Loading...
2002 03-21Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting March 21, 2002 The regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:00 P.M. on Thursday, March 21, 2002, by Chairman Keith Borup. Members Present: Keith Borup, David Zaremba, Jerry Centers, and Leslie Mathes, and Keven Shreeve. Others Present: David Swartley, Bruce Freckleton, Brad Hawkins-Clark, Sharon Smith, and Dean Willis. Item 1. Roll-call Attendance: X David Zaremba X Jerry Centers X Leslie Mathes X Keven Shreeve X Chairman Keith Borup Borup: Good evening, everyone. We'd like to begin our meeting this evening, our regular scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission for March 21st . Begin with roll call of the Commissioners. Item 3: Consent Agenda: A. Approve minutes of February 21, 2002 Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting: B. Approve minutes of March 7, 2002 Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting: Borup: The first item on the agenda is minutes from February 21st and March 7th meetings. Do we have any comments or questions on the minutes? Centers: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Commissioner Centers. Centers: I have one major change as I see it. Page 65. Zaremba: Which minutes? Centers: The first item on the Agenda is A. February 21st . Page 65. The motion was made to approve the plat for Baldwin Park Subdivision. It's noted that I seconded that. That is not true. As noted below that I voted against the sub. So, it's very obvious that I didn't second the motion. I couldn't tell you who did second it, but I did second the motion to approve the annexation and zoning, but not the plat. Borup: Does anybody here know who seconded it? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting March 21, 2002 Page 2 of 48 Centers: Commissioner Shreeve made the motion. Zaremba: Then I probably seconded it. Borup: So note that. Anyone have anything else? Zaremba: Not on February 21st I don't. Borup: Okay. Centers: So I'd like to move that we approve the minutes of February 21st as amended. Zaremba: I will second that. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Borup: Commissioner, did you say you had something on the -- Zaremba: I do on the minutes of March 7th . Two things actually. On Page 21, counting the first partial paragraph, the second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth paragraph down starts with Dave McKinnon speaking, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Commissioner Zaremba -- this was a continuous thought that was all spoken by McKinnon. It appears in looking at this that I spoke some of this, but he was actually talking to me and addressing me. This paragraph starts Mr. McKinnon, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Commissioner Zaremba, is all a continuous thought spoken by McKinnon. Does that make sense? Borup: Okay. Zaremba: And the other one is just a minor one. On Page 22, the very top paragraph, again, this is me speaking. The middle sentence there says definition for that in Chapter 7, but Chapter -- it should say 8, not 9. Chapter 8. Those are all the only comments that I have. Borup: Thank you. Anyone else? Do we have a motion on those minutes? Zaremba: I move we accept -- approve the minutes of the March 7, 2002, Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting. Mathes: I will second that. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting March 21, 2002 Page 3 of 48 Item 4: Public Hearing: CUP 02-003 Request for a Conditional Use Permit to add one to two additional children after school in existing Family Home Daycare in an R-8 zone for Christina Floyd by Christina Floyd – 567 East Brown Bear Street: Borup: Thank you. First Public Hearing this evening is CUP 02-003, a request for a Conditional Use Permit after school in existing Family Home Daycare in an R-8 zone for Christina Floyd. We'd like to open this Public Hearing and start with the staff report. Hawkins-Clark: Thank you, Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission. Item Number 4. On the screen is the vicinity map for the application for the Conditional Use Permit. This is in the Featherville Subdivision and the lot is here off of East Brown Bear Street. Has an existing county in-fill parcel that is surrounded by city limits just to the south. Here are a couple of site photos from the front of the house. The floor plan is here, I’d just draw your attention to the staff comments by Bruce Freckleton, and Dave McKinnon dated March 18th . I do not show any record that there have been any letters submitted in opposition to this. The item on Page 4 of our staff report, just going to point out there, Page 4, Number 7, I think as you said, Chairman Borup, the applicant is just requesting an increase of one to two children. It is for up to 12. The condition does state there, Item Number 7, no more than seven children, including those under the age of 14, shall be cared for at anytime. Just for your information, I mean the item -- if that can be adjusted, since they can go up to 12 and if you adopt our conditions as recommended seven is the maximum. If at any point in the future she wanted to increase the number of kids, she would have to come through this process again. Otherwise, if you set it at eight or nine, but you do have that freedom to set the maximum number here. In other words, you could cap it at any number at 12 or less. The Fire Department, I just had a couple of comments. You should have those in your packet. Other than that, I think we just ask that our conditions be included in any motion. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Any questions for staff? Centers: I have one question, Mr. Chairman. Brad, I'm just curious. Does the city require this very formal drawing of the house? Did we require that? Hawkins-Clark: Our application on Conditional Use Permits requires scale drawings. Accessory Use Permits for five kids or less we do not. Centers: Okay. Hawkins-Clark: They can just hand draw those. For the ones that are six to 12 we do. Zaremba: I have a question and I guess it -- on Page 4, Paragraph 7, the one you were just referring to, your last words are, shall be cared for at anytime and according to Title 11, Chapter 2 -- actually, 11-2-2, child care counts are counted on a whole day basis. In Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting March 21, 2002 Page 4 of 48 other words, I think we need to clarify that whatever number we pick, if it's seven, that no more than seven children, including the children under age 14 who live in the house, shall be cared for cumulatively throughout any one day period. I think that's as childcare is defined in 11-2-2. It is not a momentary snapshot it's an entire day. If you're looking at it, it's the very last sentence before you get to the next definition. Hawkins-Clark: Thank you. Yes, Commissioner Zaremba, referring to the childcare facility definition? Zaremba: Yes. Hawkins-Clark: In 11-2-2, it should be noted that in determining the type of child care facility that is being operated the total number of children cared for during the day and not the number of children at the facility at any one time is determinative, yes. Zaremba: So that would change your last few words to this one to reflect an all day count. Having said that, realizing that the applicant could just request half of that being 12, instead of seven. Borup: Is Christina Floyd here and would like to come forward? Go ahead. State your name and address for the record. Floyd: My name is Christina Floyd. I live at 527 East Brown Bear in Meridian. Borup: Is there anything you would like to add to the staff report? Floyd: No. That's what I -- Hawkins-Clark: Let's see of there might be any questions from any of the Commissioners. Zaremba: Just making sure that we have the count right. I don't know if you understood the discussion that I was just having. Total number of children who would be there throughout the day, you're still comfortable with seven or would you like us to change that number? Floyd: Seven is fine. Zaremba: Okay. Centers: I have a question. Mrs. Floyd, how did you happen to come to us to extend this or to modify the original permit? Floyd: I was -- my own two children were going to be starting -- going to be in school all day this fall, so I could like care for two others while they were at school and if they overlap, I just wanted to remain within the guidelines. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting March 21, 2002 Page 5 of 48 Centers: So you took it upon yourself? Floyd: Yes. Centers: I commend you for that, for coming back to get the permit that's applicable. Very good. So you want us -- you're satisfied with a total of seven at any given time? Floyd: Yes. Centers: I think that would be the verbiage, at any given time, wouldn't it? Zaremba: That's not what the -- it's just says cumulative throughout the day. Hawkins-Clark: I think probably my preference would be just to stay with the ordinance language. You could refer to Title 11-2-2 and modify -- Centers: Per Ordinance 11-2-2. Hawkins-Clark: Correct. Shreeve: Well, let me just try and understand. At 10:00 o'clock in the morning, she's got seven kids at the house. Then an hour later one child leaves never to return, but then another child comes, which then would make eight that have shown up. That is not allowable, is that what I understand? Zaremba: Well, it counts as eight and she would be allowed up to 12 if that's what she wants to ask for. Shreeve: Even though there is seven there at one time, the eighth one technically makes it not legal. Hawkins-Clark: That's correct. Shreeve: So I guess the question is to you, are you going to have anybody coming in an out? Floyd: I will have a total of seven. Shreeve: Just trying to make sure, help you while we are here. Centers: So you don't have to come back. You know, you want to think about that for about 15 seconds. But you are -- Floyd: That's enough for me. Thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting March 21, 2002 Page 6 of 48 Shreeve: But you understand? Floyd: Yes, I do. Borup: But at this point, you have -- two of your own children are counted in the five is that -- Floyd: Yes. Borup: And so they are going to be going to school, so you're just replacing those two. Floyd: Right. Borup: So that an additional two is just so that you're in compliance when they come home from school is all? Floyd: Yes. If they overlap or -- Borup: Okay. Again, I second what Commission Centers said. I commend you. Any other questions from the Commissioners? Centers: The only other thing is the Fire Department inspected and the applicant understands that, because the Fire Department says the facility will have to meet State Fire Marshal standards for family day-care and they will conduct an inspection using this standard. Have they or she can expect them? Hawkins-Clark: She can expect them. Centers: Okay. There you go. Floyd: Thank you. Borup: Thank you. Do we have anyone else to testify on this application? Seeing none, Commissioners? Shreeve: Mr. Chairman, I move that we close Public Hearing CUP 02-003. Centers: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Shreeve: Mr. Chairman, I move that we approve CUP 02-003, request for a Conditional Use Permit to add two additional children after school in an existing family home day- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting March 21, 2002 Page 7 of 48 care in an R-8 zone for Christina Floyd, 567 East Brown Bear Street with the recommendations as stated in the staff report. Zaremba: Including the one modification in compliance with 11-2-2. Shreeve: Yes. Centers: I would second that. Zaremba: I'll second -- Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Item 5: Public Hearing: CUP 02-004 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for an automotive repair business and vehicle parking and storage for Meridian Automotive and Machine by Meridian Automotive and Machine, Inc. – 505 East 1st Street: Borup: Next item is CUP 02-004, request for Conditional Use Permit for an automotive repair business and vehicle parking and storage for Meridian Automotive and Machine by Meridian Automotive and Machine, Incorporated, at 505 East 1st Street. We'd like to open this Public Hearing and start with the staff report. Hawkins-Clark: Thank you, Chairman, Members of the Commission. This item depicted here this the vicinity map on the screen. The Union Pacific Railroad. I'm sure you're all familiar with the location. It's here on the west side of the East 1st . Bower Avenue borders it to the south. Meridian Road is here on the west. It is zoned Old Town. Here are a couple of existing site photos, left one looking north on East 1st , north boundary looking west there on the right-hand side. This is the north end of the site. This is the primary building here, the Quonset Hut, and then here is the south boundary on Bower Street looking to the west. Here is the south boundary looking to the east towards D&B Supply there. Here is the site plan. I would draw your attention to the March 18th staff report. There was a summary there of the history of this in terms of the reason for the Conditional Use Permit, that there is some existing non-conforming use issues with regard to the storage of some vehicles and the original Conditional Use Permit conditions not being complied with. I won't go into too much of those details here. They haven't -- they do have a sign that was installed without a legal permit. They do have no Certificate of Occupancy that the city has on record. The city has had legal action against the owner for failing to conform with those original conditions, so we -- essentially, just to give you that history there, making a recommendation for some bonding there on Page 2 in the middle of the page with cash or an irrevocable letter of credit. In terms of the site plan here, the -- again, here is the railroad to the north. All of this parking with the paving and striping is a proposed change. There is here a proposed new front elevation on the building that is a part of this proposal, so some Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting March 21, 2002 Page 8 of 48 significant changes there. Overhead doors here on the right-hand side with more of a customer-oriented entrance here and here are a couple of the side elevations there. Here is a better depiction with the existing Quonset Hut on the left with the new facade there on the right. In terms of the recommendation, we do have a few other conditions to add onto their proposal, but with our comments we are recommending approval of the project, so I will just stand for any questions at that. Borup: Questions from the Commission? Zaremba: I don't think I need to be first, but I do have one. Borup: Okay. Go ahead. Zaremba: Normally in our packets we are able to find the permission of the owner of the property to build on it and I think I see that the owner of at least part of this is Union Pacific Railroad and has permission been obtained from them to make the changes that would happen on their right of way, since I don't see -- Centers: Page 6, Item 8 the last sentence. Zaremba: In staff notes? Centers: Staff comments. Borup: And that doesn't state whether they have received permission or not. Zaremba: I would think the city would require written notice or written -- something written from the railroad to say that this is okay. I'm not sure it's up to us to decide if something could be built on railroad property. Hawkins-Clark: Yes. Right. Commissioner Zaremba, I do know that Steve Siddoway was waiting for that approval. I, like you, do not see it in the packet. Maybe the applicant could address that. I don't know the history on that. I'm sorry. Borup: Brad, a question on -- you had made reference to the previous application, the conditions at that time. Do you happen to know the date of that? Hawkins-Clark: We don't have that date readily available here. Borup: Okay. The other question I had was comment made -- the staff report made comments on the sign that was done without a permit. Would the sign that's there meet the Sign Ordinance requirements? Hawkins-Clark: The Sign Ordinance that was adopted just a year ago by Council, February of 2002, actually -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting March 21, 2002 Page 9 of 48 Centers: 2001. Hawkins-Clark: Or 2001. I'm sorry. Yes, does not have an old standard for signs in Old Town at this point in time. There is going to be a committee formed to come up with the some special sign standards that are different for Old Town than the rest of the city. The way we have been handling them is to -- you know, to go more or less on a site-by- site basis using a similar zone, for example, if it's a commercial use in Old Town we would take the commercial zone in the Sign Ordinance and kind of look at that. In terms of a commercial use, I believe -- I did not review the height, but I think they are probably generally within the commercial code. Borup: The setback would be -- it may have been approved, may, or may not have been approved, but without an application, there wasn't even -- Hawkins-Clark: There was an application submitted, but it was denied. Borup: For the sign? Hawkins-Clark: Correct. Borup: Oh. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions from the Commissioners? Is the applicant or representative here and would like to come forward? Gibson: Mr. Chairman, my name is James Gibson and I am the Project Architect representing this project. My address is P.O. Box 219 in Eagle. Borup: I might just note, as Mr. Hawkins-Clark said, the staff is recommending approval, so I guess we would be interested in anything you have to say why we shouldn't grant approval. Gibson: Well, no, we don't have any reason why you shouldn't. Borup: So I guess, then, you may have some comments on the staff report, then. Gibson: Yes. Yes. We have reviewed the staff report and commend the staff on a good job. There are several items that really do need to be considered by the Commission and we'd like to offer those for your consideration. The question was just brought up about the permission from the railroad. This is a valid question. In looking at this and in reviewing this question with the staff, they reviewed the lease between Union Pacific Railroad and the applicant. The lease states the use intended for the railroad property and it was determined by the staff that this was an appropriate giving of permission to make this application. We went on that basis. I believe that the lease is available to you in your packet -- or at least it was submitted with the application to address this question, so -- Borup: Okay. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting March 21, 2002 Page 10 of 48 Gibson: -- I'm not sure what degree that satisfies the Commission, but that's what happened and -- Borup: I would assume that answers that, if staff felt the lease was valid. Hawkins-Clark: Yes. It is Article 1 of the Lease of Property Agreement, which was in the -- towards the rear of the packet. The last sentence of Article 1. Centers: Excuse me. Does it say that they can go ahead and pave it and or landscape it, etc., per our requirements? Hawkins-Clark: If I could read it. It's just the one. It says, premises may be used for automotive parking, storage, and purposes incidental thereto only and for no other purpose. So may be used for automotive parking, storage, and purposes incidental thereto. It makes no specific mention to paving. Centers: So if we were to allow it with the condition that you obtain a letter from the lessor that they would allow the paving and or landscaping, you wouldn't have a problem with that, I take it? Zaremba: And fencing. Centers: Pardon? Zaremba: It needs to be fenced as well. In Old Town it needs to be screened from view. Gibson: Well, we certainly wouldn't disagree with that if that were the pleasure of the Commission. We believe that the lease implied that there would have to be improvements to allow the use, but certainly if the Commission is more comfortable with that, we could pursue that. We wouldn't have any particular disagreement with that. In the event, though, that the railroad would be reluctant or refuse to grant that permission, what would become of us then? I guess I need to ask the Commission that question. Centers: Well, the staff comments state, or the proposed vehicle parking shall not be allowed. That's what the staff recommended. Gibson: Okay. That -- I guess that question would then be should we -- we should ask for some sort of consideration from the Commission to allow it with some sort of modification should the railroad come up with some detail that is different than what we have applied for. Centers: Well, I think what they are looking at, too, is dust and that type of thing. You know, if it were paved and allowed by the railroad, then it would be a lot neater. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting March 21, 2002 Page 11 of 48 Gibson: We want to address that question also so perhaps our present response should be that we don't see this issue as a particular problem to accomplishing what is being requested, but we don't have any objection to pursuing this. Centers: Okay. Gibson: As I indicated, we have reviewed the staff report and just have a couple of questions. This is -- in Item B, it's the second paragraph, it starts throughout the original CUP didn't propose the railroad property. Then the second sentence is the use of this property and we assume that's alluding to the present use that was illustrated in the picture here, has detracted from the area and caused further deterioration. We see absolutely no evidence that that is true. Before the applicant leased this property, the property was covered with weeds, debris, and trash that had to be removed to accomplish this. We hope that you have had some opportunity to see the property. I'm sure you're all familiar with it, you know, where it is, it's right in the middle of town but we really don't believe that the property has deteriorated from the way that it was before the applicant leased it from the railroad. To lead into this, we have illustrated the landscaping along the railroad right of way in an effort to be in compliance with the Landscape Ordinance. As I'm sure you're