking need to have that pedestrian easement across there, that when these parcels are developed, that the developer should approach the homeowners association that would, then, own that parcel and negotiate that with them Borup: Negotiate what? To have a pathway through? Meridian Planning & Zoning December 19, 2002 Page 13 of 116 Ralphs: Right. A pathway or a road or anything like that. They could negotiate that with the homeowners association at that time. I would be reluctant at this point to place that in there where we really don't have a clear crystal ball picture of what's going to happen on that flag lot. Centers: Mr. Chairman, wouldn't it be appropriate at that time for the adjoining landowner to do just as he said, when we see a project for the adjoining land, to require them at that time to approach these people? Borup: Then what requirement is there for this subdivision to comply with what they want to do? Centers: I know. That could be the -- Borup: You would hesitate to bind them to something, but once this is approved and we try to require them to do something and if the homeowners association doesn't feel that they want to and, then, we are not accomplishing what we are trying to do here either. Maybe we need a floating easement. Is there such a thing? Ralphs: I don't know if Mr. Wollen would agree with a floating easement. Borup: I just invented it. Ralphs: It sounded good. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, a question for the staff attorney. Could a blanket easement on that lot suffice for cross-access? Wollen: Well, I believe an easement would have to be just over a certain area that is solid to the easement, that you couldn't have just a blanket over a piece of ground that -- I guess are you saying to just have it over more ground than you intend the easement to actually sit on? Borup: Aren't you saying that -- the easement would be over the entire parcel, but when it's actually built, it would only be the 10 or 20 feet? Doesn't it need to be 10 feet? Is that what your statement -- McKinnon: The comment right now is at 20 feet. Borup: Twenty feet so it would be a 20-foot easement through there once it was settled on, but it could be anywhere along that whole parcel that was negotiated, and, then, that would convert to a permanent easement, I guess, and the blanket easement would be lifted. Zaremba: The new stub street that you put into the east there -- Meridian Planning & Zoning December 19, 2002 Page 14 of 116 Ralphs: Yes. Zaremba: Approximately what distance is that from McMillan? Ralphs: Well, we have -- it looks like we are at about 1,318 feet. That would be my read on that. I refer the Commissioners to the number there. It will be in the upper right-hand corner, the section there of your Preliminary Plat. You will see that number, 1,318 feet, and I would represent to the Commission that that would be coming from McMillan Road down to Sidney Avenue. Borup: That's to the avenue or to your southern border? McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, that's to the southern border. Borup: That's what I thought. Zaremba: So this would be even less. McKinnon: Yes. Zaremba: So this stub street is fairly close to McMillan. I'm not inclined to think that the as yet undetermined subdivisions that could go in there really need a cross-access there. The only way they could do it would be to do two cul-de-sacs and, then, you, then, have this little strip of your pathway across and that brings up the issue I was thinking of last time that invites their access into your park. Ralphs: Exactly. Zaremba: They are not just going to go straight across, they are going to use your facilities and your park that your homeowners are paying for and I do remember now, I specifically thought it was going to be fenced the whole way and no access. Wollen: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I'd like to, if I may, get back to the staff's question and answer it the best I could. At this point I don't have enough background in the area to answer with absolute certainty, but it's my -- you know, my first inclination that an easement could be established for a larger piece of ground and, then, the portion of ground which the easement holder no longer wishes, could be given back to the landowner at anytime. Basically, the easement holder could give up his right to the ground. That would be my first inclination to this idea of a blanket easement, I believe, would work. Zaremba: Well, even at this point, whom would you give the easement to? Wollen: Another question. Meridian Planning & Zoning December 19, 2002 Page 15 of 116 Zaremba: Do you give half of it to the unspecified developer on the left and the unspecified developer on the right? Wollen: Yes. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, it would be cross-access to the adjacent owners. It doesn't have to be anybody in particular it would be the adjacent owners and their heirs and assigns. Thank you, Bruce. Zaremba: Well, I could be wrong, but I don't have the feeling that Sidney Avenue is so far from McMillan that there really needs to be another one in there. That's just a personal opinion. Borup: It's a little over 1,000 feet is all. Not too far. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, however you decide tonight, please bear in mind when you make your motion to include the elimination or the continued acceptance of Site Specific Item Number 7 on Page 8. Zaremba: Well, I'm not stuck in concrete, but I would be in favor of not providing the easement. Borup: And there is a sidewalk through the existing streets to access the other property. Anything else you would like to add? Ralphs: No. Thank you, Members of the Commission. Mathes: I have a question. Zaremba: If I didn't say it before, I appreciate all the changes you did make to address all the things that we discussed. Borup: Commissioner Mathes. Mathes: If they park on the inside of that dog bone, does that give the people enough back-out room? Ralphs: I can address that, Commissioner Mathes. Mathes: Okay. Ralphs: What you have got there, even if you look at the widest part of the dog bone, is you have a distance of 27 feet and that's more than you would find in a typical parking lot stall. There would be more than enough room for someone to be able to back a vehicle out and, then, proceed down the road and access there. We did -- I think in our November meeting, if you will look there, the dog bone with the number -- well, let's Meridian Planning & Zoning December 19, 2002 Page 16 of 116 see, they are all numbered one, but the first one in there from the pork chop -- we have these great names, Commissioner Centers, but -- we had some fun with it. Our other plat they were actually at 29 feet, so we have increased that distance to accommodate parking and provide better access and egress through there. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Ralphs: Thank you. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, while Rod is still up here, just one item that wasn't revised that is still in the site-specific comments was that you guys were going to go to a detached sidewalk on Linder. Ralphs: That's correct. McKinnon: Okay. It's not shown that way on the plat, so we are still going to look for that. Ralphs: Yes. We will have detached on that. McKinnon: Okay. Thank you. Ralphs: Thank you again. Borup: Okay. Do we have anyone else to testify on this application? Seeing none, Commissioners? Centers: Well, Mr. Chairman, as mentioned, I wasn't here for the first meeting. I have reviewed the notes, the comments. It just appeared to me that the applicant was very imaginative with a small parcel of land and an irregular shaped piece of land and did a good job. That's what it looked like to me. Borup: Okay. Any concerns from the Commission? Rohm: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Commissioner Rohm. Rohm: I'm still not clear as to what they want to do with the access from the one lot that's already got a home on it. Are they going to pursue the Ada County Highway District -- Borup: And maybe we might need some clarification from Rod. My understanding is they have -- they have a request into ACHD to leave that access as is. Ralphs: That's correct. We do have an application in and we are pursuing that. Meridian Planning & Zoning December 19, 2002 Page 17 of 116 Borup: And do you know when you expect an answer on that? Ralphs: Maybe in about a week. Rohm: And is this Commission going to go along with whatever decision Ada County makes or -- Borup: That's what we need to discuss. It's up to us to decide that. Rohm: I haven't got a clear indication from the discussion thus far what the balance of the Commissioners’ thoughts is on that specific issue. Borup: That was one of the issues I thought that would be worthy of discussion. Ralphs: If I could interject. My perception or understanding would be that we would have -- assume that ACHD were to go along with it, then, staff's recommendation would be to widen that landscaping strip to 25 feet. If we were to pursue that and be granted that by ACHD, then, yes, we would have to go along with that recommendation. Rohm: Okay Dave, is that, as you understand it, then? McKinnon: You could make a condition that's an and/or, they could do one or the other, if you'd like. That's a condition that -- you guys make that as one of your conditions of approval that would be fine with staff. If you want to eliminate it in its entirety and not allow access, you could make that in your motion as well. Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Zaremba: Well, I certainly understand the homeowner or home occupant not wanting a new swath of asphalt all the way up the side of their house, but I'm awful uncomfortable with that access onto Linder. That's just -- I'm just thinking down the future, I don't think they are going to be happy with that access. Borup: Then they could -- Zaremba: It's going to be a difficult driveway to get in and out of. Rohm: It doesn't lend itself well to exit into the subdivision either. Zaremba: Yes. Rohm: Because you can't turn left out of that lot to exit the subdivision, you'd actually have to go around one of the bones to have access -- or exit so maybe exiting onto Linder is the lesser of two evils. Meridian Planning & Zoning December 19, 2002 Page 18 of 116 Borup: And I agree they may not like it later, but I don't know if it's up to us to make every little decision on what's -- for us to determine what's best for someone else. If it is a problem, then -- Centers: Well, Commissioner Rohm has a good point. If you make them access from the subdivision street, they are going to be going out on the wrong site of the street. That's a good point. Rohm: I like Dave's idea of either/or. Borup: Historically, I don't think ACHD has approved it. In fact, I can't think of one. They probably have, but -- so they may have a fight there anyway. Rohm: Well -- and by moving it forward with an either/or, if ACHD denies, then, at least they know the direction from this Commission which way they would need to proceed, so -- Borup: Right. I think that makes sense. Rohm: Okay. Borup: Okay. Was there any other issue that we need to discuss? The pathway we discussed somewhat -- or I mean the future pathway easement. I think Commissioner Zaremba expressed how he felt. I don't know if you want to have any other comments on that. Is there anything else that any of the Commissioners feel we need to discuss? Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move the Public Hearing be closed. Rohm: I'll second that. Zaremba: On all three items. Rohm: I'll second that. Borup: Motion and second to close the Public Hearing on Items 4, 5, 6. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Borup: Well, let's hit them -- let's go ahead with Item Number 4, which is annexation and zoning. I don't know that we had any questions on that. Do we have a motion? Centers: I wasn't here, so I'm -- Zaremba: You're deferring. Mr. Chairman? Meridian Planning & Zoning December 19, 2002 Page 19 of 116 Borup: Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: I move that we forward to the City Council recommending approval of Item 4 on our Agenda, AZ 02-024, request annexation and zoning of 15.4 acres from RUT to R-8 zones for proposed Cobblefield Crossing Subdivision by CMD, Inc., 4450 North Linder Road and to include all staff comments. Mathes: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Borup: Item Number 5. Zaremba: Okay. Let's put this one this way. Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward to the City Council recommending approval of Item 5 on our Agenda, PP 02-022, request for Preliminary Plat approval of 73 building lots and 15 other lots on 15.4 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Cobblefield Crossing Subdivision by CMD, Inc., 4450 North Linder Road. To include all staff comments of staff's November 18th memo, as modified by staff's December 19th memo and -- Borup: Item Number -- Zaremba: -- eliminating the requirement for the cross-access walkway in the flag and placing the condition that if in the lower left the existing house does get approval by ACHD for access directly onto Linder, that the landscape buffer be increased back to 25 feet. Any other issues? Borup: Does that cover that item? Centers: Item 4. He said Settlers Irrigation District -- Zaremba: And clarifying that the pressurized irrigation will come from the Settlers Canal at the north end of the flag and that access has been approved by Settlers Irrigation District. Rohm: I will second that. Borup: Motion and second. Any discussion? All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Borup: Okay Item Number 6. Meridian Planning & Zoning December 19, 2002 Page 20 of 116 Zaremba: All right. Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward to the City Council recommending approval of Item 6 on our Agenda. CUP 02-032, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a PUD for 64 single-family detached homes, six single-family attached homes, and one single-family existing home on 15.4 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Cobblefield Crossing Subdivision by CMD, Inc., 4450 North Linder Road. To include all staff comments of the staff's memo of November 18, 2002, as modified by the staff's memo of December 19, 2002. Rohm: I will second that. Borup: Motion and second. Any discussion? All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 10. Public Hearing: CUP 02-038 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for an in home daycare in an R-8 zone for Kinder Kollege by Kathy Jordan – 410 East Edgar Court: Borup: Okay. The next item is Item Number 10, Public Hearing CUP 02-038, request for Conditional Use Permit for an in-home day care in an R-8 zone for Kinder Kollege by Kathy Jordan at 410 East Edgar Court. We would like to open this hearing at this time and start with the staff report. McKinnon: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. In front of you tonight as you stated, there is an application for a group childcare home at 410 East Edgar Court. For reference, East Edgar Court is located just off of Ustick from North Arrow Wood Way. It's about a quarter mile to the east of Meridian Road. Kathy Jordan had recently been in front of you for a request for a day care at 1930 North Linder Road, as you might remember. At that time there was no action taken, but the application was withdrawn for a variety of reasons. Kathy Jordan, previously to that, has run a day care operation at 1131 Cherry Lane, under the business name of Kinder Kollege. We received this application tonight with the name Kinder Kollege on the application. The application should not be under Kinder Kollege, but rather under Kathy Jordan. We, as staff, apologize for that -- for any confusion that may have caused. The applicant has previously had a day care at her home or a home day care, which was only for up to five children, not for the 12 children. That was from 1997 to 1999, according to her application. Currently, she has lost her lease for Kinder Kollege at 1131 Cherry Lane and she started operation of her day care facility for 12 children at her home on December 2nd . She has no approval for this. She currently has no State License for this. Code Enforcement has visited her home to let her know that this is an illegal use that she has in her home right now. She has not taken any actions to cease operation at her home, even though she knows she's in violation. It's a violation that is punishable as a misdemeanor. I'd direct your attention to the staff report. I have basically gone over the summary, the location, and the surrounding uses. As you can tell, this is basically towards the end of a cul-de-sac, as you can see on the Site Plan. Item Number A under the standards for Conditional Uses, has a discussion concerning Meridian Planning & Zoning December 19, 2002 Page 21 of 116 the parking, landscaping, and other features that may be required by this ordinance. We wanted to point out to you that this is, essentially, a single-family home with a single-family home driveway. This does not have additional parking for the vehicles for pick up and drop off of children. Additionally, the applicant has two employees that work at the home that will be parking on site at all times during the day, except for when they are not working. Obviously, there will not be any location for on-site pick up, all pick up of children appears to be in the street. The Meridian City Code does not prohibit the street side parking and loading for residential day care. However, it's the additional parking that will be on street that will affect the neighborhood. Item Number C deals with the adverse change to the character of the neighborhood. It appears that there are a number of people here tonight and you should have received in your application a number of items concerning the neighbors' issues with the day care. Item Number D, which looks like there is plenty of people here tonight for public testimony to talk about how they believe that this application will affect their property and whether it would be adverse or not. Please, as a Commission, take into consideration all testimony that includes the written testimony that you have received in the form of petitions and any oral testimony that's offered tonight in making this finding. This type of application hinges very much on whether or not this will have adverse affect on a neighborhood. I direct your attention to the recommendation. Staff is not overly concerned by the application. However, the fact that the applicant is knowingly violating existing City Code makes it difficult for this city to recommend approval. We are not recommending approval or denial, but we cannot make a recommendation for approval based on the fact that there is an illegal use taking place at this location at this time and even after attempts by the city to ask her to stop operation, she's not made the attempt to do so. At this time, staff makes no recommendation for approval. With that, I would ask if there are any questions of staff and turn the time over to you for Public Hearing. Borup: Questions from the Commission? Zaremba: Do we have any idea the square footage of the home? McKinnon: I'm sure it's in here, Commissioner Zaremba. I'm sorry I didn't put that in the application. Zaremba: I don't remember finding it in this one. McKinnon: The applicant is here tonight and she can inform us of that. 1,450? 1,415. Zaremba: And the reason I ask that -- and you can refresh my memory or correct me if I'm wrong. For a Conditional Use Permit, isn't there a requirement that on a residential zone only 25 percent of the home can be assigned to that Conditional Use? McKinnon: The exclusion to that rule is day care. Zaremba: Oh. Okay answers that question so our assumption is that the required square footage per child -- Meridian Planning & Zoning December 19, 2002 Page 22 of 116 McKinnon: Thirty-five square feet per State Code. Zaremba: Okay so this house would hold 12 children? Borup: Anyone else? Okay. Is the applicant here and would like to make a presentation? Jordan: Good evening, Mr. Chairman and Commissioners. My name is Kathy Jordan. I live at 410 East Edgar Court in Meridian, Idaho. Borup: You might want to get just a little bit closer to the microphone, please. Jordan: In February 1997 I opened a home-based day care. Over a three-year period, I began with five children, as allowed by the Accessory Use Permit issued by the city then. There were times when I accepted up to 12 children, as I understood was allowed by the State License, which I have here tonight. I was open at all hours, seven days a week, and regularly received children as early as 5:00 A.M. and stayed open until late in the evening. This resulted in spreading out automobile traffic, contrasting with the present situation where all parents come and go at roughly the same time, 7:00 to 8:00 A.M. and 5:00 to 6:00 P.M. From the time the business began to grow in early 1998, over a year after I started, I made extensive searches for a new location. I believed the Cherry Lane commercial rental would work. In November 1999, I moved the business out of my home into that commercial facility. For many different reasons this was not a suitable site. My Cherry Lane lease was up on October 31, 2002. I made arrangements with the owners of the building to stay until the building sold. Seeing the problem, in September 2002, I filed an application for a Conditional Use Permit for my home just in case I was unsuccessful in finding a new facility. In October, the owners informed me that the building had, indeed, sold and I had until November 30, 2002, to vacate. Our family's financial situation is desperate. Eight months ago my husband was laid off from the SCP Global Technologies after seven years of employment. Unemployment benefits have since run out and is he unable to find full- time work? Therefore, I became the breadwinner of a family of five. When the owners of my building informed me that the building had sold, I was faced with two choices, I could close down completely, file bankruptcy, and lose everything or bring it home where it originated to provide for my family by maintaining continuity for the families I care for and preserve the investment in my business that began legally in my home. After making efforts to be heard by this Commission prior to November 30, 2002, I moved and continued operating, because I have no choice but to provide for my family. Bringing the business home is a temporary solution. I am still looking for another location and will continue to do so until I find something that not only meets my school's needs, but it also is conducive with Meridian's Codes. It is not my intention to inconvenience or annoy any of my neighbors. I'm trying to support my family with a business that had existed in my current home for three years. During that time none of my neighbors complained or voiced any concern about this business, even when it approached the scale of the application before you tonight. I have requested a 10-mile per hour speed limit and have also requested that my clients respect my neighbors and Meridian Planning & Zoning December 19, 2002 Page 23 of 116 their property or face the possibility of cancellation of care. I feel the need to explain to you the importance of your decision here tonight. Your decision will make or break this family. A yes decision means that I can protect an investment, employ two other people full time, one of whom is a single mother of two, and support my family through the worst financial time of its existence. A no decision may not only force our family into bankruptcy and homelessness, but will reject the success my loyal -- my loyal employees and I have made in this much needed low impact business. Thank you. Borup: Questions from the Commission? Centers: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Mrs. Jordan, you were leasing the building there at Kinder Kollege? Jordan: Correct. Centers: And the least expired -- what did you have, a two, three year lease? Jordan: I had a three-year lease. Yes. Centers: And you knew it expired October 31st ? Jordan: Yes. Centers: It seems me that you would have started looking for another location maybe in March, April, or May. Personally, I have a business where my lease expires the end of February. I have been negotiating a new lease and looking for other locations that are possible for the last three months, five months in advance. You get my point? Jordan: Yes. Centers: Why didn't you start looking -- you really didn't start looking, you applied for a permit in September and, then, if I recall, you didn't show up for the hearing. Am I wrong about that? Jordan: Partially. Centers: Okay but my point is, I think you had plenty of notice that your lease was going to expire and you said in your opening statement that, for numerous reasons, the facility didn't fit your needs. I would have thought back in March or April, maybe when your husband was unfortunate to lose his job, that you would have started looking for another property at that time. That was the only -- that was really the only note that I made but the parking situation, what are you going to do about the parking. Let's get real. Jordan: Currently, my employees are parking on Arrow Wood Way. The parents do park on East Edgar Court, which is a cul-de-sac and to address your concern regarding Meridian Planning & Zoning December 19, 2002 Page 24 of 116 my search, I have been searching exhaustively for two years. I am considered a specialty use industry, similar to banks and churches. Respectively, only banks and churches want to purchase existing banks and church buildings. I have searched Meridian from one side to the other. I have worked extensively with many different realtors and real estate companies. I have been in negotiations with W.H. Moore Company on a site across from St. Luke's. We have not reached an agreement on that yet. I have been searching. For two years I have been searching for a new site. Centers: Do you think it's really fair that the neighborhood -- that people park on the -- you know, on Edgar Street and North Arrow Wood Way, et cetera et cetera? Jordan: Mr. Commissioner, I am of the opinion that it is a public street and my parents are not a nuisance to my neighbors. They are here for -- or at my home for 10, 15 minutes each in the morning and 10 or 15 minutes each in the evening. Centers: Okay. Jordan: There is also a group home located at the back of my cul-de-sac, which creates quite a bit of traffic. Centers: What's your definition of a group home? Jordan: It is a home for disabled adults. There are eight adults living in that home. Centers: Okay. Jordan: There are employees, three shift changes -- Centers: Correct me if I'm wrong, Mr. Chairman, but I think that's a requirement by the state, that a subdivision cannot disallow that type of group home. Right so there was no permit required and I know of another such group home in another subdivision out this direction of semi-retarded children, where the subdivision must take them. In your case, you need a permit, the subdivision doesn't have to take it, if you don't have a permit, you know. Thank you. Borup: Questions from any of the Commissioners? Okay. Did you have anything else that you wanted to ask? Okay. We do have quite a few people that have signed up. When we have numbers like this, a couple of choices. We, of course, do need to limit the remarks, unless we do have an individual that would be speaking for the association or subdivision as a whole. In that case, there is extra time allotted, if that's so desired. Is that -- I just saw a hand go up. Do we have someone here that will be speaking for the subdivision? You want to stand up, sir, maybe just right there so how many people here would this individual be speaking in behalf of? Centers: I'd like to see the people stand that he's speaking on behalf of. Meridian Planning & Zoning December 19, 2002 Page 25 of 116 Borup: Okay. Apparently he's speaking against. Yes. Okay. Centers: Thank you. Borup: Okay. Do you want to come up now, sir? Audens: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, my name is Michael Audens and I live at 552 East Addison in Meridian. I am the president of the homeowners association of the residence of Bedford Place Subdivision. I stand here in opposition to the application. I stand here for a number of reasons. Primarily, the preservation of the quality of life that the subdivision residents enjoy needs to be maintained and it needs to be maintained equitably. I certainly sympathize and understand Mrs. Jordan's situation. However, there are other homeowners that need to be considered in this as well. It has already been brought up by the staff and by members of the Commission that traffic ability is a major issue and I'm certainly not going to beat that any longer. It does -- it is very important and it does need to be addressed. What I want to bring up that I think is the most important point is that in the CC&R's of our subdivision -- and I'm not sure what you have in your packet concerning the CC&R's. I'm not sure if we