very well aware, the current Landscape Ordinance requires a very significant amount of landscape buffering and personally, I appreciate that and think that's an asset to the community. I don't mean to disagree with the ordinance in any respect. The question we would raise is whether putting the landscaping as proposed -- as proposed along the railroad is of any benefit to anyone or specifically to meet the letter of the law without any benefit to the public. We know that there is a transit point proposed near this location and that may be considered some rationale for requiring landscaping along the railroad right of way. However, we think it would be a tad unusual to require that from an applicant at this point where there is no transit entity there. Looking at the entire railroad corridor through the community there is nothing approaching landscaping along the railroad right of way at any point. This would seem to be a very unusual circumstance with very little benefit to anyone. The landscaping we don't think would be very visible from anywhere by the public. We would request relief, if you will, from that portion of the landscaping. We could be amenable to adding a somewhat equivalent area somewhere else where it would be more visible and some use to the public, some public benefit. Associated with that, we would question the wisdom or advisability of installing planting requiring maintenance and irrigation in this location and along 2nd Street. This is the western boundary of the proposed parking. That seems to be -- it's the far left part, yes, along there. The ordinance -- strict interpretation of the ordinance requires something like 25 or 30 feet of landscaping there and we questioned the wisdom in putting that sort of planting in a location like that. The more, shall we say, practical proposal might be to use an attractive graveled area there, something that would be neat and not subject to the weeds that have been there for many, many years. The applicant is interested in making it neat and attractive, but not in creating a further maintenance and irrigation problem. We would ask for some consideration along those lines with the landscaping. We have been interested to note that there are numerous -- or several, shall I say, other parcels along and in the railroad right of way in the central part of Meridian which are Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting March 21, 2002 Page 12 of 48 principally used for placement of vehicles. Most notably and applicable to this application is directly to the north across the railroad the vehicles are parked in the right of way and there is absolutely no hint of screening, landscaping, paving, any of the issues that we are dealing with here. We certainly have no objection to that neighboring business using the property in that way, but point out that the requirements for landscaping and paving seem to be extreme in this case. Looking under Item C, near the end of this item the notes of the automobile wrecking and storage is prohibited. We don't believe that this is a wrecking yard. It's not for wrecked vehicles that are brought and kept there until they get a million of them and then a crusher comes and they take them away. It's not that. This is an automotive repair place and when you take a car there to be repaired it has to be put someplace and then pulled in, repaired, put out and then come and pick it up. That's the nature of the vehicle storage there. It's not a wrecking yard. Additionally, there is a portion of this area along the railroad that looks like a lot of parking, which is for an impound storage area. The city and private businesses impound vehicles that are improperly left somewhere and they -- this is one of the services that Meridian Automotive as this business provided. They have to have a place to put them and they are placed in there until the paperwork can be completed to get them on to the next place. That is not a -- normally a lengthy process, as I understand it, between normally within 45 to 60 days. The vehicles are not -- again, they are not stored there for months and months until somebody takes them all away like a wrecking yard. Anyway, we believe that the proposed use is not in violation of any provision of the ordinance. Further, the proposed use in the railroad right of way is not a parking lot. It isn't where people drive in and out many times a day. It's where vehicles are placed for the purpose of waiting to work on them in the automotive shop and then waiting while somebody is going to pick them up. It's not a parking lot and, therefore, we don't believe that the requirements for paving of this area is applicable or, in fact, desirable in this location. The paving would require a whole different sort of site drainage and it would be a rather extensive thing. Frankly, I don't -- I can't believe that the community would find this desirable to increase the acreage of paving that exists. The lot operates just fine without the paving and is not the issue that it would be if there were vehicles driving in and out of here many times a day. Vehicles are brought there -- it looks like a huge parking lot, but, in fact, the vehicles -- there is very little traffic there and the lot should not be open, shall we say, to the public, so that non-employees would be driving in there. The parking which is for the visitors and customers is in front of the building. There is an appropriate amount of parking to accommodate that. It is paved, in good condition and that's where the visitors to the site will continue to park, not in the area to