provided a copy, but let me just inform you that there is a line that states that no commercial business is allowed within the subdivision, with the exception of the group home. I know that when I purchased my home I signed an agreement stating that I would abide by that rule and I'm certain that Mrs. Jordan has signed it as well. The association at no time has ever seen Mrs. Jordan approach us with her concerns or her idea to bring her business into her home. It has all been done behind the scenes, as it were, which is a major concern to homeowners. It does not have a good neighbor feel to it and that, in itself, creates a concern. She's operating the business before she even has the permit in her hand. I'm not certain that -- I'm not certain that operating this business is going to be entirely temporary and we need to -- I just want to bring up the fact that -- how do I say this? We need to make sure -- we need to insure that this business is, indeed, temporary and I just don't get that feeling. Any business that is operated in a home -- and it goes on, that we have Avon ladies, we have realtors operating out of their homes, but they are low impact, and when we have 12 children at a home that is designated for single- family residential use, I become concerned. I become concerned for the children, I become concerned for the residents of that street, and a number of the residents are here and they will have their moment to speak if that would be all right. Borup: Are you saying that all those that stood up want to speak also? Audens: A number of them are very interested in -- Borup: Okay. You are going to need to cut your time, then, if that's what they are going to be doing and your time is up, if that's what you're stating. Audens: That's fine. I just wanted to bring up the fact that -- Borup: Because you were being allowed their time. Meridian Planning & Zoning December 19, 2002 Page 26 of 116 Audens: Their time. Borup: Yes. Audens: I see. Sorry. I didn't quite understand that. I would like -- I would like to have some of them stand up and give their personal testimony as to observances and issues, if that would be all right. Borup: Okay. Any questions from the Commissioners, if that's -- Centers: Just a comment, Mr. Chairman, regarding his comment on operating a business out of the home and it is against your CC&R's. We are not here to enforce your CC&R's. That's up to you to enforce them. Okay. Thank you. Borup: Okay. It sounds like there might have been some misunderstanding there so we'd like to invite anyone else that would like to come forward at this time. Kobza: I just got a copy of this, if you would like to -- mine will be a short presentation. Okay. Her -- from what I understand, she's asking for -- Borup: You need to state your name. Kobza: Oh, I'm sorry. My name is Robert Kobza. I live at 415 East Edgar Court, which is across the street from Kathy's house. Okay. The comment was made that she was applying for up to 12 kids. My wife, on January -- December 9th , counted the number of kids coming to her home and as of 9:10 A.M. we show 17, not including her own, and I can present this to you folks afterwards if you want times and so forth. Okay. Comment was made already that her Health and Welfare License had been pulled. She -- traffic has also jumped drastically in our court since this has happened. Patrons of the day care are disrespectful to her neighbors by blocking our driveways and not allowing them access -- access to and from our street. My daughter had to pull onto our sidewalk, because one of her patrons parked right in the middle of the street in front of my house, she had to pull up onto our sidewalk to make a turn through the court and, then, come back and park in front of our house. That was the only way she could do it. The traffic speed has picked up dramatically. Also, this to us does not appear to be a temporary situation. From across I can see where she has already started to frame -- stud frame a wall in here garage, which, to me, appears to be as if she's going to build another room in her garage. We also have to deal, as stated before, with that group home. We have enough traffic and enough problems with the group home, with the people from the group home and we do not need all the rest of it. We have parking in front of them, we have a tumble bus that comes and parks in front of her house -- or the neighbor's house, which all this stuff we don't necessarily need. One last comment according to our realtor, it would be hard to measure the value -- what it will do to the value of my home. The one thing he did say is it could make your home harder to sell if anybody decided they wanted to sell it. In other words, if a normal home is selling in 90 to 100 days, he said it could take anywhere from maybe two to three times that and -- because Meridian Planning & Zoning December 19, 2002 Page 27 of 116 he says what you have to do is you have to find someone who is willing to put up with the problems that a day care can present. Borup: Any questions from the Commission? Centers: Yes. Mr. Chairman. Sir, you referred to the Health and Welfare pulling the license? Kobza: Okay. I'm sorry. My wife -- we have been -- all of us have been very concerned in our neighborhood what's going on, so we talked to the Planning and Zoning. We have called Health and Welfare, we were told yesterday by the folks from Health and Welfare that they have pulled her license, because she is out of compliance with the city and as we, all know that she has done. Centers: Well, we will have to have the applicant address that, then. Kobza: Okay. I understand that, but I'm just stating the facts as were presented to us. Centers: Well, you're giving us hearsay, so we will have the applicant address that. Kobza: Okay. Centers: Thank you. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, if I could address that. I have had a phone conversation with Richard Swift and he is the person that handles childcare licensing for the state. I spoke with him today. There was never a license to pull. There has never been a license issued for that home that they could pull from her. When she moved her day care from 1131 Cherry Lane, the license is not transferable from site to site, so from the time she moved to her home she has not had a license. There hasn't been one for them to pull. Centers: Did they state what they intended to do, Dave, or any comments from them? McKinnon: Just got a -- it's in process, I guess. Actually, the conversation I had with Dick today, he said we haven't taken any action against it yet and we are really interested in finding out what your Planning and Zoning Commission does with it tomorrow night -- oh, tonight and he asked me to call him tomorrow with the decision. They haven't taken any action against it, but they also have not issued a license. I would point out that tonight you are making just a recommendation there is no approval tonight. This goes to Council later so the recommendation you make tonight is not final. Borup: Do we have anyone else that would like to come forward? Hensley: Hello. My name is Rick Hensley. I live at 400 East Edgar Court. I live directly on the west of Kathy. She's my neighbor. I live in between the group home and Meridian Planning & Zoning December 19, 2002 Page 28 of 116 Kathy and I just think it's creating a big problem for the traffic flow in our neighborhood. Every day there is just cars blocking the front of my house, every day whenever I look out my window, there is constant cars out there. My wife stays at home. I guess there is a tumble bus that came over and parked right in front of our driveway and kind of on our sidewalk. I just don't understand how she could be able to run without the permit and I just want it stopped. That is my main concern. My kids -- I have got two kids. One of them is young right now and they are always outside playing. I mean there is just too much traffic and I do believe there are more than 12 kids over there, too. That's just my assumption from what everybody else has been telling you. Borup: Thank you. Hensley: But that's my main concern. Borup: Thank you. Who is next? Did you have questions, Commissioner? Centers: Question for staff. The permit is for 12 children, including her own? McKinnon: It's 12 children not including her own. Centers: Not including her own. Thank you. Moser: Commissioners, I have a home on 650 East Baldwin it's an investment home and it's -- Borup: Your name, sir? Moser: Mike Moser. It's just -- it's an investment. It's a nice neighbor. I chose through several neighborhoods when I bought there and it's a nice neighborhood that they -- the neighborhood, oh, covenants are being kept up and they are working them. I have worked in subdivisions that they don't work them and you can drive around and see it. It's economical to me. I'm sorry about the income. I lost my job of 26 years, too. That's my investment. Thank you. Borup: Thank you. Clay: Helen Clay. I live on Sedgewick. Centers: You need to pull the microphone down. Clay: Helen Clay and I live on Sedgewick and I wanted to address the Commission and my concern is property values, because if it's allowed on Edgar, it can go through the subdivision. We have a lot of retired people and we have very small back yards. This is my concern. Because 12 children in a yard -- it's 25 feet from my house to the fence, the back fence. It's a very small yard. I would not -- as a retired person, I would not want to go out in my yard with a bunch of children. I live -- I have worked in nurseries, I Meridian Planning & Zoning December 19, 2002 Page 29 of 116 have worked for the school system at the elementary level and I know how much noise -- I love children or I wouldn't have worked with them, but I also know the noise that they can create, the disturbance they can be. I do hope she can find another place, because she certainly needs this help, but I don't think she has the right place. Thank you. Borup: Thank you. Who is next? Bleth: My name is Christopher Bleth and I live at 403 East Edgar, which is across the street and to the west of Kathy. I'm not here to deny anybody the right of earning an income. My main concern is -- for one, is this definitely a temporary situation, which, you know, may be, or may not be. My other concern is the traffic flow. I have a seven- year-old son and this time of year it's not that big of a deal. When it becomes 5:00 and 6:00 in the evenings during the summer -- spring and summer, all the kids are out and in that circle drive all the kids are out, there is one parent usually outside doing yard work, we all kind of watch all the kids and there is not a whole lot of traffic. Even the group home at that time of the evening has very limited traffic flow and as of yesterday, I actually had the day off. I was at home and happened to look out and there was a car parked exactly in the center of the circle and the person got out and walked up to the house and came back. They weren't around any curb or anything, so they weren't blocking the access, but they were parked right in the middle. I'm not going to say I would deny somebody the fact of earning a living for their family, but the traffic is a concern, due to the fact that it is a short street, the cul-de-sac is very narrow and there are a lot of young children. Rick has two. There are other people that have two or three children. The neighbor next to me has a couple children. Next to me on the other side, they have a couple children and I have a seven year old. You know, as well as I do, seven year olds, six year olds, eight year olds, they don't really pay attention to traffic. They think traffic looks out for them and that is my main concern. Thank you. Borup: Thank you. Anyone else have anything new to add? Murray: My name is Debbie Murray. I live at 455 East Edgar Court. I live two houses down and across from Kathy. I am also extremely worried about the traffic. I have a three and a half year old, a six year old, and a seven year old -- oh, I'm sorry, they are all eight -- seven, eight, and nine year olds, and my three year old plays out in the driveway. We were out there today, cars were zooming up and down the street, and I have to watch her like a hawk, all my children, because they play out, you know, in the street. It's a cul-de-sac, that's why we bought in a cul-de-sac, so we wouldn't have to deal with this. I don't deny Kathy either a living, but this is a residential area, this is why I bought in a residential area, I didn't buy an apartment and, you know, next to a business. I bought where I knew that my children were safe and they could play. It scares me, because the parents do go zooming up and down the street. They do not go 10 miles an hour. Some are late picking up their kids and they need to get there soon. I know for a fact that they are not doing the speed limit and the group home we have no more problems with the group home. They have been no traffic and stuff. It's Meridian Planning & Zoning December 19, 2002 Page 30 of 116 been really good. This is my fear is my children and the traffic and I just -- that's why we bought in a cul-de-sac, like I said. Thank you. Borup: Thank you. Anyone else? Putman: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, my name is Richard Putman. I live at 614 East Sedgewick, which is within Bedford Place Subdivision. I'm also the secretary of the homeowners association. A couple of issues that I want to bring up. The homeowners association owns a park within the neighborhood. That is the homeowners association's property that has currently been actively used by the day care. We pay the liability insurance and from the research that we have done, if there is a claim of an injury or anything like that within the park, one claim, our insurance is going to go up 20 percent. On the second claim they are going to cancel our insurance. That's a major concern, given the liability and the fact that we do have playground equipment in there. That park was designed for our neighborhood, as well as to be used by the immediate surrounding neighborhoods, not to have 12 children brought in from the outside of our neighborhood to use those facilities. With this as well, there are six city streets along Arrow Wood, before you get to the park, which is on the east side of Arrow Wood. Arrow Wood is a wide city street it's not as small as the other side streets. That's one thing we do run into and we, you know, mentioned to the police, is we do get a number of people who are speeding along there. That's nothing new. We have requested previously to have the police come out, they have brought out their little speed limit radar thing, and, you know, we still run into that situation. It has been witnessed that Kathy has brought the children down to the park, walking along Arrow Wood, at 3:00, in one example, with one adult supervising 10 children. This creates -- at 3:00 you also have all of the children getting out of the schools, you have buses, the additional parent traffic, it creates a hazard to the children, as far as I'm concerned. Another thing -- I guess a question that I would implore the Commissioners to ask is she has made an application for 12 children and she has stated that this would be the sole support for her household. Will 12 children -- those guaranteed 12 children provide the income sufficient or are we really looking at more than 12 children on a regular basis? I would implore you to ask that. That would be the basis of what I would like to have the Commission consider. Borup: Thank you any questions for Mr. Putman? Putman: Thank you. Borup: Do we have anyone else? Okay. Commissioners -- Mrs. Jordan, do you have any final comments you'd like to make? You need to come on up to the microphone. Wallace: I had understood -- Borup: You need to come on up to the microphone. Wallace: I had understood there were a number of other people who wanted to speak, so I'm going to reserve my comments -- Meridian Planning & Zoning December 19, 2002 Page 31 of 116 Borup: I just asked that twice and I didn't -- no one else said they wanted to speak. It looks like we needed a little prodding. I'm sorry so we were looking for anybody on either side. Go ahead, ma'am. Mooney: My name is Amy Mooney and I have been an employee of Kathy's for about the last three years and I am her employee she was referring to that is a single mother of two small children. I can really understand everyone's concerns on the traffic, because I am a parent also and I live on kind of a busy street myself. As far as the group home not causing any traffic, I took pictures the other day, because there was so much traffic there that it made us look like nothing. I documented cars going to and from -- I mean we are not -- 10 to 12 kids, realistically, we have families that have two to three kids in them, you know. Very rarely do we have one family -- I mean what I'm trying to say, I guess, is we do not have 12 single children, you know, we have got a group of two here, a group of two there, so the traffic issue, you know, it may sound like a lot, but it really is not. In Kathy's driveway, there are spaces for three cars to park. There was a situation where we had to park a van there for the last week and a half or so, but we have removed the van, so that people can utilize that. As far as people parking in the middle of the street, I personally have never seen that. I would never do it and we have asked our parents to go 10 miles an hour and if people are violating that, we would certainly get on them about that, because there are kids around. We are having kids in and out. I mean we certainly don't want any of our kids running out in the street, you know. I mean I -- I don't know. As far as traffic, though, I -- if you came over to her residence and watched the traffic all day, I think it's being presented far worse than it actually is. As far as us parking at her house permanently every day, I do not park at her house every day, I am parking on Arrow Wood, because it is a very wide street, it does not pose any blockage to any passer-byers or whatever. I have two small children, we walk down the sidewalk, and I tell my children to stay off of people's yards, be quiet, whatever. You know, we try to be very respectful of the neighborhood. Yes, I can understand, you know, why they would think, oh, my property value might go down or whatever, but we are not tearing up yards, we are not even out in front of Kathy's house at all, we are not destroying anyone's property, we have -- you know. We have walked down the sidewalk, but I don't believe that it was with 10 children and it really doesn't matter anyway if it was 10 children with one person, because the state actually tells you one person can watch up to 12 kids by themselves. I have been in this industry for over 13 years and I have never lost a child, injured a child, or had a child injured in my care. It's not like I'm taking a two year old out on Arrow Wood. You know, these are eight, nine, 10 year old kids. Some of them may be -- my son is six. Sometimes I will take my son, because he's responsible enough to be in a situation like that, depending on the child, and what their capabilities are. You know, it's not -- we are not releasing wild animals or -- you know. There has never been any intent to upset anyone. I personally have said hi to the neighbors when I have walked by them, you know, friendly and I just -- I'm sorry, but I'm a little upset, because I am my sole support for my two children. I just got divorced this last year and if this doesn't work, then I lose my income. Meridian Planning & Zoning December 19, 2002 Page 32 of 116 Borup: Thank you. Mathes: I have a question. Borup: Question, ma'am. Mathes: Are your two kids included in the 12? Mooney: No, they are not. Mathes: Can they stay there? Mooney: Yes, because I am not -- in the guidelines it states that if you are a nonpaying client, that your children do not count, and they are in my care, in my direct care, and it states that in the child care law. Borup: Thank you. Connell: My name is Kathy Connell and I actually live at 721 East Hawk, which is in Fothergill Point, which is adjacent to Edgar Court, and -- Centers: Excuse me. So did you get a notice? Connell: No, but my children went to her day care. Centers: Okay. Connell: So that's my connection. Centers: Okay. Connell: But I'm just saying I do live close near by. Centers: Yes. Connell: My children went to Kathy's day care from '97 through 2000 when they started school full time and we originally started at the home, I helped Kathy put her curriculum together for her preschool and she provided an excellent day care facility for my children. It was a home environment. I felt safer than some of these big commercialized day cares. I didn't see a lot of problems with the traffic and stuff. This is a busy neighborhood period. It's connected to two other neighbors. It's a huge subdivision complex, I guess you could say, with the other two neighborhoods. There is a lot of traffic period. It's just a busy place. There are a lot of families that live in these three neighborhoods. My parent -- the parents that I have encountered at the day care are always very respectful, I was always very respectful of parents and the neighbors, and I never saw a problem when it was originally at the home. My children went with her when it went to the commercialized site and, then, they started school full time and I Meridian Planning & Zoning December 19, 2002 Page 33 of 116 was kind of surprised that there is such a huge issue. I understand some concerns of the neighbors, but this is an in-home day care that I know that she tries really hard to comply with neighbors' concerns and taking care of the children. It's not -- she does not let them run wild through the neighborhood or anything like that, they are very controlled, and she does use the park. The park has been -- is an issue -- a lot of kids use the park, a lot of kids from all over. You know, I have always told any kids they need to be respectful of that and that's in their neighborhood, but she provides a tremendous day care and that is something really difficult to find when you have children. Someone you totally feel safe with, that will provide a very safe and secure environment and take well care of your children while you are at work and that's all. Borup: Thank you. Radford: My name is Nancy Radford. I live in Nampa now, but I lived next door to Kathy at 400 East Edgar Court for five years and three of those years she had -- almost three of those years she had her in-home day care. The way my house sat was kind of back in the cul-de-sac, so as far as traffic at that time, my biggest concern, as many others, was the group home traffic. As far as her traffic, her parents would kind of, you know, drive up to the house, drop their kids off, and kind of turn there, so I really didn't have an issue with traffic at all when I lived there. That's what I'm here to say, is that for those three years there was no negative issue with Kathy's day care. If I did have a problem with one of the parents -- because my children were pretty little as well, if one of the parents was going fast, as her neighbor, as her friend, I would talk to her about that and she was always very willing to resolve it. My request is that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend approval for a Conditional Use Permit for Kathy. Please don't take away her sole livelihood. Thank you. Borup: Thank you. Meyer: My name is Tracy Meyer. I live at 22 East Pine. I have been taking both my daughters to Kathy's day care since the beginning of the school year this year, September 2002. Centers: Excuse me again. Do you live in the neighborhood? Meyer: I do not live in the neighborhood. Centers: Okay. Meyer: My children have been attending Kathy's day care since she was over on Cherry Lane. We came over to her home when she came there. Kathy provides an excellent day care and preschool curriculum for the kids. It's so difficult, as a parent, to find day care that you trust that provides something other than just sticking your children in a room and letting them play. It's very nice and comforting to the parent. I keep hearing this traffic issue coming up. It's a cul-de-sac, it's not like there is through traffic going through on the street anyway. I have never seen more than three cars in Meridian Planning & Zoning December 19, 2002 Page 34 of 116 front of Kathy's house at a time. I never saw more than three or four cars at a time when it was on the Cherry Lane site. Never. Never. People pull up, they up pick their kids, and they leave and there is all the -- we have our kids playing in our yard. We have this, we are all parents, we all have kids, I don't think any of the people you have heard are going to go speeding 25 or 30 miles an hour down a street that dead ends into a cul-de-sac to pick up their children. You know, at that total, you know, disrespect of the other children on the street. I just don't see that. As a parent myself, I don't see that. I live on a busy street as well, I live on a very busy street, no one respects the street that I live on, and my children are fine in my yard. If you keep an eye on things, you're fine. Whenever I'm there, I have never seen anything out of the ordinary I have never seen any disrespect to Kathy's neighbors. When I see the children going to the park, they are walking in a line, there is somebody controlling them. If I lived in the neighborhood and my daughter was having a birthday party, I would take all the kids at the birthday party to the park, if I felt like it. To me that's kind of the same sort of a thing. It's a park, it's there for use, there is no real guidelines as to who can use it and who can't and I don't see where that should be an issue as well. That's all. Thank you. Borup: Thank you. Harlan: My name is Roni Harlan, I live at -- I almost forgot my address -- 3224 West Ravenhurst. I also take my daughter to Kathy's Kinder Kollege. From what I hear tonight, we all have children, so we are all very concerned about a good day care. I know that my heart is at ease when I drop my daughter Riley off at Kathy's house every morning, because I know that I can go to work and that I know she is going to be well taken care of. My first day care experience here in Meridian was an absolute horrible nightmare. My daughter came home after two and a half days with bloody blisters on her bottom and you better believe I turned that day care into the state. When I found Kinder Kollege, it was a Godsend. My daughter is two. She knows sign language, she speaks Spanish, and I can thank Kathy, Amy, and Lisa for that. I believe if we forced -- if we were forced to take my daughter to a different day care, it would be tragic, extremely devastating and traumatic to my daughter. She enjoys going there every morning. Like I said, we feel very at ease taking her there. From what I hear tonight, it's just -- it hurts my heart, because from what I hear from the rest of Kathy's neighbors is, yes, they are concerned about traffic, but it's fine to give care to a group of eight disabled adults, but 12 children need to go without care and that just hurts my heart and I guess I pray for them. Borup: Anyone else? E. Connell: My name is Ed Connell. I live on Hawk, which is around the corner -- Borup: What was your last name again, sir? E. Connell: Connell. Borup: Okay. Meridian Planning & Zoning December 19, 2002 Page 35 of 116 E. Connell: This traffic thing, you can't see it from what you show here, this Arrow Wood, they want to talk traffic, when it opened, that's where the -- that is a main artery to Ustick. There are hundreds of homes back here and the school there, there are kids -- I don't -- I don't get the traffic thing, because it's -- the traffic is -- that's a main artery. It's not really -- I have never seen it increase any of the traffic in that area. Maybe towards the cul-de-sac, but like the lady said before, that's a dead end street, you're -- you stop and turn around and you leave. That's it. When they say the traffic and crossing over to the park, that's a concern that everybody has, because that is a main -- that's a main street, that is your exit to Ustick from Hunter Point, Fothergill, the school, all of that back in there, 12 cars a day. That would not even phase that road. That's all. Borup: Thank you. H. Clay: Good evening. My name is Harlan Clay, I live at 499 East Sedgewick, and I would like to bring up the fact that one young lady said that they park cars on Arrow Wood and I have noticed that lately, that I didn't before. One thing that concerns me is that an awful lot of children, either coming from school or being let off by the bus, walk down Arrow Wood. If they have cars parked there, one of those children walk out behind one of those cars, like that is a wide street and people do travel -- it's supposed to be 25. I think a lot of them go faster than that, that little child could walk out in front of one of those cars, it would be an awful tragedy. I think that should be a consideration also. Thank you. Borup: Thank you. McNitt: Commissioners, I would like to thank Kathy's neighbors for coming tonight, because I know that they are concerned -- Centers: You need to say your name, please. McNitt: Oh, I'm sorry. Julie McNitt and I am a mother of two. I have a four month old and a six year old that attend Kathy's school. Centers: Where do you live? McNitt: We live on 1240 Northgate Court. Centers: Is that in this subdivision? McNitt: It is not. No. It's over off of Linder Road. Then, we have been with her, like I said, for the majority of this year. I was not super thrilled when she told me that, unfortunately, she was going to be moving from there to her home. I thought, oh, it's more out of my way, this, and that, but you know, my kids have liked it there more at her home, than what they did even when you were at the day care center. I -- it is really hard to find a day care nowadays, especially ones where you can drop your kids off and Meridian Planning & Zoning December 19, 2002 Page 36 of 116 you can go to work and that's the last thing on your mind. You know that your kids are taken care of and that is worth a pretty penny nowadays. You know, a lot of the neighbors are commenting also that they have children and that is worth a lot and I'm sure that they understand that. The traffic situation, I don't really see that. I do drive the 10 miles an hour and I would appreciate, you know, if the neighbors watch for me. I drive a little ZRX or I drive my Ford Explorer. They can look for me all the time, you know, whatever rules there are that the neighbors and Kathy decide, I'm willing to do whatever it takes, you know, to get along and I want to respect them. I don't -- they have to live there, they have to go there every day, you know, I don't want to step on any toes. If it were my neighborhood, I would want the same respect. I just really appreciate Kathy and all that she does for my kid you know it would be really hard to have to switch and go somewhere else at this point. That's all I have to say. Thank you. Borup: Thank you. Black: My name is Paul Black and I live at 1931 East Dworshak. It's not in this subdivision. My children have been going to Kinder Kollege since it opened on Cherry Lane, I think three years ago, just, -- I will be very brief. They have flourished under Kathy and I will follow her anywhere. That's the only day care they have ever liked, so - - thank you. Borup: Thank you. Strate: My name is Alan Strate. I live at 1332 East 5th . I used to live at 488 East Edgar Court, which is on the corner of Arrow Wood and Edgar. My children also attended Kathy's day care. Before I lived there I lived in Boise off of Five Mile and Fairview and I took -- when my ex-wife had found Kathy, my kids loved that place. They loved the surroundings, they loved the other, -- you know, the care that they got. When she moved, you know, from there and went over to the other place that was fine, too. I've never found somebody that's more accommodating. Myself, I work a lot of hours. After my divorce, you know, when I take the kids to the day care, I could get there at 5:30, a quarter to 6:00, there would be someone there for them. I would not get there until 6:30 at night and they would still be there for them. You can't find places like that everyday. That's all I'd like to say. Thank you. Centers: Excuse me, sir. Do your children still attend? Strate: During the summertime when they are with me, yes. Centers: Okay. Thank you. Burwell: Hi. I'm Lisa Burwell and I work at Kinder Kollege or for Kathy Jordan. I have been there since June. I, too, am concerned about the traffic, but it is not as bad as it seems and as far as Amy and I parking on Edgewood – Arrow Wood, excuse me -- Thank you, Amy. Amy and I are the only two that park on that road and when we get Meridian Planning & Zoning December 19, 2002 Page 37 of 116 ready to leave, there is no children walking on that sidewalk. By the time I get out of work it is 4:45. There are no kids on that sidewalk. By the time she gets done with work, it is 6:00. There are no children walking on that sidewalk and as far as Amy and I walking the kids down to the park, it has not been just one of us, it has been two of us, one in front and one in back. Thank you. Borup: Thank you. Johnston: I'm Cindy Johnston and I don't live in that neighborhood. I live off Linder. I found Kathy when I was desperately seeking for a day care, because mine had to close. She has been a great provider and my concern when she was over on Cherry Lane was that busy road out in front. The hours that most of us drop off are between 7:00 and 8:00 and from -- pick up between 5:00 and 6:00. There were the streetlights out there that -- for this school zone that flash 20 miles per hour, so you can't do more than that. That's where, you know, I was -- part of my concern was just that little intersection, because it was such a main road and it was very busy, but it wasn't -- during those times it wasn't -- you know, it wasn't a concern, because it was so slow. I don't -- I have been through this neighborhood. I actually took Arrow Wood just to see if it was, you know, a little bit shorter than taking Meridian to go to Linder. I tell you what, I won't take that street again, because it is so busy and it's dangerous, because people don't drive 20 miles an hour, they are doing 35, 40, 50 miles an hour. This one car the other -- you know, I took it the other day and this car -- there is a little bit of a dip over there at Arrow Wood, and this car, you know, pretty much went -- as it hit the dip, after the dip. I don't think that -- you know I'm not sure what their problem is with the traffic. The traffic on Ustick is terrible. The traffic on Arrow Wood is terrible and that little street right there is not very busy. We go, we drop off, and we leave, you know. Pretty much we go, drop off, and we leave. There have never been any problems. If there is somebody -- if there is too many cars, you know, I'll wait until one car leaves until I can park and that way I'm not in the driveway and I respect the neighbors, so -- I guess my whole point is that this is -- I don't see speeding an issue, so -- but you can have traffic anywhere you go and so -- I work in the busiest intersection of town, so I can tell you about traffic. Okay. That's all. Borup: Thank you. Williams: My name is Audra Williams and I live at 399 East Edgar Court. I am the third house on the left side of Kathy. At first when Kathy started building into her garage I had no idea what she was doing, I thought maybe they were converting it into a room, until a neighbor came to our home and told us that Kathy was running a day care. I am self-employed and I run a business out of my home. Nobody opposes that, because I don't think anybody knew that. For the last six weeks I have been home, so I -- due to surgery, so I have been watching it. As far as the traffic on our street, it is horrible. I live right next door to the home for retarded adults and most of my neighbors aren't home during the day, but once a month they have a staff meeting. I will be lucky if I get my mail. We have at least 15 to 20 cars in front of Rick's home, in front of my home, and in front of my mailbox at any given time. I have a 15-year-old daughter that Meridian Planning & Zoning December 19, 2002 Page 38 of 116 catches the bus at 6:20 in the morning out on Ustick. She almost got hit within the first week of Kathy's day care being open. One of the cars came ripping around the corner. She came home and told me. I was very upset and I was very upset that Kathy was going to be doing this, until Kathy came to my home and explained to me what was going on. I explained to Kathy what almost happened to my daughter. Since then Kathy has written a letter, she gave it to us, 10 miles an hour, and the traffic has slowed down there. As far as her livelihood, I was a single mom for three years raising two kids. She's not single, she has a husband, but I do understand that to make a living you will do anything that you can to bring income into your home and if she's running it without a license, then, that's what she had to do. Out of desperation people will do that. I mean I have been there and I came into this cul-de-sac into a marriage. My husband owned the home there previously but due to my husband, the home next to us has curtailed their traffic, but they drive faster than anybody. Their employees are horrible. As far as kids playing out in the street, spring, or summer, all our kids are out in the street. I have almost hit my neighbors' kids, because they ran out in the street -- they bolt out in the street on their bikes. What's the difference? Her kids are in a home. Her kids are in the backyard. Our kids aren't. Our kids create noise. My kids are up until 10:00, 10:30 out in our back yard on our trampoline. I haven't heard anybody complain about their noise. These are little kids that are playing in a back yard. At least they are confined. All of my neighbors' kids, all of them, have bolted out in the street. I have had to slam on my brakes and I drive 10 miles an hour, but because of the size of my vehicle, it can kill them. If this is a temporary for Kathy, then, I say allow it. If it becomes a non-temporary, then, we have to address that but if she gives us her word and, hopefully, she goes by that, then, I say she has to do what she has to do until she gets a building. I ask you to at least temporarily let her run the day care in the home because the traffic isn't as a bad my neighbors are making it out to be. I'm there every day and I watch it. I watched their home all day today. Every car door I heard. It wasn't her house, it was neighbors or it was the home's employees. Thanks. Borup: Thank you. Crandall: My name is David Crandall and I'm actually an employee of the association. I work for a company called AMI, I serve as the neighborhood manager, and I help manage the affairs of the association. One thing I just wanted to do is draw your attention to -- and I'm sure you have seen it, the petition that was circulated around the neighborhood. That was in one evening in a two-hour period and we had to get it done, so we could get the petition in to you a week in advance. No one -- and I think what I'm hearing tonight is no one is questioning the quality of care. Everyone you have heard stated that she provides great quality of care, but I think you're also hearing a fairly well defined line between those people who are supporting her from outside the community and those people that are opposed and the ones that have a vested interest in the community. I know in working for the board and with the board, they are really opposed to this and they think it would be detrimental to the best interest of the neighborhood. With some additional time, Richard has some additional comments, if I could give my additional couple minutes to Richard. Meridian Planning & Zoning December 19, 2002 Page 39 of 116 Borup: Briefly. Putman: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and Commissioners I will make this very brief. Just kind of wanted to go back over some of the points that have been brought up here. We are not disputing the traffic on Arrow Wood is bad already. We are disputing the traffic in -- that due to the group home is bad already. We don't want to see it increase. We don't want to see that bring more people into that neighborhood, more traffic on those streets, and I also want to emphasize we are not trying to stop her from earning a living. You know, she -- as you mentioned, Commissioner Centers, she knew that her lease was expiring. She had more than enough time there that she could have planned ahead and tried to locate that area and I guess I just wanted to go back -- comments were made about the park. Yes, the neighbors from the association -- from the adjoining neighborhoods, yes, those are -- you know, they are more than welcome. That's not a commercial use. What she's bringing in -- she's bringing in children from outside of our neighborhood to run on a commercial business and is using that park for a commercial business. That's -- that's my main point of objection there. I appreciate the time. Borup: Thank you. Kathy, do you or a representative have final comment? Wallace: Yes, we do. Thank you. I'm Bob Wallace and I am responsible for these packets that were passed out to you. I'm a lawyer over in Boise, so I will try not to be a boring Boise lawyer and I'll try to keep it brief. Kathy asked me to help her with this application and I have got a couple of points to add to what's been said. I think we do have a certain kind if demarcation in front of you, the association employee -- I don't know if he's from the neighborhood or not, but he seems to think that everyone that's from the outside is supporting the day care, everybody inside thinks there is a traffic problem. Well, as I heard the traffic testimony of -- Mr. Commissioner -- Mr. Chairman and Commissioners, I heard a lot of unsubstantiated concern about either traffic that could happen or traffic that's somewhere, with the exception of a couple of neighbors who said their driveways were blocked. There might have been some unmannerly parents interrupting total freedom from any cars at all in the cul-de-sac we are talking about. To me that's not a traffic problem. To me what you have in front of you is both the ACHD and your own staff making exact findings that there will be no traffic impact from this use. You have got that in your staff report. It's Item H. Even though the first couple of items talk about impact on the neighborhood, I'd ask you to carefully consider the testimony before you tonight. There is a finding that there is no traffic impact. What you can do now is now look more deeply at what kind of impacts have been testified to in front of you. You have got an application for up to 12 kids and, like many things in the law, 12 doesn't really mean 12. Under the state-licensing scheme, which regulates her license that she applied for at this new location as soon as she knew she had to make a move, it says -- it doesn't include kids of the owner or kids of employees. She has got one employee that has two kids and the owner has three. That's five additional kids that don't fall under the state licensing so that's one kind of regulation. I think she was understandably confused in her early years of running this when she had a five person Accessory Use Permit the business got to be better, so she immediately went out and applied for a State Permit for more kids. Then, not too long after that she got Meridian Planning & Zoning December 19, 2002 Page 40 of 116 into a commercial facility. Commissioner Centers, I certainly acknowledge your critique of how she could have been a little bit faster in making a change. However, it's my understanding -- and I didn't get involved in this until the end, until just about a week and a half ago, is that long before the fall of this year she began looking at a place on Linder Street and actually had that Conditional Use Permit before you. That was what she was trying to move her large day care into before the lease expired on Cherry Lane. She learned the lease expired on Cherry Lane and was not able to stay even beyond the 30th -- Centers: Learned? She was the lessor. She should have known when it expired. Wallace: But it was sold and she was -- Centers: Lessee I should say. Wallace: She was a lessee and she -- Centers: She would know when her lease expires. Wallace: Right so -- Centers: You just said earlier -- and, excuse me, you just said earlier she just applied for her permit from the Health and Welfare. That's a little tardy, too, isn't it? Wallace: Well, that was to move back home. She didn't think she would have to move back home until -- Centers: The permit is not transferable. Wallace: Correct. She applied for a license for her home at the last minute. She didn't plan to move back into her home, she planned to move to Linder, until that process didn't go through, which -- Centers: Well, it seems, though, she's tardy in every instance, but go ahead. Excuse me for -- Wallace: Again, I'm -- this is hearsay from talking to your staff and from talking to Kathy. She made an effort and Mr. McKinnon made an effort to have this matter heard October 20th when there were an awful lot of matters on your Agenda, and somebody made the decision not to have it heard that night. She was making efforts to get this approved before her lease expired. It didn't happen. Things happen. People don't follow through. Like I said, I wasn't there but there was an effort to get formal approval of a large facility on Linder, there was an effort to get before this Commission. The document I just ran up to Dave shows that she didn't make an application to the State until December 1st . She didn't want to move home. She still doesn't want to be doing this out of her home. She's a successful businesswoman that has great support, she Meridian Planning & Zoning December 19, 2002 Page 41 of 116 could be running a 20, 25 kid care service and making a lot of money. She's qualified, she has employees, and she has great parents. She doesn't want to be doing this, but she also doesn't want to just tell all of her customers, hey, go away, I don't have anything to do for you I'm not a business. That's the worst thing you can do. I'm responding to the testimony as I see you have it before you. The biggest concern I have with the staff report, though, is the continued harping on illegality. The way I see this -- and maybe I see it as half full, instead of half empty. I see an Accessory Use that's always been legal there. She's always had a day care there she expanded and went to where it was appropriate. It did not work for a number of reasons, she has to make other arrangements and she's asking for what is a legal use, but expanded and going through a CUP process to make sure that that expanded use doesn't impact the neighborhood. Now, you have had a staff report and other agency reports saying that there will be no impact on the neighborhood. That's what's in front of you and the testimony of everybody here, including all the opponents, doesn't contradict that. They have agreed it's a cul-de-sac and they are there, except for the group home and the people who come to the day care. They don't contradict any of the other testimony that it's only there for a short time each day and their concerns about traffic appear to be directed to Arrowrock -- or Arrow Wood, rather, than towards the cul-de-sac, for the most part. I will ask you to review their comments on traffic in that context, view the fact that the petition, of which something was made here that they got all these signatures, many of which don't have addresses -- you have got 21 with addresses, 14 without. You have got, as many people as took the time to show up tonight and some of them are actually able to address traffic on some of the streets in the subdivision. Most of them are just concerned about property values, concerned about potential impact, and concerned about what this might be doing. It's at the end of a subdivision, they pass a few houses and a collector street and, as you can see from the pictures in your packet, her house is the first of the pictures, the second picture is looking east on Edgar, that way. The third picture is looking west on Edgar. Her house looks exactly like every house in the subdivision. It doesn't look like a day care, it won't look like a day care, and as the lady, who lived next door to her for three years when she was running her day care out of the facility, testified, it's always looked that way. Whatever concerns the neighbors have, I submit to you, ladies and gentlemen, are fears they are unsubstantiated fears. They are matters that I don't think you should be even paying attention to, as concerned as they are in coming out, they don't address what you have to find. They are not evidence of traffic they are not evidence of impact on the neighborhood. You have got that in your staff findings and I might have taken -- I think the staff did plenty and we appreciate what they have done for Kathy. They chose to exercise their discretion and not cite her. She's been operating now for half this month and they still haven't cited here, although there has been talk back to her that there was -- some in the proposed petition were saying that that had happened. We appreciate it hasn't happened. As a former prosecutor, I can say that I think bringing that case to trial might be kind of hard. Is she doing something that is totally involuntary? Is she voluntarily breaking the law? I don't think so. She's come to you for temporary permission to run the business. The only other thing I'd like to address in the opposition is just look at their petition. It uses the word minimum 12 kids, we are not applying for a minimum of 12 kids, and we are applying for a maximum of 12 kids. If they were Meridian Planning & Zoning December 19, 2002 Page 42 of 116 circulating this petition with that kind of misrepresentation, that might explain some of the fears that people have but it's not a fear that should govern you. In closing, I'd like to submit a couple of photographs that show you the Arrow Wood Street on the Ustick side and on the other side where the two employees have started to park to allay any concerns you might have that there might not be visibility when cars are parked there for drivers driving on that street. Also to remind the Commission, which I know I don't have to this is a Conditional Use Permit application. That means the word conditional is operative. You can impose conditions on parking, time, duration, anything you want, and any of the uses or concerns and fears of the neighbors are something you feel you have to pay attention to and I submit they are not, but if they are, impose those conditions. You can make the duration that she's there conditional. You can make where her employees park conditional. If I may approach? I'll go through each of these. The ones and threes are the ones looking from Ustick onto Arrow Wood I believe it is. The five photos with the trees show Arrow Wood from Ustick and, then, Edgar is the first street, which is on the plat. The next set of photos show Arrow Wood from Edgar continuing down south. I believe that's where the park is. Do either the Chairman or any of the Commissioners have any questions for me? Borup: Questions from the Commission? Okay. Any final comments, Mr. Wallace? Wallace: No. Thank you very much for considering the application. Borup: Thank you. Okay. You can come forward. Okay. We may give the applicant a response, but go ahead. Ross: I'm Loren Ross. I own property in Meridian. I own a commercial building, 405 East Fairview. It's in the process of being leased. I can validate -- and I'm not pro or con this conversation, I'm not even here for this, but I think it's my duty to bring forward something. I have had at least two conversations with this lady about day care concerning my building for a lease and that took place in the spring and summer of this year. I just wanted to validate that, because I know there was some question, did she or did she not try to seek a lease. I did have conversations with her, Borup: Okay. Thank you. Commissioners? We have concluded, I think, the testimony, unless -- come on. We need to wrap this up, though. You need to state your name. A. Kobza: My name is Anita Kobza and I live directly across the road from Kathy. On December 9th , I counted the number of kids and the number of cars that came in, there was 17 cars starting at 6:37 A.M. up until 9:07, and there were 17 kids as well. I don't deny Kathy the right to make a living, I really hope she can do that I just don't want it on our street, because of the impact of all the traffic on our street. Every car that comes into that cul-de-sac has to turn around and go right back out and so you have got the traffic twice as much, because it's a cul-de-sac. You have got every car going by each house twice every time they come in. Meridian Planning & Zoning December 19, 2002 Page 43 of 116 Borup: Okay. Thank you. Did you have any -- would you like to -- Mr. McKinnon, the two, the five, and the 12? McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, could I ask the person who made the question to come to the mike and ask the question? Borup: Okay. Her question was if she had less than 12, does that mean it's just baby- sitting. McKinnon: No. No, it doesn't mean that it's just baby-sitting. If you are watching children other than your own children for a period during 24 hours, it could be considered day care. There are some standards, some state standards, and some city standards. The state and city standards don't always match up with each other. In the City of Meridian if you are watching five or fewer children that are not yours at anytime during a 24 hour period, for payment, not baby-sitting, not the occasional watching of children, but for payment on a regular basis, such as a day care facility, you use a layman's term for day care. If you're watching that, you need to have an Accessory Use Permit, which is what Kathy Jordan initially had at her home for 1997 to 1999. If you want to have between five and 12 -- more than five, up to 12 children at your home, you require a Conditional Use Permit. It's considered a group childcare home. That's for five to 12, that does require the Conditional Use Permit, and that's what's here before us tonight. If you would like to seek more than 12 children, you cannot do that at your residential home and you are required to do that as a commercial operation, which is, again, a Conditional Use Permit in the City of Meridian. Borup: Does that explain that? McKinnon: And, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, we are still in Public Hearing. I just had a comment. The state exempts employees' children that are being watched at the site. However, the City Code is somewhat silent concerning employees' children at the day care. My understanding -- I asked Nick for some clarification, he's got my code over there -- if employees are bringing their children there and the children are being included as children at that home, my understanding would be that those children would be included as the 12, because those are 12 kids being cared for not at their home by someone else. Nick, if you could get some clarification on that or if there is anything that's -- is the code silent? Wollen: I believe that if the code were silent, then, you would have to fall back to the State Code, if the State Code is on the same situation so that would be my position. McKinnon: I guess my question, then, would be the final number of children being watched at the home is not to exceed, 12 outside of the children that live in the home. We would count -- would we or would we not count the children that live outside the home that are being watched at the house? Wollen: Well, the code -- if the code says that its -- it's limited to 12 children that live outside the home, then, I believe that would also count for employees' children. Meridian Planning & Zoning December 19, 2002 Page 44 of 116 McKinnon: Okay. Centers: Mr. Chairman, I had a question for the applicant. Is she still here? Oh, you moved and you're welcome to make -- correct? Any other remarks or -- Borup: To testimony that's after Mr. Wallace. Centers: I mean if you wanted to address some of the other comments, feel free to, but I had a question for you. Here at the Planning and Zoning we don't put people under oath. They do at the City Council level but how many other children have you been watching on a daily basis? Jordan: We have no more than 12 children in the home. What we have -- we have some before and after school children that do come in, they leave, they go to school, and, then, we have more children that come in. Those children, then, leave before the before and after school kids come back. I have -- my parents don't all need care five days a week, they don't all need care 10 hours a day. Centers: So you have maybe 20 children at different times? Jordan: Correct. None of the schedules overlap. Centers: So, then, there is more traffic than the 12 children, because those children have to be picked up and dropped off. Jordan: Yes. Centers: Okay. Borup: Anything else? All right. Commissioners? Zaremba: Well, a question for staff. On the comings and goings, I know we have discussed this before and I thought the count on the children was cumulative. Wollen: It is, Commissioner Zaremba. It's throughout the day, according to Meridian City Code. Zaremba: Whether they stay or not or overlap or not right? McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, it's cumulative. The definition is no more than 12 children throughout the day. Centers: At any one time? Zaremba: No. Meridian Planning & Zoning December 19, 2002 Page 45 of 116 McKinnon: Throughout the day. Zaremba: Cumulative, whether they are there the whole time or not. Centers: Yes. McKinnon: Twenty would not be allowed. Twelve total throughout the day so if there are six in the morning and they leave by noon, six more come in, and that’s 12 total. Centers: So -- okay. Got you. McKinnon: The fact that -- to further clarify, in the definitions, it's 11-2-2, it further notes in the definition that it should be noted that in determining the type of childcare facility that is being operated. The total number of children cared for during the day and not the number of the children at the facility at any one time is determinative. Centers: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Commissioner Centers. Centers: You know me I like to read. The gentleman -- the attorney had addressed traffic and everyone's talking about traffic. It's not just traffic that we have to look at and I want to read from the staff comments. Standards for Conditional Uses, the Commission, and the Council shall review the particular facts and circumstances of each proposed Conditional Use in terms of the following and may approve a Conditional Use Permit if they shall find evidence presented at the hearings is adequate to establish. Then, they mention the code number -- that, A, that the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use in all yards, open spaces, parking, landscaping, and other features as may be required by this ordinance. Then, the staff goes on with their comments and they felt that there wasn't sufficient parking, even though the Meridian City Code does not prohibit street-side parking, it doesn't prohibit that -- and loading for residentially located childcare facilities. However, additional parking in the street may adversely affect neighboring residential uses. Then, part of the code also says that the design and construction, operation, and maintenance will be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood and with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and that such use will not adversely change the essentially character of the same area. Then, they recommend that we listen to the people that come to the meeting, the neighborhood. That's what they say. The Commission and Council should carefully consider public testimony. Then, D, that the proposed use, if it complies with all conditions of the approval imposed, will not adversely affect other property in the vicinity. Then, they tell us again, listen to the people that come to the meeting. There are three different things that we have to consider and none of them -- well, one of them, briefly, talks about traffic. It's the neighborhood, basically, that we have to look at and how it affects the neighbors and their values, what they consider or think it will do to the value of their home and on down the line. I have a lot of empathy for the applicant and her income. I really do. I mean it may be easy to say, but that is a fact. Anyone Meridian Planning & Zoning December 19, 2002 Page 46 of 116 that's working hard and trying to make an income, I have a lot of respect for but I think it needs to be within the law and within a neighborhood, that welcomes them. I wouldn't want to be in a neighborhood that didn't welcome me so I think you need to look for a new home where you might be welcome, because you're certainly not welcome in the neighborhood that you're located in. The petitions say that and the people here say that. I had no one in the neighborhood, other than one lady, that spoke for the applicant. Everyone else was a customer or an employee. I consider the neighborhood as the state or the Meridian City Code tells me to consider so, thank you for your time. Zaremba: Well, I would concur that it is part of our responsibility. The reason the hearing exists -- the hearing process exists at all is to listen to the neighborhood concerns. Any kind of a business, including a childcare, is not automatic in a residential district, that's why there is a CUP requirement and a hearing requirement tied around that. I would comment that I'm not so sure it's even okay to park on Arrow Wood. I think ACHD would consider that to be a collector street. There is a definition for collector streets and, usually, they don't want parking on a collector street, so that -- Unidentified Speaker: There aren't any signs or anything that -- Zaremba: There don't have to be signs. It's not posted for 20 miles an hour either. It's just -- McKinnon: Mr. Chairman -- Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, if I could offer some insight into that. The road that -- Arrow Wood is not a classified collector per ACHD guidelines however, it would be included in the discussion as a residential collector. If you will notice that within the subdivision, there are no houses that front onto Arrow Wood. That was a requirement of the city and of Ada County Highway District when they considered that road, because that road is the major collector for all those homes to pull into it and did not feel it would be appropriate for cars to back out into the traffic. That's the reason that they do not have homes that front onto Arrow Wood. As far as parking restrictions go, I don't believe that they restrict the parking. However, it's not encouraged just by the fact that they don't allow homes to front onto it and in recent applications that we have seen they have prohibited parking on many residential collectors. However, those residential collectors we have dealt with recently happen to be full on classified collectors per ACHD guidelines. Borup: At this point we are having discussion among the Commissioners. Wallace: The hearing has been closed? Borup: It has not yet, but you have had opportunity to speak. Wallace: I do have some additional comments -- Borup: Would the Commissioners like some additional information? Meridian Planning & Zoning December 19, 2002 Page 47 of 116 Centers: I would recommend that we take them, Mr. Chairman. Borup: I will hear it. Wallace: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Borup: Just restate your name again. Wallace: I'm Bob Wallace, I'm the lawyer that is representing Kathy Jordan and her business in this application. I will pass some of the fine points that applied to how many kids you can have and not have based on whether City Code is more -- covers the field of how many children can come from outside the employee's family, the owner's family, or outside the facility. I think it's certainly an arguable point and I think whatever the Commission tells Kathy to do as far as bringing in outside kids, she's going to do, just as if the application is denied, she's going to have no alternative but to fall back on the original Accessory Permit, which, as she understands it, never expired, it's just always been there. It doesn't have to be renewed. Zaremba: But it does limit it to five. Wallace: Exactly. Exactly and she will do that. We will have other discussions about her options. I'm not sure that the facts don't fall within the variance procedure. Of course, we would have to go to Council first and, then, back here, but there are all different ways one can deal with these things. It is a hardship situation. The other conditions can be a basis for a variance and there is just different ways to go. Commissioner Centers, the reason we got real with these photos of Arrow Wood is you had a concern about on-site parking. There doesn't have to be on-site parking, but if all three employees parked on site, that means that the parents coming and going park -- and I'm putting my fingers up in quotation marks, park for about five minutes at a time. That's the parking we are talking about. Then, we are talking about the traffic coming up the cul-de-sac and going down twice a day. That's the traffic we are talking about. Now we are getting real. That's the real impact on this cul-de-sac and on the neighborhood. That isn't the testimony you heard from the neighbors. Their concern was property values and traffic, which harms their kids. If you look down their December 9, 2002, statement, which I believe went with the petition, because it's in the same typeface, it lists a long list of untrue things. The only things that aren't untrue, other than the fact that it conflicts with the covenants, which is true and which isn't your business, with all do respect, is that it could and may do terrible things. It says it would increase traffic on our streets. Well, get real. The traffic on the cul-de-sac involved is probably 24 trips a day at two times. It creates a traffic hazard, because cars must use the cul-de-sac to turn around? That's what cul-de-sacs are for, that's what they are designed for, even with cars parked there for five minutes they can be used that way. It's not a traffic hazard. Increased noise? It operated there three years before. The people who were there said it wasn't noisy. Nobody here says it's noisy. It goes on. Inadequate parking to accommodate staff and visitors. These are the things that were handed out with the petition. There is no evidence before you of any of this. There is Meridian Planning & Zoning December 19, 2002 Page 48 of 116 adequate parking. Even if they were to park there all day, there is on-street parking that isn't prohibited by City Code and that the staff has found is okay. However, we are not really talking about that, we are talking about pick up and drop off and if it's preferable to park on on-site parking, that can be dealt with by asking the staff to park somewhere else, but it's unnecessary. Centers: Let me interrupt. Off-street parking is necessary when you load and unload children for safety reasons and that's the reason that staff makes that comment. We have seen other childcare operations and the off-street parking is a major concern for safety. Okay. Wallace: Here would be next to sidewalks. You have got pictures to show you the sidewalks are adjacent to the facility and I don't know how -- I don't even how unsafe it is for someone to park in the middle of the cul-de-sac and unload their children, because it's a low impact street. There is street side parking next to sidewalks. I guess you just have to interpret what's safe and what isn't. That's not even listed as a concern here. The things that are talk about may increase property values, may change the appearance of the residence, could open the door -- this is my favorite one. It's the second from the bottom. Centers: What page are you on? Wallace: I'm on the December 9th Bedford Place Homeowners List of Objections, which, I believe, is what got everybody so riled up. This is a neighborhood that you say doesn't want it. Well, I wouldn't want it either if somebody alleged all these things would happen from my day care. Ladies and gentlemen, I don't think the evidence before you shows that any of them would and the one that I like the best is allowing one business in the subdivision could open the door to other home-based businesses. This would erode the quality of life for all residents. You know, that's a pretty big value judgment. One of the letters I have attached from a Chamber of Commerce Member here, along with another letter from a person that lives in the neighborhood and he says is fine and isn't a problem, it says there are a whole lot of people like us that operate businesses. We operate them out of our homes. For some reason people have picked on Kathy Jordan here, because she moved back and -- or I don't even know why they did. There have been personal issues in the neighborhood she got a divorce recently, her ex- husband talked to some people -- who knows. The fact is there are a lot of home- based businesses in the neighborhood. They are allowed by City Code they are promoted by City Code, and they allow employment and allow people to stay home with their kids. They allow early childhood education with hands-on, they allow people to be home all day, and they allow neighborhood security, because people are around. I mean you can say the same thing different ways, but this is what you're being asked to allow to happen and if a lot of neighbors are worried and concerned about what could happen, I sympathize with them, but you're here to impose conditions, so that it didn't happen. I ask you to carefully weigh the multifarious ways you can do that without requiring Kathy to go to the Council asking for a variance, bring it back to you, so she Meridian Planning & Zoning December 19, 2002 Page 49 of 116 can make a living with more than five kids. She also is looking for another place anyway. She wants to make a living with 25 kids so why stand in her way. Thank you. Borup: Thank you. The applicant has the last comment and if you -- if we want this to keep going on all night, I guess we can do that, but I -- Commissioners, do we feel that there is any more information that any of you would like? Rohm: I think we have got the issue before us. It's pretty well understood and I would like to make a motion that we close the Public Hearing on CUP 02-038. Zaremba: I'll second that. Borup: Motion and second. Any discussion? All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Borup: Okay. We started some discussion earlier. I think Commissioner Centers and Commissioner Zaremba had commented. Anything else you would like to add any items for discussion? Mathes: I have a question, though. Dave, did they pull a permit to remodel or does that matter? Don't they have to? McKinnon: I don't know at this time, Commissioner Mathes. Mathes: Okay. McKinnon: I don't know if there has been a Building Permit that was applied for, for the modification. A side bar to that would be the requirement in the City of Meridian is that you be able to provide a garage for a single-family home that's capable of housing at least two vehicles. If they have modified the garage not to do that, that would make the home a non-conforming home. Mathes: And having the five kids would also be cumulative right? McKinnon: Having five kids would also be cumulative, according to the definition of Meridian's Code. Mathes: Okay. Rohm: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Commissioner Rohm. Rohm: It appears to me that there are a lot of reasons why this should be denied and just -- I mean the public testimony the City Statutes, and all the testimony that we have Meridian Planning & Zoning December 19, 2002 Page 50 of 116 heard tonight -- or not all the testimony, but a number of the testimonies that we have heard tonight. There is also the issue of livelihood and I question is there a possibility that you could go with -- we could go with a -- like a 90-day permit that will give her that to find an alternate location with a sunset that just says this isn’t going to happen beyond 90 days. Something to that effect, because, ultimately, I believe that the issue at hand for these people -- I don't think 90 days is going to affect them period. It will also provide her an opportunity to continue generating income for her family and keep the people that are sending their children there on a daily basis in the environment that they have been used to. I mean I don't have any Statute that says that that's the right answer, but from everything that I have heard that seems to be something that would work on both sides of the -- of the equation. Borup: And that can certainly be a condition. Zaremba: As Commissioner Rohm points out, this is a Conditional Use Permit and we can put conditions on that. I was thinking along the same lines actually, a little more generously. I was thinking six months, but my feeling is -- I'm so much in favor of a business that can grow, should grow and certainly there is a lot of human, personal, and emotional support. One, for this business and, two, for the care that you have been providing. It would seem to me if you could get these people to provide you with some advertising, you could make it into a 50 person day care pretty quick and should do that, by the sound of the care that you have been given and been able to give. It is in the wrong place and I think that's what has incensed the neighbors. This is not the right place to be doing this, particularly, since it has the potential to grow. I also did not necessarily get the sense of feeling from the neighbors that they hate you personally or want you to go to bankrupt tomorrow. I also got the feeling that if one of the conditions were that this is okay for 90 days or six months while this is worked out, that the neighbors could live with that. Also, the knowledge that after that it would definitely be illegal and I could support that, if other people could. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, if I might ask a question of the Commission. We currently have an illegal day care use. At the end of 90 days and the illegal day care use persists, what -- would you require the city take civil action to remove the day care from the facility? Zaremba: I think it would be appropriate at that point, yes. Centers: That was a comment I was going to make, Dave. You currently have -- can this body extend an illegal action that presently exists? I don't think we can but I think our attorney could voice in anytime he wants. Wollen: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, the first thing that I would add as a word of caution is that, as I see it, the Commission has received testimony tonight that this day care operates at approximately 20 children, as the Meridian Code sees it. There is a very good chance that this day care application is inappropriate for the CUP, which is being applied for, which would be for up to 12 children. Now, whether or not Meridian Planning & Zoning December 19, 2002 Page 51 of 116 that's a mistake that's been made by the applicant, that is still something where the Commission has to take into consideration what the parameters are on granting a CUP for a group -- for a group day care home in the first place and, Commissioner Centers, I'm sorry, I didn't clearly hear your question. Centers: To grant an extension of a violation now. You're in violation now and, then, we approve it for a 90-day period or four month period and taking into consideration that it wouldn't get to the City Council for another month and a half, they are still in violation. Then, the City Council approves it for 90 days, so we have got 120 or 150 days. I don't know. Wollen: Well, if the violation persists past the -- if the Council decided to allow a Conditional Use Permit which ended say six months -- hypothetically, six months from today, it would be -- and the condition persisted, it would be up to the city to take both civil and potentially criminal action against the violating business. Zaremba: My input would be what is the upside of overlooking the current illegality, trying to make it legal for a short period, let's say six months? The upside is that the business grows, employs more people, provides a service that's badly needed in Meridian, provides income to the City of Meridian, because it's a taxable business, provides employment to people who will be taxed -- I think there is some upsides to it. Centers: Excuse me, Commissioner Zaremba, the business better not grow, they are already above -- Zaremba: I don't mean in the present location, I mean find a location that -- Centers: Oh. Okay. Okay. Zaremba: I'm saying six months is a deadline on this location, but find a location that can handle 50 or 100 kids. I don't know. Maybe she could do that. Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I have a question of staff. Dave, didn't you mention that the state was reluctant to issue a new license based upon the fact that there is not a Conditional Use Permit at this location and they are waiting to see what kind of an action we took tonight before they acted on her application? It seems to me that if, in fact, that's the case, then, if, in fact, we issue an affirmative with a sunset of six months, then, they would be more inclined to issue a like license. I mean that just -- the logic seems to be there for that type of a conclusion. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I'll see if I can address in a couple different ways. I have had at least three phone conversations with Richard Swift at the state and he was very concerned that she had moved her day care without -- without contacting the state and telling them that it was going to be moved. The comment was made that she knows that the license does not run with the land -- it runs with the land, not with the person who is moving it from place to place and that Meridian Planning & Zoning December 19, 2002 Page 52 of 116 according -- regardless of what the state does with that license, we have an ordinance that we need to enforce in the city. If the state was to issue them a license and the city did not recognize that license and the city said that the license you have issued does not comply with our ordinances, the city still could take civil and criminal action against the illegal use. Basing anything on what the state has to say, I think we are overlooking the fact that Meridian has its own policies. Rohm: My only point is that the City of Meridian would not grant them something that they couldn't obtain a State License from for anyway. If the state won't issue a license, the City of Meridian is not going to override that and allow them to have a day care anyway. It's kind of like you got to have the State License first and, then, if the City of Meridian elects to exercise their option to deny the use of that license at that location, they still have that prerogative. The first thing that has to hurdle -- that has to take place is you have to have the State License to move forward. McKinnon: That's correct. Rohm: Correct? McKinnon: That is correct and I haven't had conversations with Dick concerning whether they would issue it without the city first, as far as that discussion would be concerned. Rohm: Thank you. Borup: It looks like we have a direction that Commission is leaning towards and that's having a condition with a specific time. I don't know. Is there any other discussion on -- Mathes: Can you put a date on that not just 90 days, but also an absolute date? Wollen: As I read the Meridian City Code, the Council would be able to approve a CUP either based on a duration or a certain date. I believe it specifically said in the code that control the duration of the development but as I interpret that, I believe that a date set certain could also be a duration from X to a date set certain. Mathes: I mean I think a date would be better, just like saying 25 feet on a two story or single-story. Wollen: But also, Commissioner Mathes, to be taken into consideration is the date of final -- if there is approval, date of final approval by the City Council, and at this point, this body has no idea when that date of final approval would be. Mathes: But if we put a date on it, can't the City Council override our date? Wollen: Oh, they certainly can. They certainly can. They can make changes -- I mean they can approve and change the recommendation of the Commission. Meridian Planning & Zoning December 19, 2002 Page 53 of 116 Borup: I think this Commission's purpose on a date is to allow the applicant time to find a new location. Wollen: Exactly. Borup: And that should start now. Zaremba: Well, that's what I was going to say. If we put a date certain on it, she doesn't have to wait until it's been before the City Council. I mean she's already looking and this puts her under the gun a little bit more to work out the deal with whomever she is going to work it out with. Borup: Right. The search for a new location wouldn't start with whatever City Council does it should start right now. Zaremba: It's already ongoing, but this just makes it more serious. Mathes: Well -- and for the homeowners involved, if they can get it done before summer when the kids are playing in the street, that's one less thing to worry about. Centers: Well, I would point out that she's been under the gun for some months and, you know, I would suspect that she has been looking. I don't know how serious she's been looking, but she's been under the gun knowing that her lease was going to expire last fall. Borup: Sometimes a little more pressure can help things. Centers: And yet moved back to her home and opened an illegal day care. It's just that simple. There is no other way to put it. I can't -- it's not only that, it's the neighbors, per City Code, that I do -- you know, they may say 90 days, six months, yes, we can put up with it, but, then, what happens when the date comes? We know what's happened to this date right now. She's still in the home illegally and we know how long it takes for certain enforcement to take place, so -- Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion. Borup: Please do. Rohm: I'd like to move -- make a motion that we forward this application, CUP 02-038, request for a Conditional Use Permit for an in-home day care in an R-8 zone to -- for Kinder Kollege by Kathy Jordan at 410 East Edgar Court, with the following conditions. This permit is to expire July 31, 2003, and must be accompanied by a State License. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, upon making that recommendation, I have got a couple of questions for clarification. We have had Meridian Planning & Zoning December 19, 2002 Page 54 of 116 testimony tonight that there are more than 12 children being cared for during the day. There are 20. Site Specific Comment Number 6 specifically states that no more than 12 children per day may be cared for by the applicant. In your motion are you intending to allow the 20? Rohm: No. I'd like to have it comply with all rules and regs associated with the Conditional Use Permit application, as in the 12 -- limit of 12 and all staff comments. McKinnon: Part of the reason for clarification is to make sure that all people here tonight realize that there shall be no more than 12 children at anytime at the home and I just wanted to make that very clear for both the applicant and all the people here -- Zaremba: Twelve cumulative. McKinnon: Twelve children cumulative during the day, so that the number of children that are currently there will not be allowed to continue. Borup: Okay. Zaremba: I will second that. Borup: Motion and second. Any discussion? Commissioner Mathes? Mathes: I don't like that date. I'd rather go March 30th . Rohm: Well, we talked between three months and six months and -- Mathes: Yes. The Council can override a date. Rohm: And they could override the July 31, just as they could a 90 day, and at appears as if it's not, then, that easy to find other commercial property and, along with that, Commissioner Zaremba's comment of six months. July 31st gives a final date -- Borup: That's seven and a half months, though. Mathes: Yes. Rohm: I would amend that to June 30th , then. Zaremba: The second accepts the amendment. Centers: And I would point out, too, that Council could also override any denial by this Commission, if the applicant elected to go to the Council. Smith: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, by the time we see this come out of City Council with an order, at the very earliest it's going to be January 21st – if we put this application Meridian Planning & Zoning December 19, 2002 Page 55 of 116 on back to back meetings for a Public Hearing and Findings so you might consider that in your recommendation. Rohm: Well, that won't change the fact that she's directed by this board to start looking for a new location and she already knows what her sunset is, even if the City Council grants her permission to occupy in the interim. She knows that there is no -- there is no continuance beyond what's granted in the CUP. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, one additional point of clarification. The recommendation you make tonight does not limit the City of Meridian from enforcing its ordinances until that time. The City of Meridian would still have the ability, regardless of your recommendation, to take criminal and civil action to make the operation cease, should the city choose to do so, during the interim. Rohm: And the city has that prerogative whether this is before the Planning and Zoning tonight or not, so that doesn't change. That's -- McKinnon: I wanted to make sure that any recommendation for approval with conditions would not be justification for continued used of the day care at this location until time of approval. Zaremba: Other than the five that's under the old AUP, which never expired right? McKinnon: That was a question I would have had for Nick earlier and I didn't ask it. Nick, on a change of use when a property ceases a use and, then, changes to -- from a use with a day care to no use to a residential use and back to a use with a period of time of two to three years -- I'm not sure exactly where it would fall. Would the use cease and would a new application have to be brought forth for an Accessory Use Permit? Wollen: Dave, I would have to see the original Conditional Use that was placed upon it, because there may have been limits of duration on that. McKinnon: Well, just a point of clarification. The first was just an Accessory Use Permit and an Accessory Use Permit goes through a similar Public Hearing, however, it does not have the same noticing requirements as a Conditional Use Permit and the Accessory Use Permits do have a Public Hearing, such as the one that we are having tonight. The recommending body, you, would not be the recommending body, but you would be the governing body. You could make that decision yourself. Wollen: It would be -- it would be my take on that that unless there were language within that AUP Ordinance requiring -- well, requiring re-upping the AUP, I believe it would extend throughout. There is not? Okay. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, there is no language that would require that. Meridian Planning & Zoning December 19, 2002 Page 56 of 116 Wollen: And, therefore, I believe that it would -- the AUP would still qualify if it's -- if it's the same individual that had applied for the AUP previously, if Kathy Jordan was the applicant on that. McKinnon: Thanks. Borup: Just a reminder, we do have a motion and second. We are still in the discussion. Are we ready to vote? Zaremba: I call the question. Borup: Okay. All in favor? Rohm: Aye. Zaremba: Aye. Borup: Opposed? Centers: Naye. Mathes: Naye. Borup: I'm going to -- McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, for a roll call vote, could we -- for the record, could we -- Borup: Well, two ayes and two nayes. We are tied at this moment. McKinnon: Thank you. Borup: And I would vote naye at this time, because -- because -- I agree with Commissioner Rohm's idea on a sunset date and I agree with Commissioner Mathes, that it's probably too far out so I vote naye and open for another motion. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman -- Borup: Wait a minute. I can't do that. Centers: That's the end of story here. Borup: Let me think about this, then. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, are you rescinding your motion and asking for a new motion? Borup: Yes. Can I do that? Meridian Planning & Zoning December 19, 2002 Page 57 of 116 McKinnon: You didn't make the motion. Borup: I didn't make the motion no but at this point it's a tie. If I decline to vote -- Zaremba: It would die. Borup: It would die, which is what I will do. McKinnon: So, Mr. Chairman, for the record -- Borup: Are you covering this, Nick? Wollen: Oh, yes, I -- Borup: Okay. Thank you. Zaremba: Now, we are open -- Borup: We are open for another motion, aren't we? Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Commissioner Rohm -- Centers: Point of order. I thought the Chairman already voted? He voted naye, because he didn't like the date in the motion, correct? Borup: I changed my mind real quick there. Centers: Okay. Well, you know, I'm not a Robert's Rules of Order, but -- Zaremba: Well, the Chairman did not carry it so far as to make the final summary of the vote and -- Borup: No, I -- Zaremba: -- and declare whether it passed or not. Borup: I did not do that. Zaremba: On the assumption that that motion died, I move that we forward to the City Council recommending approval of CUP 02-038, request for a Conditional Use Permit for an in-home day care in an R-8 zone for Kinder Kollege by Kathy Jordan, 410 East Edgar Court, such CUP to terminate and expire on March 31st . Also, to limit the number of children to a cumulative 12, plus her own children, and all other staff comments. Meridian Planning & Zoning December 19, 2002 Page 58 of 116 Rohm: I will second that motion. Borup: Motion and second. Any discussion? Centers: Yes I would like to further comment that by condoning this -- or by approving it until the end of March, you're just condoning the illegality that's been going on and you're saying I will give her another two or three months to operate. She is illegal until she gets to the City Council, which is over a month from now and we are condoning that? Rohm: If the city elects to take action in the interim, so be it. We can't dictate to the city what kind of action they take between now and when City Council -- Centers: So you're just going to leave them illegal. Zaremba: My feeling is it benefits enough to everybody. Again, thinking down the distance, if this business is able to grow and becomes a benefit to Meridian in another location -- I think we have made that clear, I think the end result is worthwhile. Centers: Do you really think she's going to find a place in three and a half months, when she's had who knows how many months to find a place? Zaremba: I'm not going to be so generous three months from now. Centers: And, then, when she's there at the end of March, who is going to -- who is going to enforce -- enforce it then, when they are trying to enforce it now? It's going to be more difficult then. Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I call for the question. Borup: Okay. All in favor? Do we need a roll call vote here? All opposed? Is that three ayes and one nay? Mathes: Can I ask a question? How can you enforce it I mean can the city go now? Borup: Sure. Yes. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Mathes, absolutely. The city can go now. We could write a ticket for every 24 hours as a misdemeanor that she continues to operate until such time as it's a legal use, regardless of what you do tonight. Centers: That's why I voted against it. McKinnon: And the city has to take action. The city has started action to have the operation -- visits have been made by different parties. I have spoken with -- I have spoken with our Code Enforcement Officer, the new Code Enforcement Officer that we Meridian Planning & Zoning December 19, 2002 Page 59 of 116 have. I have spoken with the Planning Director, who has spoken with the Chief of Police, who has indicated that he will send an officer out to issue a citation. I'm following up tomorrow morning with Captain Musser of the Police Department to make sure that the City of Meridian's ordinances are being -- that the violation is being enforced upon. Centers: And, then, let me ask this question. When the applicant tells that individual that, hey, the Planning and Zoning gave me a temporary approval last night for three and a half months, is going to write a ticket? Maybe not. McKinnon: The Planning and Zoning Commission has no authority -- Centers: Right. I know. I know. Zaremba: We are just recommending approval. Centers: I know that. McKinnon: In discussions with the Police Department, we can tell them that there is no approval at this time, regardless of the recommendation that's been made, and that the operation will be illegal until such time as the City Council recommends approval and the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law of their decision are made. Borup: Okay. Did that answer your question, Commissioner Mathes? You're still confused? Mathes: Can you tell? McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, there is a motion that's been on the table, there has been a call for a vote -- Borup: Right. McKinnon: Would it be appropriate to ask for a roll call vote, for clarification? Borup: Let's do that. Roll Call Vote: Rohm, aye; Centers, naye; Zaremba, aye; Mathes, aye. Borup: Okay. Three ayes. One naye. McKinnon: Thank you. Mr. Chairman, a clarification on the motion. I know it will be in the minutes, but as far as making a recommendation, the motion was for March 31st is that correct? Zaremba: There are 31 days in March right? Meridian Planning & Zoning December 19, 2002 Page 60 of 116 McKinnon: I hope so. Zaremba: It was for March 31st . McKinnon: March 31st would be the end date and that's the motion that, plus the 12 children. Zaremba: Yes cumulative 12, plus her own. McKinnon: Okay. Thank you. Borup: Okay. As I said, the ayes have it. Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE NAYE Borup: Thank you, Commissioners and thank everyone for being here and hope -- Zaremba: Thank you for participating in the process. Borup: We appreciate that and we hope this was a solution that was helpful for everyone. Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to take a recess. Borup: Yes. McKinnon: One question to Sharon. When will the City Council Meeting be held for this? Smith: We can rush this application and the notices -- if I get in first thing in the morning and do notices, it will be heard January 14th . McKinnon: Thank you. Borup: It tentatively could be -- they are going to try to get it on the January 14th Agenda. Commissioner Rohm asked for a short recess. I think that would be appropriate. (Recess at 10:00 P.M.) (Reconvene at 10:17 P.M.) Item 11. Public Hearing: RZ 02-008 Request for a Rezone of 1.99 acres from R- 15 to R-40 zones for proposed Creekside Arbour II by Bill and Lucy Leavell - 1425 Northeast 5th Street: Meridian Planning & Zoning December 19, 2002 Page 61 of 116 Item 12. Public Hearing: CUP 02-040 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for apartment units on 1.99 acres in a proposed R-40 zone for proposed Creekside Arbour II by Bill and Lucy Leavell - 1425 Northeast 5th Street: Borup: We will continue our meeting this evening. Let's continue with Item Number 11 and 12, Public Hearing RZ 02-008, request for a rezone of 1.99 acres from R-15 to R- 40 zones for proposed Creekside Arbour -- now, this should be three, rather than two? It is two. Okay. Creekside Arbour II by Bill and Lucy Leavell and Public Hearing CUP 02-040, request for Conditional Use Permit for apartment units on the same 1.99 acres in a proposed R-40 zone at 1425 Northeast 5th Street. Open both these Public Hearings at this time and start with the staff report. McKinnon: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. I have outlined the actual site on the map that's hanging on the wall right now. The property is the bolded area. It's just off of Fairview Avenue and it's immediately adjacent to the other parts of the apartment complex and there was some discussion just a moment ago concerning whether this was part three. This is actually -- and they have clarified for us -- the annex of Phase 2. Again, the property is right here. This aerial photo was taken prior to the development of the rest of the apartment complex. However, this area that I'm showing with the highlighted pen, has already been developed with apartment type housing. There is another more recent -- no, that's an older photo, wow. The proposed site is basically rectangular in shape. The site has been requested for a rezone, as you have noticed, to an R-40 zoning designation. The future land use comprehensive map states that that property should be zoned high density residential. R-40 fits into that requirement for the high density residential. If you consider the fact that the applicant is asking for six individual two-story apartments with eight apartments in each building that would be a total of 48 dwelling units on the site, for a gross density of 1.99 acres with, essentially, 24 units per acre, which is well under the 40, very similar in type, style -- actually, a little higher density than the existing site. There are some single unit apartments in this project, single room apartments. As far as the staff report goes, the major points of interest that I would like to point out to you would be the Site-Specific Requirements Number 1. There is A and B, but they should replace the rock that's shown in the planter beds. Meridian City Code -- the Landscaping Ordinance specifically prohibits the use of non-organic material in required planter beds. These are required planter beds as buffers between land uses. They do need to change that to organic material. I talked with the applicant and they are okay with the Site-Specific requirement. Number -- letter B under one, if they add a minimum of 50 square foot planter with a two-inch caliper tree in between the three trash enclosures and the sidewalk without a landscaping break and linearly arranged parking. Let me explain what that means. As I read that and talk to the applicant, that's somewhat confusing in the wording. As you will notice in the Site Plan, there are three garbage facilities, or dumpsters, probably three-yard dumpsters that would be used by the apartments and the people that live within the apartments. The Landscape Ordinance requires that you have no more than 12 parking spaces linearly arranged without a landscape break or a break of some sort. Rather than install any landscaping to break up the linearly arranged parking, they have installed these trash enclosures to break that up. It doesn't Meridian Planning & Zoning December 19, 2002 Page 62 of 116 meet the intent of the Landscape Ordinance. If the applicant were to pull the trash enclosures, like the highlighted one, to the north and provide a 10-foot landscape buffer behind it immediately adjacent to the sidewalk, they could do one that's essentially 50 square feet. They could put a two-inch caliper tree in that, with the associated bark or whatever type of organic material plants or bark, that would go around that new landscape buffer. Essentially, the other two garbage dumpster areas as well could be pulled closer to the driveway aisles and the landscaped trees and landscaping could be placed there. I talked to the applicant about that and they don't have a problem with that, they are okay with that, and I wanted to point that out to you and offer some additional clarification. Those are the major issues that we really have. They don't seem real major ones. I explained them to you, I have talked to the applicant, they agree with the conditions of approval. I would ask if there are any questions that you might have of staff at this time. Borup: Any questions from the Commissioners? Centers: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Dave, this Item 6 under site-specific, does that address the letter from Loren Ross and that drainage problem on the Leavell property or -- McKinnon: Do you have the letter from Loren Ross? Centers: Did you see the letter with pictures? McKinnon: I don't have a letter from Loren Ross in my app. Okay. Bruce can address that. Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, the concern area -- the area of concern, the subject of Mr. Ross's letter, was for the phase of apartments that was built here, which was, I believe, under the Hunter Glen application, and also the phase that was in this area. Excuse me. Yes this area. Pertaining to the drainage that dropped into this ditch that goes right across here. Centers: Okay yes. Freckleton: This is the subject application area here. Centers: Thank you. Zaremba: I think the issue is he felt the drainage was not properly dealt with and if he is adjacent to this property, how convinced are we that drainage is going to be properly dealt with on this application specifically? Borup: And that's what Item Number 6 addresses. Zaremba: Yes. Meridian Planning & Zoning December 19, 2002 Page 63 of 116 McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I'd love to hear some testimony about that -- Borup: I'm sure we will have a chance for that. Okay any additional questions? Does the applicant have anything they'd like to add? Knopp: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, my name is Larry Knopp, 355 South 3rd Street. I'm the architect representing the Leavell’s on this project. I think Dave has covered all the site-specific on both the Conditional Use and on the rezone. As he has indicated, we don't have a problem with any of them and we will work with Planning and Zoning on that redesign of the trash and landscaping and get it to where we want it, so that we are in compliance with the Landscape Ordinance. Borup: Is that the intention on the trash to move it closer to the -- Knopp: Yes. Whatever works. Borup: -- parking and have the landscaping between that and the sidewalk? Knopp: Right. Borup: Okay. Knopp: And what we have designed as far as the trash enclosure goes is a facility that the Nampa Sanitary Trash Company likes to see. If we pushed it out towards the driveway, what we will probably end up doing, because what we have got is an offset gate on the front of it that allows the residents to put trash in the enclosure with the gate still closed and screening that trash enclosure. As everybody probably knows, if you close those gates and the people -- people won't open them, they will throw the trash over the -- and, then, it's just a big mess. Probably what we might end up doing, looking at and working with the trash company on this, is we might leave the gates flush, so that we don't have a problem of them encroaching into that driveway. Provide a little sidewalk on the back side next to the pedestrian walk that -- and an opening that the people can go into that trash enclosure, throw the trash into it, and I think that will work great for everybody that's concerned. We will work with them on that come up with a solution that will satisfy everybody on that one. Now onto the drainage issue, a letter from Mr. Ross on what has happened. I initially was not in the original phase or the original concept of Creekside Arbour, which is on the south side of Badley Street, which is -- let me see. Get this high tech stuff here. Which is in this area below here. That's the original phase that started this whole thing and which facilitated Badley Street being extended down and brought in -- Borup: Might want to just bring your mike over just a little bit. Knopp: And as the Commission very well knows, water rights, drainage ditches and irrigations ditches are fairly sacred in our state. We are required to continue drainage Meridian Planning & Zoning December 19, 2002 Page 64 of 116 through our project, if it's there and, continue it to the point where it either enters or exits. This is really what has transpired through the original phase and Phase 1, which I did, which is this phase and, then, Phase 2, which we are talking about right now, which is this portion. The Leavell’s on the original improvement, the original rezone and Conditional Use for the apartment, had to construct Badley Street down an improvement -- improve it and, then, give it to ACHD. They improved it according to ACHD standards and they tiled and extended the drain ditch or the irrigation ditches that were in there through and that's what we have done. I went out and took some pictures of what we have got and what's happening there now. I thought maybe it might be a little better clarification to the Commission. This photograph shows -- that photograph shows the perimeter fencing and screening that was installed in Phase 1 that I worked on, which we have continued -- we have continued up the west side up and clear over to this point. The screen fence was done in recognition that this parcel, as soon as they could get to that phase, they would start on it and do that phase, so the -- Borup: Commissioners, the second photograph we have got is the one he's describing. Knopp: Right and that -- we tiled that drain through and that ditch that goes along through there and must feed something down here. We brought it, tiled it to that point, and that's the picture that you guys are looking at, at this point in time. I think it's fairly evident through these photographs that that ditch has been there for a number of years and that's why the agencies, through the original phase and through Phase 1, made us tile it and continue that through, so -- and that's what we have done. Now, on this Phase 2, we will be -- we are required to have a civil engineer do a Drainage Plan and that drainage on this portion will be handled on that as required by the ordinance and by state law. We will have to submit a Drainage Plan during the permit process that they will review and approve. Rohm: Do you have a preliminary Drainage Plan? Knopp: No, we don't. Centers: Well, staff covered that. Knopp: No. We have to provide one. It's a pretty standard condition that that site drainage be handled and addressed during the construction drawing contract document phase and be approved prior to issuance of a Building Permit. Otherwise, we make it short and sweet and we don't have to drag this on all night. Borup: Any questions from the Commission? Zaremba: I'm just curious where -- I can see where the terminal end of that drainage is. Where does it begin and what is the source of whatever is being drained? Centers: Way down here. Meridian Planning & Zoning December 19, 2002 Page 65 of 116 Knopp: It's back down over here someplace. This is the original phase and I'm not sure where and I can't give you that and maybe -- and maybe the Leavell’s can tell you where that ditch originated. I do know that it was tiled right along the street under the street and it stopped right under the street there on phase -- or on the original phase. Then, when we did Phase 1, which is this phase, we extended that, because the ditch was right on -- right on our property here. We extended it from the road down the fence line and day lighted it out at this ditch. That's all we did on Phase 1 and we won't be doing any -- Zaremba: I guess my question is whatever is in that water, I guess, that's being drained from somewhere, is not actually draining off of your property, it's being carried from some upstream place -- Knopp: That is correct. Zaremba: -- to there so -- Knopp: That is correct. Centers: That's your fence? Knopp: Pardon? Centers: That's your fence right there? Knopp: Yes. Centers: Yes. Knopp: Yes. Freckleton: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Some clarification? Freckleton: Well, Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to make a point that this discussion about this ditch was in a previous phase. It's not within the boundaries of this application. We are talking about stuff that has happened in previous phases, so keep that in mind. Centers: Works with me. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I have one question for Larry, if I might. Mr. Knopp, the fence that is shown in this picture is the same type of fence that you're going to continue on this Phase 2 of this project, the concrete fence? Meridian Planning & Zoning December 19, 2002 Page 66 of 116 Knopp: No, it isn't. We did a concrete fence on a portion of it and at -- I believe we did it -- did the concrete fence to this portion and, then, we continued a wood screen fence from there down and over to that point. Borup: So that fence is installed now? Knopp: Yes. That's installed now and will stay there. We elected to screen it and go through the cost of it now, because we knew that this phase was coming up and we would have to do that. One reason why we changed it to a wood fence was that concrete fence that we put in was very expensive and we would love to have done that, you know, and continued, but I mean there is a point in time where we have to be realistic on what the cost is, so -- also all the utilities are stubbed in for this. Everything is there. We have designed it, stubbed it in, so that we would disturb that private street out there very little. We didn't want to dig it up and tie back into it. The existing irrigation system landscape system will -- is an ongoing well, existing well that was there, that has been sized to accommodate the total project, so we don't have any -- you know, we don't have any problem there as far as irrigation or happen to address it from the ditch that's there, so -- Borup: Okay. Thank you. Knopp: Thank you. I could probably leave these other pictures, if you would like, of what's transpired as far as that ditch, but as Bruce had indicated, that was -- that was originally done under phase -- under the original phase of this and so we will wait for -- Borup: Yes. It's off site from this application. Anything else from the applicant? Leavell’s have anything else to add and -- Leavell: I'm Bill Leavell and it's 2720 South Areola -- or North -- South Areola Lane. Anyway, that ditch originated clear up here by another apartment complex on the other side of me and, then, came down behind my property. I had to tile it -- put a ditch in under the road right here. Anyway, we tiled that under the road also. When I bought the land from Ross right there, the little square you can see, the first part of Badley, it went all the way down to Badley with that and quite extensive putting that road, too, because we had a bog right in there in there where that creek was and we had to dig that out. We lost a Cat down there, too, one time, a D-6, and had to dig that thing out. Anyway, that's where the water is coming from. Then, it's coming from up here at the corner at 21/2 Street there, that woman flood irrigates and there is a steady stream of water when she's irrigating coming down Badley and then going into that ditch right there. That's where most of the water is coming from and it's coming from this other side, too, where the houses are built. They irrigate and water comes down there so I'm seeing all the water coming from 2 1/2 Street down. Borup: Okay. Thank you. We have only got one person left. Mr. Ross, did you have something you would like to add? Meridian Planning & Zoning December 19, 2002 Page 67 of 116 Ross: I don't have anything to say. You have said -- I'm Loren Ross. I own the adjoining property to the project and -- Centers: Excuse me. Right here? Ross: That's correct. I own from Fairview to Badley continuous 3rd Street being the -- East 3rd Street being the west boundary part of the property. To the east would be Leavell’s. Most of what was said was accurate. There were some places that I felt was inaccurate that has been testified. I realize this is not consistent with the application, but I can't support future development of property until we address what's already been in place. I feel it's been -- the drain hasn't been properly dealt with and the people that are responsible for it and that could be a collage of Leavell’s, ACHD, or the City of Meridian. Somewhere -- I sold land for the road to come through and I sold that for a couple of reasons. One of them to be a good neighbor and secondly, I think it's for the betterment of the community that this property should be developed, as opposed to sitting the way it is so I did sell that property. The part you see from my property line going east, if I'm not mistaken, that's private -- that's a private road. From there to there, I believe, is private, from here to here is public, if I'm not -- if I understand correctly. If, in fact, this drains into the same drain, I'm not sure that's a legal drain, being private property, it has to drain into a drain ditch. I did have conversations with Bill before this phase was in. I was down there, because we wanted to talk about the fence and he told me the type of fence he was going to put in here. I saw this drain and I said, well, how are you going to deal with that drain, because it was directed onto his property. I was told at that time that it would be incorporated into the drain beds for their project. Consequently, my letter -- the first letter dated in March of 2001, I was down doing some maintenance on the property and, low and behold, it's right there. Now, there is a reason he lost his Cat right there and there is a reason this land is all filled, because of the bog. It always was. We have owned the property for 54 years so we have a little reference point. This has been blocked through here for 20 years so if all of this so-called drainage is coming through here, where has it been going? Not on my land. The only thing you see on that ditch is stagnate level high water table. Your water table through all of this of area right here is roughly three and a half feet. You can go dig a posthole anywhere, come back 20 minutes later, and it will be half full of water. Don't matter, you can do it today, you can do it during irrigation, that's what it is. You can lose all kinds of big equipment down there, but it's not because of irrigation, it's the high water table. The water right here -- and at my expense I tiled right here down to a collector point. This is the intersection of Gruber and East 3rd . I tiled this about two years ago and this is where the water comes down from 2 1/2 Street here and when they put the road in they tiled right under right here, put the collector box right here. I put in a collector box and tiled right on down to the collector point. This is all high. This is all blocked. If there is water coming here, why do we never see it? All you ever see is static water level, so -- Borup: So you're saying this is a drain ditch that doesn't have any water in it? Meridian Planning & Zoning December 19, 2002 Page 68 of 116 Ross: That's correct. Hasn't for 20 years. This property -- my property has had the water right sold off of it for 20 years. We sold it off and all of this other land that's developed in here that's been less than none of the irrigation that came down through here. All of this land as been filled this has been filled. We watch this rather regularly, we keep it cleaned off, and we know what's going on with this land. There is no water going in through here. Hasn't been for 20 years. Centers: So nothing's coming out of that drainpipe? Ross: No. Borup: Sounds like there is no -- Ross: Well, it is now they are draining Badley Street. Badley Street drains into that pipe and that was my comment. If Badley Street -- Centers: Due to the slope of the street? Ross: That's where it -- every street has to drain and that's where it went. That's where they put it. Badley Street -- now my comment, again, from right here to here -- and I think your records will verify this, that's a private road. Since when can you drain private parking lots or private roads into a -- if it were -- a drain ditch? It's not allowed. Ask your Counsel. Wollen: I don't have sufficient information to give an answer on that. Ross: Well, I have done some research. It's not legal. Anyway, this is filled and this is high so, I'm not sitting here trying to make impossible situations. I sold the road that I felt was being congenial to the community and to a neighbor and I end up with a proposed drainage problem that cost more than the land ever was worth. All I want people to do is step up and take responsibility for the drain. Cure it. They can either go back into their property and put a drain at that end or they can tile across mine. There are no easements. It's not like that ditch has easements. Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, if I could ask Mr. Ross a question. When you said tile it across your property, Mr. Ross, what alignment would you propose? Ross: I would propose going down to -- right along Badley Street. Freckleton: Down to the pipe that you installed? Ross: My pipe probably wouldn't be big enough to install it, if it will -- or to carry it. If it's adequate, I don't have a problem tapping into it. I ran a 12 incher, but what I see there is 24-inch or thereabouts am I correct? You know, you start running 24-inch times 400 feet you can do the math on that. I don't feel I should have to be responsible for that. Meridian Planning & Zoning December 19, 2002 Page 69 of 116 Centers: Well, I think, Mr. Ross, Mr. Freckleton pointed out earlier -- and you probably knew that -- this issue is not part of our application. I think what you have done is come of record, rightfully so, and, then, you take the issue up with the legal sources or the city regarding drainage off a private road, et cetera, and take it further from there and you have made your point tonight. I would have been here, too, if I were you but it's not part of this application. Ross: The only part of the application I would see, you asked if I would put the blessings on it. I won't. That's the question you asked me is that correct? Centers: No. Ross: You asked me to make a comment on the proposed -- you didn't ask -- this letter didn't ask if I had comments to come to this meeting? Borup: Yes and that's what we asked for is your comment on this application. Centers: I didn't ask you that tonight. Ross: But you asked me if I would concur or accept this -- more development of land, I won't so for whatever that's worth, you can take that for what it's worth. It's a negative. Borup: Okay. Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, for the record, I just want to point out that I received this late this afternoon, so the little bit of time I did have to look into it prior to this meeting, that was when I found these old aerial photos that we included in the presentation for this evening. In looking at the '95 aerial, what I was trying to determine was the existence of the ditch crossing the property. Was it -- does it appear to be historically open during the time of construction. This photo was taken after Phase 1 or Hunter Glen Apartments going in. It's really hard to tell from this aerial, but it does appear that the ditch is pretty well defined across the property. Ross: It would look defined from an aerial, because, as I say, it has static water in it in the areas that aren't filled and you will see cattails. Freckleton: Does it go into a pipe or -- Ross: Right there. Freckleton: Continue on across the -- Ross: The pipe's right there. Freckleton: Okay. Meridian Planning & Zoning December 19, 2002 Page 70 of 116 Ross: The collector right there and it goes like this. Freckleton: Okay and, then, in this photo it was taken in the year 2000, it appears that the ditch has been obliterated it's gone. Ross: There has been some fill right in here for 20 years. In other words, it wouldn't flow. Freckleton: Okay. Ross: You asked me to take it up with the proper sources. I did write the city -- Mr. Brad Watson, which is your City Engineer -- Centers: I read that yes. Ross: But did you notice the date on it? Centers: Yes. Sure did. Ross: Ask me if I got a response. Centers: I guess I don't need to ask. Ross: Well, you might so that's why I'm here. Center: Yes I don't blame you a bit. Let me ask -- you made the comment that it runs into here. You said you put a drainpipe in here? Ross: That's correct. Centers: And, then, this runs into it? Rohm: No. There is no water that goes into that. Centers: Okay. I didn't catch you on that. Ross: What is the issue right here, 2 1/2 Street has gravity irrigation, that's the street right here. It comes down here and when people are through with their water, it goes through a collector box and comes right through here and, then, up until two years ago, this was an open ditch down through here. There were cattails and kids played in it to the point they would come down and plug up this drain from this water coming through here. Then, it would flood all through this area, because kids would throw boards or whatever the case. Two years ago, I had a company come in and tile this all through here to alleviate that problem of the open ditch, but it's been this route for many, many years and that's why this is all plugged off. There was no purpose. Meridian Planning & Zoning December 19, 2002 Page 71 of 116 Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, I don't -- I don't know who -- I can't remember off the top of my head who the engineering firm was that did the original designs for -- Ross: Pinnacle. Freckleton: It was Pinnacle that did Hunter Glen? Ross: That's the names I have was Pinnacle. Freckleton: Hubble did the original? Okay. That's when I understand that the first catch basins were installed here was with Hunter Glen Apartments. With the second phase -- when it went in, they picked the discharge point up and put it in pipe over to this discharge point is that correct? Ross: That's correct. Freckleton: Okay at the point in time when Hubble did this original design for Hunter Glen, I believe it was their duty to -- they had to design the drainage system for the project. That might be a place to go back, start asking some questions as to why they - - if this ditch was an abandoned ditch, why did they design their discharge going into an abandoned ditch? Ross: When this road here was extended, Badley, all through here, it's tiled and a collector box right there catches the irrigation for 2 1/2 Street. It goes under the street right here and up until two years ago, it was an open ditch from here to here. I had a contractor put in a collector box right here and tile down here and carries that same water. Why this is down here I haven't a clue, because there is no collection of water here. The only collection of water that is there would be here now -- and the question was asked why is there a 20-inch tile there? Well, because Badley Street drains from here down to here and I'm going to guess here, but if anybody that wants to look to validate if I'm right or wrong, I'm going to suspect that from here to here dumps to there also, which is a private road. Am I accurate? Freckleton: It probably does. Ross: I'm speculating, though. Freckleton: I know there is a -- in this project there is a valley gutter that flows this direction back to the west. Ross: That's my point. Freckleton: The size of the pipe had to be designed based on some historical criteria, whether it was -- you know, they had to have some historical flows or something to size that pipe. Meridian Planning & Zoning December 19, 2002 Page 72 of 116 Ross: Or the run-off of Badley Street for a block. Freckleton: So, yes, like I say, I got this, this afternoon. I do think it merits going back and looking into the records and finding out what happened. Ross: For the record, I did have Ada County Highway District come out and look at it and basically what I got was a lot of waffling and tongue wollering and see you later so that's where we are at. Centers: Mr. Freckleton, Mr. Watson is your superior isn't he? Freckleton: Correct. Centers: Correct. Ross: That's all I have to say. Borup: Thank you. Do you have any final comments, Larry? Knopp: Yes. Larry Knopp. This, as I had stated, on the original phase of Creekside Arbour or Hunter Glen or whatever the name was -- because I was not associated in that -- they were responsible for putting in -- extending Badley Street. They worked with ACHD on that, they worked on the drainage, and so what was established in the drainage and what's happening there was under that phase originally. Now, again, I must reiterate, as the Commission, I'm sure, is very well aware of, that you can't stop natural flow, whether it's drainage or whether it's irrigation water, through the state. Ditches, drainage, irrigation, are sacred and you have to maintain that. Size of the pipe and what's going there is kind of sized according to passed history and what's it collecting. You know, we would have -- I'm sure the Leavell’s would have loved to be able to say, you know, nothing's going on with that, we will just cover over that ditch, we won't go through the expense of that. We will just get on with our original phase and not have to go with that, but as the law requires, they must maintain flow of that ditch and that's what they did. Like I said, on this phase that I was associated with, we just had to extend that pipe that was brought to that point, down the property line, so that we would continue that flow of this ditch, whether it's active or whether it isn't and so we did that. We day lighted the pipe, and Mr. Ross has got the good fortune of doing the same thing whenever he develops out or whenever somebody buys it and does that. That's -- that's part of the deal. Now, the Leavell’s would be more than happy to work with Mr. Ross, go down to ACHD or whatever, and try to resolve any solution that might be rising from drainage off of Badley Street, but that was all engineered to specifications of ACHD and approved in the original phase, so -- Borup: So the extension of pipe that you did, I'm assuming is the diameter that was in existence back from the original phase? Knopp: Yes. Meridian Planning & Zoning December 19, 2002 Page 73 of 116 Borup: It's the same size pipe that was extended on through? Knopp: Right because -- and if there is no pipe existing, then, we have to use history, size of the ditch, to try to -- to try to make sure that we don't neck that down and throttle it down, that that diameter is maintained. It wasn't -- it wasn't our wish to have the 24- inch, it was -- it was a design that dictated it to us to maintain that flow and continuity through that property and onto the next property, so -- Borup: Thank you. Knopp: Anything else? Borup: Anything other questions from the Commission? Knopp: Thank you. Borup: Commissioners? Centers: Well, I would move we close the Public Hearing. Zaremba: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Centers: Well, I can -- I think I can understand Mr. Ross's concerns, but, as we stated earlier, they are not part of this application and he's gone on record and I think, if I were him, I would have done the same thing. I would like to make a motion that we recommend approval to City Council for Item Number 11 on our Agenda. RZ 02-008, request for a rezone of 1.99 acres from R-15 to R-40 zone for proposed Creekside Arbour by Bill -- that's Arbour II, by Bill and Lucy Leavell, residing at 1425 Northeast 5th Street, including all staff comments related to that. Mathes: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Centers: I would also like to recommend approval to the City Council for Item 12, CUP 02-040, request for a Conditional Use Permit for apartment units on 1.99 acres in a proposed R-40 zone for proposed Creekside Arbour II by Bill and Lucy Leavell, residing at 1425 Northeast 5th Street, including all staff comments pertaining to that. Mathes: Second. Meridian Planning & Zoning December 19, 2002 Page 74 of 116 Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Item 7. Public Hearing: Wireless Communication Tower Ordinance: Borup: Thank you all. Okay. Item Number 7, Public Hearing on Wireless Communication Tower Ordinance and that's what I thought. Open this -- I think if that was a problem, it was -- was that at a workshop? We did it in a workshop and so we have gone through everything. I think we have hammered everything out and these are being noticed as a Public Hearing, so I'd like to start with opening the Public Hearing on the Wireless Communication Tower Ordinance at this point and turn the time over to Mr. McKinnon. Zaremba: You know we are not going to let it rest with -- Borup: Yes. The Public Hearing, so we will start with the staff report and go from there. McKinnon: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. I don't believe Commissioner Rohm was a Commissioner at the time we went through this back in August, but the City of Meridian currently does not have a Cell Tower Ordinance or any ordinances that address the issue of wireless communication towers. Whether they are cell or beeper type of PCS or -- so -- and we felt that, it would be appropriate at this time to adopt some language for that. We held a meeting -- several meetings, actually, and we have discussed a few different items. One of the recommendations that came out from our workshop from the Planning and Zoning Commission that was requested to be added to the wireless communication tower you have in front of you is found in the Recommendation Page 1 and that was to add that they shall be no signs or banners attached to the cell tower. That was, essentially, the only major change that you requested to be placed on the application that was before you in August. Essentially, we have set up an ordinance that's very similar to the City of Eagle, Ada County, Boise City's, took the things that we felt were the best from the -- from those in the area, took some additional language from other cities. We modified it further to include some stealth tower information, which you don't find in very many other jurisdictions, to allow stealth towers as a permitted use in several zones. That's what you have got in front of you tonight. I won't go into an in-depth overview, but we need something in place, we are still receiving applications for cell towers, and it would be really nice to be able to tell people what the requirements are for cell towers in the City of Meridian. With that I would ask if you have any questions. Centers: Mr. Chairman, would it be appropriate to open all three Public Hearings, we discuss them all, and, then, vote on all of them at the same time? Could we do that? Borup: Could we vote on all of them at the same time? Centers: Separately, just like as we do on -- Meridian Planning & Zoning December 19, 2002 Page 75 of 116 Borup: Okay just go ahead and discuss the other two while we are at it? Centers: Yes. Item 8. Public Hearing: Amendment to Meridian City Code 11-2-2, Definitions of the Zoning Regulations Ordinance: Item 9. Public Hearing: Amendment to Meridian City Code 11-15-5, Posting Requirements. Borup: Yes. Let's go ahead and do that, open Public Hearing on the amendment to the City Code 11-2-2, definition of Zoning Regulations Ordinances and also open Public Hearing on the amendment to Meridian City Code 11-15-5, the posting requirements. Have you got some additional things you would like to add on those, David? McKinnon: Sure just a couple things, especially for Commissioner Rohm. The definitions are essentially the definitions that we refer to in our ordinance, but aren't defined. We have definitions for specific uses and they are not actually in our definitions and so it's hard for someone to come in and say what is, for example, a storage facility outdoor? We don't have any definition for what that is currently and we have come up with some definitions to be included with our schedule of use control and for the Zoning Ordinance, so that when people ask to do something, we can tell them exactly what that means, rather than having it be a gray area. Borup: So it's either that or they have been eliminated is that correct? McKinnon: Correct some items have been eliminated and some have been clarified. There were some issues, such as, you know, motor vehicle repair and automotive repair. In some instances they were permitted in some zones for motor vehicle repair, but prohibited if it was automotive repair and -- exactly. There was no difference and they weren't defined clearly and so we have gone through and added a number of definitions and changes, like eliminating auto repair shop entirely, rather than having automotive repair -- auto repair shop and motor vehicle repair, we have changed some. It's just a clarification, for the most part. As Commissioner Zaremba will point out, we still need a new definition for industrial and we really don't have that broken down. Here is still a lot of debate over how we are going to handle that and we are still working on that as a staff. Zaremba: I have a solution to it. McKinnon: Let me get through Item Number 9, which were the posting requirements. As you remember, the posting requirements in the City of Meridian right now are that the applicant posts an 11-by-17 yellow sign that says there is a Public Hearing. We felt that that was inadequate and Council felt that was inadequate and asked the staff to go ahead and come up with some new ideas for noticing. The new ordinance is very similar to the Eagle City Ordinance, for those of you who have driven through Eagle and Meridian Planning & Zoning December 19, 2002 Page 76 of 116 seen their larger signs, 4-by-4 signs on 4-by-4 posts. They attract a lot more attention. In addition to the new noticing requirements for certain items, it really requires the 4-by- 4's for larger projects, five acres or more or for comp plan amendments of three acres or more. For example, tonight -- trying to think if we would have been required either -- any of the applications to even come before you with those huge noticing signs. Cobblestone we would have, but that's something that's big enough in scope that would require that, but the other two that we heard tonight would not have required that and they could have still used the 11-by-17's. One additional comment on that was at the workshop we talked quite a bit about having neighborhood meetings, whether or not we want to require neighborhood meetings for all applications. The language that we came up with is listed in here, but just an overview of that would be that rather than require it prior to submission. That we would -- you may be able to require that at the Commission hearing and say we are going to continue this until such time as a neighborhood meeting has taken place and some of the issues have been worked out. Centers: And you're going to warn them of that? McKinnon: Absolutely. It would be in the ordinance. The way the ordinance is written, I believe the proposed ordinance is written, is that it is very strongly encouraged to hold a neighborhood meeting. Zaremba: But the essence is it may be required? McKinnon: Yes and that the Planning and Zoning Commission and/or the City Council may require the applicant to hold a neighbor meeting. Borup: And I know that's how we left it before. I'm just reading that again and wondered if something pertaining to staff should be added in there. What I'm thinking of -- I mean if they come -- by the time they come to Planning and Zoning or City Council, then, they say they got to go back and hold another neighborhood meeting, they have lost a lot of time, or that staff -- and probably you would do this anyway. Say I think Planning and Zoning is going to want you to have a neighborhood meeting and we -- we highly recommend that you do it. I guess it already says that, but would staff normally emphasize that on those that you seem -- that you deem appropriate? McKinnon: We do encourage it right now. We don't require it. Borup: Well, I'm not saying require, just say, you know, this one should have a neighborhood meeting. If you come before Planning and Zoning and you haven't had one, the chances are good they are just going to send you back to do it. Or is that -- McKinnon: Trying to think of how we are going to word that. Borup: I don't know. Any -- McKinnon: It's a great comment I just don't know how to word that without -- Meridian Planning & Zoning December 19, 2002 Page 77 of 116 Borup: Maybe it doesn't need to be worded, as long as staff is aware of that and so the applicant can be aware. Centers: I think it's pretty strong, Keith. Borup: Just the very first sentence -- Centers: Well, their whole paragraph, though, is talking about how you should do the neighbor meeting. I think it's very clear there that they strongly encourage it and, then, at the end we have the power to require it if they don't do it. Borup: Well, I think part of our discussion -- if we come into this room, there are 50 people, and we ask the applicant if they have held a neighbor meeting and they say no, I'm of a mind to continue it right then. Centers: Yes and if they have read the ordinance -- if they didn't read it, then, that's their fault. Borup: We have seen evidence in the last few months the difference that the neighborhood meetings make, there are a lot of applicants that are doing that now, and they either don't have the people come or they come with a whole different attitude. Centers: I think the applicants that are represented properly will have a meeting or they will read and say we better have, don't you think? Borup: Yes. No, I think -- now that I think about it, I think this is strong enough and if we -- if they come before this Commission and we start continuing them immediately without even hearing the thing, that word would also spread. Centers: I'm sure yes. Zaremba: Well, the only thing I would say in support of the first comment is that I would be comfortable with the decision about whether to hold a neighborhood meeting or not, be made at the staff level, so the staff could say, yes, this is one where you must hold a neighborhood meeting. I'm sure of it. Borup: That's probably when they start getting a lot of comments and phone calls and that kind of stuff. McKinnon: With regard -- Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, with regards to subjectivity of staff, as long as it -- the more subjectivity we can keep out of an ordinance the better, in my opinion. I would hate for us to say to one person you have to do it and, then, they will say, well, you didn't make such and such do it, why are you forcing me to do it. Subjectivity is really hard at a staff level and staff involved and we change positions and there is different people that come in -- if you meet with me, Meridian Planning & Zoning December 19, 2002 Page 78 of 116 you're not meeting with Brad and Steve, and I may have a totally different opinion of that so subjectivity, if we can eliminate it, I'm all for it. Borup: So the strongly encourage probably still applies here very well. Wollen: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I agree with Mr. McKinnon's comments on that. I believe that the P&Z Commission and City Council are set up as public bodies, so that that determination could be made at that time in a public forum. I believe that the way that the paragraph is drafted with that last sentence saying that the Planning and Zoning or City Council can send you back to that open meeting -- or for that neighborhood meeting, that will get the developers to do these neighborhood meetings. Zaremba: Well -- and that still leaves staff at least with the ability to say, gee, I think you better do it. Wollen: Yes. Absolutely. Zaremba: Without it looking like its staff's decision. Centers: When you get an applicant, you're going to give them a copy of all of this? McKinnon: Absolutely. Centers: The posting requirements, all of this and -- yes. If you have got an applicant going after just a small project, they are going to read it. Borup: I just thought of one other thing, if the other Commissioners think may be appropriate, and that's the last sentence where it says a neighborhood meeting may -- if they do have such a meeting, would it be of benefit to the neighborhood or would it be appropriate to add and to the city? Or just to the neighborhood and the city? Zaremba: Or be of benefit period. McKinnon: That's a great -- benefit period. We will strike the -- Borup: And, then, that would cover everybody. Zaremba: One time that vagueness wins out. Centers: Or to all concerned. Wollen: Members of the Commission, it could also be a benefit to the project as well. Borup: Yes. Meridian Planning & Zoning December 19, 2002 Page 79 of 116 McKinnon: Great note. Borup: Normally, I think that is the case it would be a benefit to all three. That's what we have seen. Okay. Good. Okay. Zaremba: If our discussion at the moment is on the posting ordinance -- Borup: Yes. Let's continue on that, since we are into it. Zaremba: Just in reading through the whole thing and seeing where we are going, I very much like the example that's given of what the sign ought to look like. That said, I would back up to where the sign is first referenced, which is paragraph A-2-A-2, the first page of Exhibit A. I would reorder the wording that is there. I would reorder, so that it actually reads in the same order that it's going to appear on the sign. Taking the second sentence that says in addition, each sign shall inform the public. Borup: Oh. Zaremba: I would say in addition, each sign will inform the public of the nature, date, time, and place of the Public Hearing, a summary of the proposal to be considered, the location of the property, and the name of the applicant, in that order, because that's the order that appears on the sign. It's all the same information. It's a little picky, but you give an example that isn't in the order that you give the requirement in. I'm the knit- picker. Is that reasonable or is that too picky? Centers: Well, it says -- the last sentence of Number 2 there that you just read an example of this sign is listed below. I don't know. Mathes: Number A-2 and number 1-B on that aren't worded the same. Zaremba: Well -- and I would change that one also, so that they would be the same. On the sample page I would change both those paragraphs to do the same thing. McKinnon: Oh. Okay so you have the same order? Zaremba: Yes. McKinnon: So Public Hearing notice and who, when -- okay. Borup: Well, yes, the only one in quotes is Public Hearing notice. Yes. Isn't the verbiage just saying this other information needs to be on and it doesn't really mention - - it didn't -- doesn't mention everything, does it? Zaremba: I am starting at the in addition. Borup: Right. Meridian Planning & Zoning December 19, 2002 Page 80 of 116 Zaremba: All the information is there, I'm just putting it in a different order, the same order that's on the sign. Maybe that's -- McKinnon: Well, you can make -- Borup: No, I don't think that's -- I mean while we are making changes, I think it makes sense to have it consistent. Zaremba: Yes. McKinnon: We can make that change. That won't be too hard to make. Zaremba: And, as Leslie pointed out, do the same thing on the page where you actually have the same thing 1-B would be the same paragraph. McKinnon: Let me take some notes real quick so it's order -- I will do the same thing on sample Page 1-B. Borup: See, the paragraph doesn't mention what body the hearing is before. Well, wait a minute. The paragraph does -- yes, the sign does. McKinnon: Day, time, and nature of Public Hearing. Zaremba: The order that I put it in was nature, date, time, and place of the Public Hearing, a summary of the proposal, to be consistent. Borup: Now, the body that it is heard before, they don't have to paint a separate sign for both bodies, do they? Zaremba: They should be able to just change the name. McKinnon: You could change the name. Borup: So we need to change the name? Can they include them both in there or -- Mathes: They have to change the date, don't they? Borup: That's true. McKinnon: I'm sure there is ways you can do it, whether you're using -- Zaremba: A stick-on label. McKinnon: -- stencils or -- Meridian Planning & Zoning December 19, 2002 Page 81 of 116 Borup: Also in 1-B -- in quotation marks 1-B, it says public notice and, then, two, it says Public Hearing notice. McKinnon: Yes. We could make that change, too. It's funny, I -- this came from Bill Vaughn over at City of Eagle. This is exactly how they have got it worded right now. I think you guys are making theirs a lot better. I will have to send it over to him. Okay. I can -- I see where you're going with that. There is one, A-2, Public Hearing notice. Oh, says on -- okay. Right. Okay. All right. Zaremba: And while we are looking at the sample sign, I probably would say property location, not just location, because anybody reading the sign in a hurry is going to think that's where the meeting location is, the hearing location. Borup: Up in the third line it says it will be at City Hall. McKinnon: I see where you're going Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: It says location and I would just say property location or subject location or something. Not everybody reads as clearly as -- Borup: But the sign is on the location, isn't it? McKinnon: Yes. I was wondering if we even need that. Borup: Does it even need the -- Wollen: I would still recommend putting property location on the sign. McKinnon: To change that to property? Borup: It could be a large property. Wollen: And just because of the parameters needed for notice, I think putting the property location is necessary on this. Zaremba: And my input would be to add the word property there, so the people don't show up on the property looking for the hearing, even though it says very clearly somewhere else. Borup: Just say the property is right where you're standing. McKinnon: You are here. Zaremba: You are here. How did they know that? Meridian Planning & Zoning December 19, 2002 Page 82 of 116 McKinnon: Okay so when you guys are going to make your motion on this recommendation for approval, it's going to be -- Zaremba: One more to discuss. McKinnon: Oh. Okay. Zaremba: And, actually, you mentioned it. It must be paragraph A-2-A-3. It's the in lieu of. McKinnon: Yes. Zaremba: Are we really sure we want to exempt that many things? I mean if we were talking about a smaller sign that needs to be posted on a house, for instance, if they are going for a CUP on an existing location, but I would think any annexation is going to be a big enough piece of property that the sign ought to be big. Borup: Not necessarily. I mean not necessarily big. Zaremba: Even one acre is -- Borup: Oh you're saying one acre is big enough for the 4-by-4 sign. Zaremba: Sure. People would be able to see it from a distance. I'm thinking the exemptions would be -- McKinnon: On the size, Commissioner Zaremba, you have got to consider the impact. A small one-acre site is not necessarily going to impact that many people and require the need for a 4-by-4 sign. Borup: Well, you still have all the other noticing. McKinnon: Yes we would still require the 11-by-17, but I think -- Borup: And the mailings and -- McKinnon: A one-acre annexation doesn't have an enormous -- typically -- I shouldn't say it won't, but typically doesn't have an enormous impact on a city or the surrounding homeowners. We saw tonight that a really small application for one home could have a big impact on a neighborhood that -- word gets out on those pretty quick and it's specifically called out. We are talking about posthole diggers to get a 4-by-4 post in there or a big sledgehammer. Zaremba: Okay. I think one of the other things we have talked about was even the 11- by-17 paper needs to be put on some kind of a backing and -- is it good enough just to tack a sheet of paper to -- Meridian Planning & Zoning December 19, 2002 Page 83 of 116 Borup: That's -- and, normally, they do, but sometimes you see them just on a single -- single stick and after awhile they wrap around it and -- Zaremba: A backing on a stick or -- Borup: You're saying just not attach that right to a post, that it needs to have some backing on it? McKinnon: Just some thoughts on that. Borup: That's not hard to do. McKinnon: No. I worked for another jurisdiction where I did all the postings for all the Public Hearings and we did it all 8 ½-by-11s, but we had individual sheets that -- self- laminating sticker sheets that I would just rip off, put on it, and I could stick it on anything and it would last -- probably still some hanging. They last forever when they are self-laminating. The 11-by-17, we could put it onto a solid board or something to that effect. Zaremba: Or just something stiff. McKinnon: They receive those from us whether it's a foam core or some other type of solid backing it's not a bad idea. Borup: Are you saying for the city to do that? McKinnon: No. Borup: Or the applicant? McKinnon: The applicant -- Borup: Right. McKinnon: -- would be required to do that. I'm just trying to figure out a wording for that, whether it's -- you know, that it has to be on a -- Zaremba: How about on an 11-by-17 sheet of paper affixed to a stiff backing? Borup: Or rigid backing. McKinnon: Does it have to be weather proofed? Borup: For a couple of weeks. Meridian Planning & Zoning December 19, 2002 Page 84 of 116 McKinnon: Yes. I think it's -- if it rains on it, it's -- even if it's attached to a rigid surface, it still looks pretty tattered. Centers: But I think the projects you're talking about getting posted on are kind of -- I shouldn't say irrelevant, but they have to be posted by state law, but that posing on the CUP tonight wouldn't have made a bit of difference, it's the mailings that gets them here. Borup: I think hers was stuck in her window. McKinnon: Yes. I was going to say, it could be placed in a window -- Centers: But it's the mailings that get them here on those kinds of notices and even on the large projects it's the mailings. McKinnon: If it's attached to a window, it's still attached to a rigid surface, so it's just -- Borup: I like the idea of a rigid surface. I don't think the waterproofing is really a factor. McKinnon: Mounted on a rigid surface? Borup: A legal size a 2-by-2 post could be a rigid surface. McKinnon: Of at least the same size? Borup: Yes just equal size. McKinnon: Of at least equal size? Zaremba: At the end of that sentence I would say, stating the same information as in paragraph two above. McKinnon: We, as staff, would prepare the 11-by-17's. Zaremba: You make them? McKinnon: Yes. We make those and, then, they come and pick them up from us so we could change the wording on that, but I don't think it would make a change. Zaremba: All right. Then I have one more after that. McKinnon: Okay. Zaremba: On the sample page, the very top paragraph, the posting notice. McKinnon: Okay. Meridian Planning & Zoning December 19, 2002 Page 85 of 116 Zaremba: Except as noted is in there two times and I'm not sure it's needed the first time. I would start that posting notice, colon, anytime notice is required. I would just go right straight there. Borup: Which paragraph are you -- oh, there we go right at the very top. Zaremba: Right at the very top. It says, except as noted within this paragraph so before you have said anything, you're already negating it. I would -- and it isn't really necessary to that sentence. I would just eliminate, except as noted in this paragraph. McKinnon: And just start with anytime? Zaremba: Start with anytime notice is required it has to be up 10 days. McKinnon: Okay. I agree with that. Zaremba: Then, the next sentence has the except as noted and I would use the paragraph, except as noted in Paragraph A-2-A-3 of MCC 11, because there is really only one exception. McKinnon: What section was that again? Zaremba: A-2-A-3. McKinnon: A-2-A-3. Zaremba: That's the one we were just talking about in lieu of. McKinnon: Right. Okay. Zaremba: Those are all the changes on that one. McKinnon: Okay. Zaremba: What do we do with this? Is a motion in order to -- Centers: Well, all three Public Hearings are open. We have comments on the others. We have got to get them all done -- Zaremba: Well, let's get them all done. Borup: Now, have you -- I don't think David's had a chance to comment on Item 8, have you? Zaremba: He made the introduction. Meridian Planning & Zoning December 19, 2002 Page 86 of 116 Borup: Oh, yes, you did. Zaremba: I'm looking at the wireless communications tower now. McKinnon: Okay Item Number 7 from the original Agenda? Zaremba: Yes. McKinnon: Thank you. Zaremba: And on the first page, the bottom one, stealth tower, very -- McKinnon: The first page -- stealth tower. Got it. Zaremba: Exhibit A yes. Sorry. The line reads, limited to placing antennas within or on church steeples. Take the word a out. Continuing in that same paragraph, the last sentence says, all accessory equipment shelters are required to be camouflaged in a manner that is -- i-s, rather than i-n. McKinnon: Thank you. Zaremba: The next paragraph. Let's see. Wireless communications facility, a steel monopole guy wire tower or other similar structure designed to support directional antennas, parabolic antennas -- parabolic dishes or antennas, microwave dishes -- then I would put a colon in the word plus with the rest of it. Because, otherwise, it reads -- McKinnon: Instead of the word plus, would you use in addition to -- Zaremba: Yes. In addition to you or -- and/or something, because the way it reads, all of this stuff, including the ground equipment, has to be on the tower, so that's why I'm separating those, the colon and plus. McKinnon: Okay so parabolic dishes, antennas, microwave dishes, semi-colon -- Zaremba: Colon or semi-colon. Semi-colon. McKinnon: Semi-colon. In addition to associated ground equipment and other -- Zaremba: That's for the facility. McKinnon: Will that work? Zaremba: Yes. McKinnon: Rather than plus? Meridian Planning & Zoning December 19, 2002 Page 87 of 116 Zaremba: Yes. McKinnon: Okay. Zaremba: Continuing down on the same page, Paragraph B, starts out stealth -- McKinnon: Yes. Zaremba: On the last line of that, the word zone I would capitalize. We are talking about a -- McKinnon: A specific zone? Zaremba: -- specific zone. McKinnon: I'm not -- Nick, do you know if that would be capitalized? Wollen: Is the word zone capitalized in other Zoning Ordinances when it's specific, like an R-8 zone or anything like that? Because I have never -- I think it's just an under case. Zaremba: Okay. Do you want that one? That was just a suggestion. McKinnon: Okay. Zaremba: Okay. C. Conditional Use Permit applications for the construction -- McKinnon: Same wording twice. Zaremba: Okay. This one, an application for a Conditional Use Permit, for any kind of a tower, needs to be accompanied by all that information. McKinnon: Further into the report -- or further into the ordinance says -- limits all the towers to be of monopole design. Zaremba: Okay. Except that it also says there can be exceptions and the way I was going to change this is use -- Conditional Use Permit applications for the construction or modification of communication towers must be accompanied by all that stuff. McKinnon: Modification. Would the addition of a cell tower -- co-location, would you consider that a modification? Because we don't want co-locations to come back every time they want to co-locate onto a tower. Zaremba: No. It would be modification of the structure. Meridian Planning & Zoning December 19, 2002 Page 88 of 116 McKinnon: Modification of the cell tower structure? My own personal understanding of these monopoles and the lattice towers is that they are an engineered product and they are not typically modified afterwards, because it changes the original engineering of the product. Zaremba: Well, you talk about applications for modifying existing towers. McKinnon: Where is that? Maybe we need to -- Zaremba: Somewhere in here it said that could be done. Well, let me ask -- Borup: Is that a non -- Zaremba: If there is an existing tower and it needs to be modified, does it need a Conditional Use Permit? McKinnon: It depends on what the modification would be, I guess. I'm really not aware of what -- I would really like to see where I have got that modification access. It's in there, I'm wondering if that could be construed incorrectly to mean any additional co- location would require them to go through a CU, because we don't want that to happen if you could point that out. Zaremba: I will see if I can find it. McKinnon: Because we want to encourage them to do that and by requiring them to go through a Conditional Use Permit, that doesn't encourage. Zaremba: It looks like it's in A right above it. McKinnon: Is it? Let me -- residential zone. Go back -- Zaremba: It mentions -- McKinnon: Permits required. Zaremba: -- erect, construct, add to -- McKinnon: Or increase the height. Zaremba: Without first securing the permit so what I'm saying is -- McKinnon: The proper permits. Okay. Zaremba: So I'm just trying to tie those two together to say if you are applying for a construction or a modification -- Meridian Planning & Zoning December 19, 2002 Page 89 of 116 Borup: Which paragraph are you on? McKinnon: These are 11 question mark four procedures. Borup: Oh. There we go. Okay. Zaremba: You can't do it without a permit so what C is saying is when you file the permit you have got to supply all this information. McKinnon: That's just for the Conditional Use Permit. The one above it doesn't refer to -- refer to the other types of -- Borup: Building permit. McKinnon: Yes sometimes a Building Permit would be required. Zaremba: Proper permit from the Planning and Zoning Building Department, City of Meridian, construction of a new communications towers or extending the height of an existing tower shall require a CUP. McKinnon: Yes that's the whole expansion of a conditional use that's addressed. Zaremba: Well, okay, it says, then, modification in C Conditional Use Permit applications for the construction or extension. McKinnon: Okay. That would be fine. Zaremba: Shall require all of the stuff. McKinnon: Extension. I can see a need for that. Zaremba: And I have another question. McKinnon: Okay. Zaremba: On the next page, the paragraph marked three. McKinnon: Sure. Zaremba: For all personal wireless facilities and, then, personal appears a couple times later. Why personal? McKinnon: We could get rid of personal. We could just go to the wireless communication facilities. Meridian Planning & Zoning December 19, 2002 Page 90 of 116 Zaremba: For all wireless -- okay. Then, on the next page, for private -- do you want to say for all private wireless facilities? McKinnon: No. Public ones as well should be required to have co-location requirements. Zaremba: So for all wireless facilities. McKinnon: For all wireless communication facilities. Zaremba: In that case, I would take personal out of the title. McKinnon: That's fine. Is it in the title? Zaremba: On the very first page above where it says the short title will be. The long title has personal in it. McKinnon: Okay. All wireless communication -- Borup: Isn't that an industry term? McKinnon: Yes. Zaremba: It confused me, but if there is -- if it's an industry term, I would leave it in. Borup: But is it defined? McKinnon: Personal? No. Borup: It's not defined in definitions. Centers: Well, I think he used the word personal there, because he continues on with it's personal ownership and he said his or her or its successors to allow the shared use of the tower and that's why you used the word personal. McKinnon: If we dropped it to just for all wireless communications facilities, that would be fine. Zaremba: I think it would still -- McKinnon: We have still got it and we would just maintain the same wording throughout the ordinance. I can understand why we would want to do that. I don't think that it's a -- it's more of a semantics change than -- Zaremba: Well, that's what I'm good at. I told you, I'm knit-picky. Meridian Planning & Zoning December 19, 2002 Page 91 of 116 McKinnon: Okay. Zaremba: All I'm doing is proof reading. Borup: That's why we have you here. Zaremba: I know I'm the knit-picker. McKinnon: I'm not that type of person, so that's good for me. Zaremba: Next page. C. Design standards. McKinnon: Okay. Zaremba: Paragraph 4. The way I would read that, the obscuring fence has to be the same height as the tower, so I would start that sentence off by saying, the base of all towers, et cetera, other than approved stealth tower construction, shall be surrounded by a site-obscuring fence or we can say -- Borup: The property on which the tower sits is what you're referring to. Zaremba: The two choices I would have are either to say the base of the towers shall be surrounded by the fence or give a height to the fence. All towers shall be surround by a six-foot high fence. McKinnon: Let's go at the base of, rather than limit it to a six-foot. In some zones eight- foot fencing is allowed and in some zones it's prohibited, so if we could keep away from that. Borup: Or shall we say fence per -- allowed under city ordinance or something along that line? Zaremba: Appropriate to the zone. McKinnon: Shall be surrounded by a site obscuring fence in compliance with -- Zaremba: I just didn't want somebody to think they had to have a fence 100-foot high. McKinnon: That's taking it to the extreme. I don't think anybody would read it that way, but -- Zaremba: I would. McKinnon: You're extreme. Yes, I think the base of -- all -- the base of all towers. The base -- Meridian Planning & Zoning December 19, 2002 Page 92 of 116 Zaremba: Well, my suggestion -- yes. McKinnon: The base of all towers, other than approved stealth towers, constructed within Meridian -- there should be a comma there, now that I read it out loud -- shall be surrounded by a site obscuring security fence. Then, the Commissioner -- Chairman Borup, you said, you know, in accordance with the underlying zone. Does that make sense? Zaremba: Yes. McKinnon: In accordance with the underlying zone. Okay. Or just as allowed per -- that's good. According to underlying zone. Zaremba: Next page. E. Co-location. McKinnon: Okay. Zaremba: Two. It shall be the burden of the applicant to demonstrate that the proposed tower or antenna cannot be accommodated on an -- I would add existing or approved tower. McKinnon: Any discussion on that? I don't have a problem with that. Zaremba: And what made that stand out to me is that it has that same phrasing in paragraph one, talking about an existing -- McKinnon: There are some towers in Meridian that don't meet those criteria that far exceed these criteria. Okay. I think existing -- so strike the word approved? Zaremba: No. No. I'd leave -- McKinnon: Existing -- Zaremba: I would add existing or -- McKinnon: Or? Zaremba: So that they are both there. McKinnon: Okay. Zaremba: Next page Paragraph 3 at the top. Next, to the last line over 110 feet, parenthesis, 125 feet. I probably would make the in parenthesis the 110. McKinnon: Oh, man 110 so strike the 125, go 110. Meridian Planning & Zoning December 19, 2002 Page 93 of 116 Zaremba: Whichever way makes them say the same thing, whatever it is. I would think that would -- McKinnon: 110 works for me. Any discussion? Okay. Borup: Why do we have two different -- McKinnon: Because I screwed up. McKinnon: Well, yes, but which one was intentional? McKinnon: The intention is 110. Borup: Okay. Zaremba: Okay. McKinnon: The reason I go with that is if you go with 110, they could go to 95 and, then, drop to 80, which would be about the minimum. We like to have 15 feet of separation between the arrays minimally. We could go 125. That would give -- and that's -- both of those would be standard heights, according to, you know, industry standards, they build them 110 and 125. It's very standard. Zaremba: I really don't have an opinion either way. I just think the two should be the same thing. Borup: And my only thought there is if we are trying to encourage co-location, does the shorter tower discourage that? McKinnon: The shorter tower is much more difficult to have co-location but a tower that is 110 feet high could accommodate two additional users. Zaremba: Oh, two additional. McKinnon: Yes. Borup: But the one is going to get down pretty low. McKinnon: Well, if you get over 125 there is a lot of towers -- it depends on the cell area that you're looking to service and the type of geography and building that are surrounding it. You can go 50 feet in height and still have your cell covered, depending on the topography and the buildings in the area. The reason, you know, if we go over 110 feet, is, like I said, they typically like to be at about 85 feet at the lowest, then, they like to have 15 feet of separation and that would put you up to the 100 and the 110 so if you're over 110 you have three -- Meridian Planning & Zoning December 19, 2002 Page 94 of 116 Borup: So the 110 won't give your 15 feet if you're starting at 85. McKinnon: We could change it to 125 in height but, then, that means that anything that's 120 feet in height wouldn't be required to have two co-locates, they would only have requirement for one more, if it would be 120 feet in height and 120 could easily accommodate two additional co-locations. Only if you exceed 110 if you went to -- they are not going to build 112. If you go to 115, the top of the tower is going to be at 115, then, it's going to drop you to 100 and then it's going to drop you to 85. Zaremba: One 15 sounds good to me. McKinnon: We could put it at 115. That is not a standard height, but we could -- Zaremba: I thought that was what you were just saying. McKinnon: A standard would be 110 or 125, but as you went over 110, you're pretty much talking about a tower that's going to be at least 115, 125. Borup: Well, okay, they have got their choice. This is -- I guess the 110 still works. McKinnon: Yes. I think that that's the lowest that we could go and still require two additional users. Borup: Because they can go higher if they want. McKinnon: Right. Borup: And I know they have to have two additional on there and they can determine what spacing they want and build whatever height they need. McKinnon: Yes. Borup: So that's just going back to the 110? McKinnon: Yes. I think if we leave it at 110 we are safe. I appreciate that. It's funny to read my own writing and see those. Zaremba: Okay. Then, F, here is where no signs and banners was added and I appreciate that. McKinnon: Okay. Zaremba: But I would add on the end of that sentence also -- apparently, it says no signs or banners shall be attached to any portion of wireless communications tower. I would add, except for required safety signage within 10 feet of ground level, or words to that effect. Because some of them have to have like high voltage signs or -- Meridian Planning & Zoning December 19, 2002 Page 95 of 116 McKinnon: We have the security fence around them already and, then, we have got the -- Zaremba: The FCC doesn't require any -- McKinnon: The FCC doesn't require anything on the ground. Zaremba: -- safety signs on the pole like six feet up or something -- McKinnon: No. Zaremba: -- do not climb this pole. McKinnon: And we are also requiring that all of the climbing posts be removed 20 feet from the base of it. I think we are okay if we don't have that. Zaremba: That's fine. McKinnon: And if there are regulations that require that, they would supercede any of our requirements, so they are not advertising signs, is what you were trying to get away from, rather than safety. Zaremba: Okay. All right then, in Paragraph G, abandoned or unused towers or portions of towers. As a condition of approval of any required Conditional Use Permit, I would capitalize CUP. McKinnon: There is another personal there. Zaremba: For personal -- take personal out. Then two lines down, 60 days of cessation, it has personal again, I would take out. McKinnon: Right. Strike that again. Zaremba: Three more lines down, the use as a personal I would take out. McKinnon: Okay. Got it. Go back to Nick real quick. This conditional -- my understanding is that when it's referring to a specific Conditional Use Permit, Conditional Use Permit wouldn't be underlined -- I mean no -- wouldn't be capitalized, because it wouldn't be a proper noun, unless we are referring to a specific Conditional Use Permit. Zaremba: Well, it was capitalized three or four other places in the same ordinance. McKinnon: Okay. Zaremba: Do them all the same way. Meridian Planning & Zoning December 19, 2002 Page 96 of 116 McKinnon: Okay. Zaremba: So, then, that brings me to the paragraph below that, which is A. All personal I would take out. McKinnon: Got it. Zaremba: The facilities requiring a Conditional User Permit, capital CUP. Would you believe I'm done with that one? McKinnon: Is there anybody else that had anything? Thanks for going slow. It makes a big difference for me when I write the recommendation to be able to take a document that we have worked tonight, rather than have to check the minutes. Thanks for going slow for me. Zaremba: Well, I'm kind of slow myself, so -- McKinnon: Is there any more discussion on that or do you guys want to move to eight on the agenda, which were definitions? Borup: Yes. Zaremba: I'm ready for definitions. Just to clarify, these -- these are just the ones that are either being added or deleted from the existing ones. All right. In this chapter, there are definitions that don't appear on this page that we are looking at correct? McKinnon: That's correct. Zaremba: And those are remaining? McKinnon: That's correct. Zaremba: Okay. Just so I'm clear. All right. Let me start with the first one, apparel manufacturing. Wollen: Commissioner Zaremba, I believe there are also the ones that are being amended inside. Zaremba: Yes. Okay. McKinnon: It's not a comprehensive list. Zaremba: This is not a comprehensive list, there are others that don't appear on this list that are staying the way they were. Okay. Apparel manufacturing. I would say a facility involved, without the that's. Meridian Planning & Zoning December 19, 2002 Page 97 of 116 McKinnon: Okay. Zaremba: After department stores and before electric supplies, I would define dry- cleaning, because we do have laundromats and stuff other places. McKinnon: Do you know whether dry-cleaning is defined in here or not? Zaremba: Well, there was a line that said carpet and dry-cleaning with no definition that you're scratching out. McKinnon: There is dry line sewer. No dry-cleaning. Do you have a definition that you would want to include for dry-cleaning? This isn't an all-inclusive list. Zaremba: I was going to suggest one, yes. McKinnon: Okay. Go ahead and go slow for me. Or I can get your copy. Whatever. Zaremba: Let me read it, so we can discuss it. McKinnon: Okay. Zaremba: Dry-cleaning. Colon. A facility for cleaning clothes and other fabric by chemical processes period. McKinnon: What was the -- cleaning clothes or -- Zaremba: Cleaning clothes and other fabrics by chemical processes period and a second sentence -- McKinnon: I'm not a shorthand person. Go ahead. Zaremba: Air quality and waste product disposal may be regulated. Borup: Is that a part of a definition? Zaremba: Well, I add that, because when we get down to industrial research, it has -- it defines a little more clearly some things and I thought -- Borup: Oh, where it says issue shall not violate -- Zaremba: Which made me think that it might not hurt to have -- and, actually, on the industrial research one, I was going to suggest adding -- and this is just a suggestion -- adding waste disposal product may be regulated on industrial research also. McKinnon: What do you think, Nick? Meridian Planning & Zoning December 19, 2002 Page 98 of 116 Wollen: Commissioners, I would really hesitate to put any kind of enforcement language or anything other than pure definition in here. Zaremba: All right. Then, on dry-cleaning I give up the air quality. Take that sentence back out again. McKinnon: So it would read, dry-cleaning, colon, facility for cleaning clothes, and other fabrics by chem process. Zaremba: Chemical processes. McKinnon: Got it. Okay. Got it. Zaremba: I don't have a problem with -- Borup: Well, there is some -- that brings up a point on facilities such as that. Who regulates that type of thing? Are there already some standards that are looked at that could control those things? Zaremba: I know they can't flush them down the toilet. McKinnon: I was going to say, you may have heard of the perk regulation and all the perk in the water that happened as it ran down off of the bench down into -- I guess, the floor or the valley. There was quite a bit of that back in the '60s and '70s and there is still some perk around. It is regulated pretty heavily and I don't know if it's the state DEQ that handles that or if it's Central District Health in our area, but it is regulated, so - - Borup: So if a dry-cleaning facility is proposed, they have specific regulations in the -- McKinnon: I believe they do have specific requirements. I think it is, actually, DEQ. Wollen: Yes. I believe it is. Even some -- depending on the scale, I think even federal EPA standards. Borup: So that's already handled in some way, it sounds like. McKinnon: Okay. Zaremba: Next page. McKinnon: Okay. Zaremba: Equipment heavy. I would put a comma. McKinnon: Okay. Meridian Planning & Zoning December 19, 2002 Page 99 of 116 Zaremba: Heavy and farm being two different kinds of equipment. Then, the next one fabricated metal products needs a strike out. McKinnon: Okay. Got it. Zaremba: Feed, seed, and fertilizer store. An establishment dealing in retail and wholesale sales of supplies, feed, and seed and fertilizer directly related to day-to-day -- McKinnon: Agricultural activities. Zaremba: -- farm slash livestock or agricultural -- McKinnon: I think agricultural works good. Zaremba: Okay. That's good. McKinnon: Catch all. Thanks. Okay. Zaremba: Now, you know this was coming. There is -- in the book in this area there is a definition for industrial and even though we are not talking about the zones, I would like to add industrial, comma, light. McKinnon: I'll put industrial right there. Okay. Industrial light. Zaremba: I know we are not dealing with Chapter 7 and Chapter 8 now, but I'm -- the goal is to end up with all three of these chapters in parallel. McKinnon: Let me hear what you have got. Zaremba: Okay so industrial light. Let me just read it fast and, then, if you like it we will -- I'm actually quoting from Chapter 7. Manufacturing and wholesale establishments, which are clean, quiet, and other free of hazardous or objectionable elements, such as noise, odor, dust, smoke, or glare and that are operated entirely or almost entirely within an enclosed structure. That's pretty much the middle sentence out of the definition in the -- McKinnon: That was 11-7-2 -- Zaremba: Industrial light manufacturing and wholesale establishment. If you look at Chapter 7 -- McKinnon: Yes 11-7. Zaremba: It ends manufacturing and wholesale establishment and ends almost entirely enclosed within structures. Just lift that whole -- Meridian Planning & Zoning December 19, 2002 Page 100 of 116 McKinnon: Tell me how you got it started. Zaremba: The start of it was manufacturing and wholesale establishments. McKinnon: Okay. I got those marked out in reference to my code. Zaremba: And the end of it is entirely within the -- McKinnon: Enclosed structure. Period. I got it. Okay. Zaremba: Okay. Then, back in this -- laundries commercial. An establishment for laundry and clothes or linen does not include dry-cleaning same thing with laundromat. Does not include dry-cleaning. Wollen: Commissioner Zaremba, if there is a facility that does both commercial dry- cleaning and laundromat, how would that -- Zaremba: They would fall under both definitions. Wollen: Okay. Zaremba: So this definition doesn't fit -- doesn't include dry-cleaning. Wollen: Okay. McKinnon: Do we need the wording excluding dry-cleaning? I guess -- not to include -- or excluding dry-cleaning? Zaremba: Yes. That's a shorter way to say it. Along with being knit-picky, I tend to throw in extra words, too. Leather products. Tanning probably needs a strike out. McKinnon: I think that was one that we didn't have a definition for. We were hoping you guys might have some. Zaremba: No. We can do that. McKinnon: If you want, we can just strike it and just leave it out. It is listed on our schedule of use control. We were trying to figure out exactly why that leather products are industrial use, if you take out the tanning from that. I can't think of anything like -- Zaremba: Well, the only thing I can think of is Kuna was struggling a little while ago with a meat processing plant that moved in and was also doing tanning as a by-product. McKinnon: This one excluded tanning. The way the definition is worded it's leather products, excluding tanning. If you take out tanning, I don't know why we would include Meridian Planning & Zoning December 19, 2002 Page 101 of 116 any -- right now tanning, I believe, is excluded as a prohibited use in every single zone. And this is except tanning. Zaremba: So leather products would be taking already tanned leather and making it into a purse. McKinnon: Yes and so we were trying to figure out why that would be -- Zaremba: Included. McKinnon: Yes. Let's get rid of that. That's fine with me. Wollen: Are there any particular waste concerns with disposal of leather, other than tanning? McKinnon: Tanning is the big issue. Zaremba: The tanning process is where the chemicals are. McKinnon: Yes. Zaremba: If you are just using it like a fabric to cut it up and make something out of it, I don't -- Borup: That's just a matter of manufacturing -- McKinnon: That's the manufacturer. That's typically at a different location, than the raw product where the tanning happens. Borup: We already have places in town that make -- McKinnon: Right now they are prohibited in every zone, except for the -- oh, under our current Zoning Ordinance -- Borup: Leather products are prohibited? McKinnon: Leather products are prohibited in all zones, except for Old Town and Industrial. Borup: Oh. McKinnon: And both of those zones are conditional. Borup: I think that's where it is, is in Old Town. McKinnon: Yes and so that's the only place you can do that. Meridian Planning & Zoning December 19, 2002 Page 102 of 116 Zaremba: You can have the sales of leather products. McKinnon: We don't have a definition for it, we just -- Borup: Leather products -- McKinnon: It doesn't say manufacturer of. We have got to get in touch with all our retail sales. It was one that just seemed odd to me as I included it in there. I think the intent was to hope maybe you guys had something to help me figure that out, because I don't -- we don't have a definition for it. We can either strike it, but if we strike it, we haven't done anything to change the code, rather than just leave it without a definition still and have it in our ordinance. Zaremba: Okay. Maybe the point is to contrast this against the tanning process, to make it clear that this is not the tanning process so that the definition would be making products out of already tanned leather. McKinnon: I think we would have to have a bigger picture and maybe at a later date be the schedule and use control in dealing with the tanning and dealing with the leather products. I don't think we want to prohibit somebody from moving into the Albertson's Shopping Center, you know, right down here on Meridian and Cherry and say, you guys aren't Industrial and you're not Old Town, so the guy can't make belts and holsters and purses here. Borup: So Tandy's couldn't come in. McKinnon: I was going to say, Tandy's -- they wouldn't be allowed anywhere, except for Old Town or Industrial, so I think the bigger picture is to maybe eliminate that from the schedule of use control entirely. Zaremba: Okay so let's take it out again. McKinnon: Let's not worry about it at this point. Zaremba: Catch it later on the very bottom one, manufactured homes. Between home and S there is a space there. McKinnon: Why do I have manufacturing homes? That should probably read manufactured homes. Wollen: Manufacturing manufactured homes, facilities that makes manufactured homes? McKinnon: Yes. Okay. Zaremba: So that comma probably shouldn't be there. Oh, manufacturing. Yes. Meridian Planning & Zoning December 19, 2002 Page 103 of 116 McKinnon: Manufacturing -- regarding manufactured homes. Okay. Wollen: I would suggest putting in manufacturing facility, perhaps. McKinnon: Facility I think there before the comma. That's okay. Noted. Zaremba: And on the top of the next page, there is a manufactured home park. We already had a definition for manufactured home community and I'm not sure why we need both. If we have both, they should say the same thing. McKinnon: They can be different, actually. That goes way back to my Garden City days. Manufactured home parks and communities can be entirely different. A park is more transient, whereas a community would be more occupied on a permanent foundation. I don't know if that comes across in the definitions as being different, but permanent and semi-permanent -- what's the manufacturer? What's the other -- Zaremba: Community says 10 or more of the spaces can be owned, leased, or rented. That was missing from park. McKinnon: Yes park doesn't allow for individual ownership. Zaremba: Oh. Okay. McKinnon: Mobile home parks are owned by -- under one ownership. Zaremba: Then, that probably should be added, and that's what the distinction is and that's what their distinction is. McKinnon: Okay. Zaremba: Then, continuing down to processing plants, I would actually add a definition for that, if we can. McKinnon: Sure. Zaremba: And here is a suggestion. A facility for the conversion of raw materials into usable supplies, parts, or finished products, may produce foods or durable goods. Is that what a processing plant is? I finally sat down with it long enough to understand it. McKinnon: A processing plant -- how would that differ from manufacturing? Zaremba: Manufacturing takes the supplies and makes finished parts or assembles. It doesn't really start with raw materials. The distinction I'm making is, for instance, a manufacturing plant would use a sheet of plywood. A processing plant would use a tree to make a sheet of plywood and sell it to the manufacturing plant. Meridian Planning & Zoning December 19, 2002 Page 104 of 116 McKinnon: Okay. When I -- just in plannerese or planner -- we usually refer to a processing plant, my first thought doesn't go to wood or raw products, it goes to typically an animal processing. Zaremba: Well, that's what I said, may produce food or durable goods, then. A processing plant is going to take a cow and chop it up into steaks and, then, somebody else has to take that and make dinner out of it. It's starting at the raw material and making a part or a supply. McKinnon: Okay. Wollen: And I believe that -- Zaremba: And I may not be saying it correctly. Wollen: I think that's the definition, too, because an animal is -- when you take it down to its basics, so -- Zaremba: So do you want me to restate the -- McKinnon: Sure. Zaremba: A facility for the conversion of raw materials into usable supplies, comma -- McKinnon: I'm still at raw materials. Zaremba: Okay raw materials into usable supplies, comma, parts, comma, or finished products, period. McKinnon: Or finished products are what are hanging me up on that. Let me hear that -- if they are making it all the way to a finished product that would take out the manufacturing. Zaremba: Okay then, let's say usable supplies or parts, period. May produce foods or durable goods. McKinnon: It's available for sale at retail or only wholesale? Do you want to make that distinction? Zaremba: That's probably a good distinction. Yes. Sure for wholesale. McKinnon: For wholesale use. Borup: Yes because someone could -- for retail could do it in the kitchen. Zaremba: Yes. Meridian Planning & Zoning December 19, 2002 Page 105 of 116 McKinnon: Okay so it would read like this: Processing plant, colon, a facility for the conversion of raw materials into usable -- Zaremba: Usable supplies are what I have difficulty with. What I'm trying to come up with is -- what is plywood? What do you call plywood? It's not a finished product, necessarily, because everybody is going to do something else with it. If it's an interim product and all I could think of were usable supplies. If there is a better word -- there may be a better word, but -- McKinnon: Material or mediums. Zaremba: Yes materials. Borup: Well, what if it's food? Zaremba: Well, I didn't want to repeat, because we said raw materials. McKinnon: Mediums? Zaremba: Mediums. Yes. McKinnon: Media. Zaremba: Well, media or parts. McKinnon: Medium, instead of media. Zaremba: Medium is singular. McKinnon: Usable materials or parts. Wollen: I would take out the wholesale versus retail distinction, however. I think that putting that into the definition might lead somebody to say, well, we are not selling our stuff at a wholesale level, therefore, we are not a processing plant. I think that leaves it open to interpretation in that area. McKinnon: So it reads that -- a facility for the conversion of raw materials -- raw material and usable material? Zaremba: Usable supplies is what I said, but I'm not -- McKinnon: Supplies? Anybody -- Zaremba: What is an unfinished product? Another word for an unfinished product. Interim product. Meridian Planning & Zoning December 19, 2002 Page 106 of 116 Wollen: And I don't know that it has to be an unfinished product and I hate to use it, because it's such a simplistic thing, but I always think of processed cheese. You know, you go through the processing to get to the finished product at that point, but certainly is a manufacturing, so -- Zaremba: But even that may not be the final product, because you are going to put it into a dish that you're going to cook. Freckleton: How about a facility for the conversion of raw materials into usable products? Zaremba: That works for me. Rohm: Period. Just leave it there. Zaremba: Yes and the distinction is raw materials. Manufacturing takes something that's already beyond the raw material stage. Freckleton: If you wanted to take it a step further, you could say products for use in manufacturing but that might get ugly. Zaremba: That would eliminate beef processing. Okay. I'm happy with that. Okay. Public uses. This is really just reorganization. Let me read it again real quick. Public parks, administrative and cultural buildings, publicly owned buildings, fire and police stations, libraries, post office and public utilities administration buildings. Does not include public land or businesses devoted solely to the storage of maintenance equipment and materials and public service facilities. Rohm: You rewrote the whole thing. Zaremba: I used all the same words in a different -- okay. What I did is I took most of the first paragraph and where it says does not include, and took that into its own paragraph. Then I joined the remaining sentences into one paragraph. What I was trying to do is keep things together, the positive things that it is together, and remove the not included things into their own group. Instead of starting out with three positives and, then, saying but not -- and then added four or five more positives. Again, that's just grammatical. McKinnon: You guys haven't been privy to what Bruce and I were talking about. Bruce was asking if there was some way that it would be possible to change the definition of public use to not include specific definitions as to what public uses are. For example, instead of saying that, you know, public parks, fire stations and police stations -- if there was some way of saying that it would be entities that are non-taxed, but Bruce is trying to go someplace -- not ultra specific -- Borup: It would just be the same thing -- well, owned by a public municipality. Meridian Planning & Zoning December 19, 2002 Page 107 of 116 Zaremba: The thing to do would be to list quasi public in contrast to that. Quasi public says a use that is essentially a public use, although under private ownership or control so what the point up here is an entity that's under public ownership. McKinnon: Chairman Borup, could you say what you said a second ago? I think you nailed it right on the head. Borup: No, I -- probably maybe halfway there, but I think I did -- what did I say? I don't know exactly what I said. I said something to the effect of any building or property used by a municipality. I forgot what I said already. Okay. Public agency. Yes. What is a public -- I mean for right now, for Meridian, it's the City of Meridian, isn't it, and, then, the federal government, and school -- is school in with that, too? Freckleton: Sure. Borup: Okay. Schools aren't even mentioned here. Freckleton: My concern about having -- having specific -- Borup: Right. Freckleton: Having a specific one in here is you're going to leave something out. Borup: Yes. That's why it should say anything owned by -- Freckleton: So if we can get our arms around this and -- Zaremba: Well, it could be the point of this is the exclusions, not the inclusions. It's any facility generally open to the public and owned publicly, with the exception of storage and maintenance and equipment facilities that are not open to the public. Wollen: Commissioner Zaremba that would leave out fire and police stations, which are not typically open to the public. Centers: Well, anything supported with your tax dollars. Everything there is supported with your tax dollars, so -- Borup: How about -- I mean in here it already says publicly owned buildings and property. Maybe that's all it needs to say. Publicly owned buildings and property and, then, exclude -- McKinnon: Storage and maintenance? Borup: Yes. McKinnon: Public service facilities. Meridian Planning & Zoning December 19, 2002 Page 108 of 116 Zaremba: Yes. Centers: Or you could just list a few -- the examples are. This list is not complete. You could have examples are: Post office, police stations, blah, blah. This list is not complete. McKinnon: Or you could do public uses such as -- or for example -- examples including, but not limited to. Borup: Yes. Centers: Right. Zaremba: Yes. Borup: But it still has to be owned by a public entity. That's the definition there, isn't it? McKinnon: So that something -- Borup: Of course, anything owned by a public entity, whether it's a building or property, except for whatever we wanted to exempt. Wollen: The same fear I always have with anything -- any definitions left open for interpretation is that, you know, the thought of abuse or gross misinterpretation. I just don't see that problem coming up here, so I think the examples are fine. Borup: How about with the new trend? Zaremba: How about something like -- Borup: Or course, that's where the building isn't publicly owned. Wollen: Or publicly owned or operated or -- well, I guess that would be -- Zaremba: Buildings or property generally open to public access or something like that. Wollen: The generally open to public access could also -- Zaremba: Be too broad. Wollen: Yes. McKinnon: Just an interesting thought. I have been doing this for a number of years and I don't think we have ever truly been challenged as to what a public use is. The code is silent to give a definition. I think as a layman's understanding what a public use Meridian Planning & Zoning December 19, 2002 Page 109 of 116 -- would be understood without having a definition in place. We could possibly just strike that. Borup: Okay. Just say public owned and leased? Isn't that what it is getting into -- I mean what's the police station? Freckleton: When you were talking about the new trend, how do you handle that situation? With a purchase under way, technically, they are not -- they don't own it. They are buying it on time. Borup: So it's not even a lease. Freckleton: Then, you have the whole thing with the Tax Commission and the whole bit so I -- is it technically a lease? I don't think so. It's a mortgage. Wollen: It wouldn't qualify as a lease. It would be something in between, so -- Zaremba: Well, I can see that he may not entirely. As long as we leave quasi-public in really, the point of having them there is that the two are a contrast, but I would at least leave quasi in and this could go. McKinnon: Is everybody okay with that? Borup: Take the public uses out? McKinnon: Just leave it out. It sounds like we all know what it is, but we can't quite put our finger on it. Which leads me to believe that it's not -- Nick noted that it's not questioned all that often. If it were vague, it really wouldn't be that big a deal to explain it. Centers: You're going to leave it in without the definition? McKinnon: Yes. Leave it in just without a definition. Zaremba: Okay. McKinnon: We will leave it in, but we just don't define it. Centers: They have got to ask. McKinnon: So I will just scribble this out and we won't include it in the definitions. That's fine with me. Zaremba: All right. Last page. McKinnon: Okay. Meridian Planning & Zoning December 19, 2002 Page 110 of 116 Zaremba: Repair major motor vehicle and repair minor motor vehicle, I would just take both of those out. You have got them already covered. You established the motor vehicle body shop and motor vehicle repair. Borup: We had the body shop -- Zaremba: Which covers all of the subjects. I would just take these two out. McKinnon: Do we have body shop defined? If we do, I would be more than happy to get rid of them. Zaremba: Yes. Motor vehicle body shop and motor vehicle repair are defined. McKinnon: Okay. That's fine with me. Zaremba: So I would take these two out. McKinnon: Yes. That would be fine. We will have to remember -- Borup: Well, then, you have to take out excluding frame straightening, don't you because that was included in the other? McKinnon: And the reason why both of those are defined is because they are found separately in the industrial zone. In 11-8, that's the schedule of use control, in the motor vehicle repair -- where is the body shop? Zaremba: We should make a note to fix that when we get there. McKinnon: Yes. It is listed differently. I have no problem with eliminating both of them. Is the vehicle straightening not included in the other, Chairman Borup? Borup: Pardon? McKinnon: The straightening -- body straightening, is that not included in the -- Borup: In the motor vehicle repair it says excluding frame straightening, bodywork, and painting under motor vehicle repair. Zaremba: Because that's body shop right above it. That's what -- Borup: Oh. McKinnon: Yes. Yes. It looks like that it's a duplicity there. Borup: I'm sorry. Yes so the body shop -- so these others are just duplicated, aren't they? Meridian Planning & Zoning December 19, 2002 Page 111 of 116 McKinnon: That would be fine with me to strike both of those if you guys are in favor of striking that. Okay. Zaremba: Okay. Restaurants. McKinnon: Okay. Zaremba: Any building or part thereof in which the principal use is the preparation of food and beverage for consumption on site or carry out or serving or something -- because manufacturing plants could prepare food and package it and ship it. McKinnon: Yes. Zaremba: For consumption on site or carry out. McKinnon: Okay. Zaremba: Okay. School. McKinnon: Okay. Zaremba: Second sentence. This definition includes nursery schools, kindergarten, elementary schools, junior high schools, and senior high schools -- do we want to add charter schools? McKinnon: Well, charter schools -- Zaremba: Is a normal school, but has a course required by the state. McKinnon: No more than 200 kids and typically they are associated either with the charter junior high school or the charter high school. I guess there are some charter high schools that have multi levels in all of them. Zaremba: The option would be to actually have a sentence that says school, charter. Do you have a separate definition? Wollen: I don't think there would be any reason to add to the school definition. McKinnon: Any reason to leave it out or any reason not to leave it out? Wollen: I don't see any reason to leave it out, not to include it in this definition. McKinnon: Okay. I will just add charter high school. Zaremba: So junior high school, senior high school, charter school? Meridian Planning & Zoning December 19, 2002 Page 112 of 116 McKinnon: Charter school. Zaremba: Yes. McKinnon: Charter school. Okay. Zaremba: And at the end of that same paragraph, in parenthesis it says see alternative school. McKinnon: That's right down below it. We don't have a definition for that. Zaremba: I'm going to give you one. Freckleton: Thank you. Zaremba: But in parenthesis I would switch it to say see school, comma, alternative. McKinnon: Alternative. Okay. Zaremba: So here is my suggestion. Again, I will read it real quick and we can discuss it. School, alternative, slash, educational programs, a facility primarily devoted to education and/or socialization of at risk person, such as drop-outs, delinquents, or persons with learning disabilities, regardless of whether the school is public or private, for profit or not, daytime or residential, for minors or adults. McKinnon: The residential scares me. That was one of the reasons we had a hard time defining this, was the -- I don't know if you were on the Commission at the time, Commissioner Zaremba, when we had the -- Zaremba: I wasn't. I heard about it, but I wasn't. McKinnon: We had the one on Pine and the reason they didn't want that is because they didn't feel it was appropriate in a residential neighborhood and there was a huge amount of discussion with that. I guess only two of you that were here and that was one of the things we have tried to stay away from, is to not allow that in a residential in the future. It really didn't fall under schools that they were proposing and we didn't want that to be defined as a school and allow that in a residential but that's the only thing that I heard in your definition -- Zaremba: Well, I wasn't meaning in a residential zone, I was meaning whether the students are boarding students or -- McKinnon: Okay. Meridian Planning & Zoning December 19, 2002 Page 113 of 116 Centers: I don't think you need to define it, but where you get into it is in the zoning, residential. That's what we have to look at school alternative, slash, and education program, none of the above. You know, make them ask what it is. McKinnon: Just leave it undefined? Centers: Yes. McKinnon: Okay. Wollen: And the State Code might have its own definition on this, too. Yes. I believe the school district would have to have a definition of it, so -- McKinnon: Do you guys want to include Commissioner Zaremba's comments or do you want to leave it vague and leave it up to State Code and the school district to define it? Borup: Well, it sounds like if there is an existing definition -- Zaremba: If there were a definition, I would use it. I was making it up, because I heard the discussion before. McKinnon: Yes Meridian School District. Centers: It doesn't matter to me, as long as it's covered in the zoning. McKinnon: As long as it's in the schedule of use control? That's something we will have to address soon. Okay. Are we leaving it out? I'm partially keeping these notes for any motion, so that when you make the motion it can be according to all the changes. Zaremba: Well, I would leave the title in there. McKinnon: Okay. Zaremba: And, then, I probably would seek to see if there is a state definition or a school district definition. McKinnon: So we will just -- it's in the schedule of use right now and I will just read it better. Okay. Got it. Zaremba: Then, under school, private commercial, a school, regardless of whether it is operated for profit, primarily devoted to instruction -- and, then, I would add, in selected subjects, such as -- the distinction is that a school -- just school as a whole curriculum. A school private commercial usually only has selected subjects. Devoted to instruction in selected subjects, such as -- Meridian Planning & Zoning December 19, 2002 Page 114 of 116 McKinnon: Okay. Such as dance, music, art, language, et cetera. Zaremba: Then, there is -- farther down -- McKinnon: Bruce just brought up an interesting point that is outside the issue. He said how do we fit a -- he asked how a Christian School would fit in, like the one we just approved over here at the old high school. If it would fall under the definition of school, Bruce, because it would -- Zaremba: Yes. Under the regular school, whether private -- public or private it says. Wollen: So the difference, then, Commissioner Zaremba, is whether or not there is a full curriculum or it centers on one specific. Zaremba: It probably doesn't have martial arts and it doesn't have -- McKinnon: Okay. Zaremba: Then, farther down there is technical school. I would either say that the trade above, school, comma, trade vocational, satisfies that. McKinnon: Where are we? Trade vocational schools? So strike technical school? Zaremba: So I would strike the whole thing. McKinnon: That's fine with me. Zaremba: And would you believe I'm done. Centers: Now, you have got to make the motion. McKinnon: I have got all the changes right here for you, Commissioner Zaremba, on all three items, if you want to just follow through the notes that I have made. Zaremba: I would recommend approval as amended. I wouldn't even read all of that. Wollen: I think we are fine with it. Borup: That would be an exhibit. Centers: You need to name the three items that we are approving on. Zaremba: Yes. So, Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward to the City Council recommending approval of the Wireless Communications Tower Ordinance -- Borup: We didn't close the Public Hearing. Meridian Planning & Zoning December 19, 2002 Page 115 of 116 Zaremba: Oh, we have a Public Hearing. I'm sorry. Mr. Chairman -- Borup: I'd like to hear from everybody that's out in the audience. Zaremba: Any further comments? Yes, but look how much stuff we have cleaned up while we are staying a little later tonight. Borup: We have heard from everybody, so we could close the hearing. Zaremba: And I will have no further comments on it. Mr. Chairman, I move we close the Public Hearing on Items 7, 8, and 9 of our agenda. Rohm: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward to the City Council recommending approval of the new Wireless Communications Tower Ordinance as amended during this discussion. Borup: Do them one at a time? Is that what you'd like? Okay. Rohm: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move that we have forward to the City Council recommending approval of the amendment to the Meridian City Code 11-2-2, Definitions of the Zoning Regulations Ordinance, with the understanding that these are additions to some existing, to include the changes as discussed. Rohm: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to the City Council recommending approval of the amendment to the Meridian City Code 11-15-5, Posting Requirements, to include the changes made during the recent discussion. Rohm: I'll second. Meridian Planning & Zoning December 19, 2002 Page 116 of 116 Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Centers: I move we adjourn. Mathes: Second. Borup: All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES MEETING ADJOURNED AT 12:27 A.M. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) APPROVED: / / KEITH BORUP, CHAIRMAN DATE ATTESTED: WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CITY CLERK