the north on the right -- the railroad right of way, which is a very different use. Centers: Could I interrupt? It was not your intention to pave part of the railroad right of way? Gibson: That is correct. We desire relief from that proposed condition. The plans that we have shown indicates the paving and the landscaping that I mentioned. Centers: Yes the plans show that -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting March 21, 2002 Page 13 of 48 Gibson: That's correct and we are asking for relief from these conditions. Centers: Got you. Thank you. Gibson: We have prepared them, of course, in extensive consultation with the staff and we appreciate their input. Centers: Okay. Gibson: In the report, if you look at Number E through I -- we don't have any argument with Number -- under, then, the site-specific conditions. Number 1 really is what I have been talking about. About whether this is a wrecking yard or a parking lot or whatever it is, it's -- we don't feel that it's a parking lot and it's certainly not a wrecking yard. It's a storage place for these vehicles waiting as they come in and out. Number 3 addresses the sign installed about -- without a permit -- Zaremba: It is automobile storage. Gibson: That's where the -- yes, where the vehicles are stored in the sense that they wait there to be picked up. Yes. It's not long-term storage. Number 3 talks about the sign and that was mentioned by staff. I believe the sign installed without a permit. There may be a bit of confusion about what sign is being referred to there. There is an existing monument sign along 1st Street that has been there for many years and there was a modification made to that. It was decided that that did not trigger on sign application. There was -- yes. That's the one, the sign along the road. It's been there a long time. Borup: That's a monument sign? Gibson: Well, a sign on -- a freestanding sign, whatever the correct term for that would be. Borup: I don't think that meets the definition of a monument sign. Gibson: It's a freestanding sign. In addition, there is a sign which is relatively recently installed on the Quonset Hut building. We believe that that was the sign that was alluded to here where it says that the -- did not get a permit, because to my knowledge and understanding there was not a permit issued for the sign that has recently been installed on the building. The proposal before you is to completely change that area with the new facade of the building and there would be a sign placed on it in general conformance with the sign that is illustrated on what was submitted. We believe to our understanding this issue was addressed in the design presented to you. We would, of course, appreciate clarification if this question is referring to the freestanding sign along 1st Street. We thought it was not. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting March 21, 2002 Page 14 of 48 Borup: Why don't we go ahead and get clarification right now. Do you have -- Hawkins-Clark: Yes. It was referring to the freestanding. Gibson: The freestanding? Hawkins-Clark: Yes. The permit that was applied for was -- this was for the existing sign on East 1st , the freestanding. Zaremba: Can that be grandfathered or was it significantly changed? Hawkins-Clark: It's a fairly significant change from the original sign. Gibson: Perhaps -- and I apologize to the Commission, I was not involved in that issue. I'm the Project Architect for this application. I was not involved in the sign question. Perhaps the staff could help us all understand what really the issue is there. If the sign is non-conforming or if it should simply be included as an element in this application or what the nature of the issue is. I apologize I don't understand what the question is. Borup: Well, the staff comment was just that this Commission should evaluate it. Gibson: Okay. I guess we agree it should be evaluated. Centers: Well, now to clarify, it says existing sign shall be modified as necessary to conform to the recommendations of the P&Z Commission. That's what staff is recommending and I guess I would have to concur with that, since there was no permit originally. We have a Sign Ordinance in effect so, anyway, continue on. Gibson: Yes. We will certainly be amenable to receiving the -- those recommendations of staff. This isn't a point of disagreement, simply we, obviously, misunderstood what sign was being referred to here. Item Number 4 requires the improvements to be completed within six months. We believe that we understand the reason for that, because, frankly -- and I'm aware, though, I have not been directly involved in much of the history of this property. There have been some items that have not yet been completed and so we understand why the Commission and the city would be anxious to assure a reasonable time frame for this. We have no disagreement with that. However, would ask that that time frame be defined as one year, rather than six months. The project is not intended to be phased and as we stated in our application letter, it would follow in a logical sequence of construction, not separated. We do understand and appreciate the city's concern that this not be in any way simply a ploy to allow something without ever doing all of the improvements. We understand that and have no disagreement with it at all. Borup: So you're saying 12 months from the date of approval? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting March 21, 2002 Page 15 of 48 Gibson: Twelve months from approval. We believe that will allow sufficient time for finalizing the designs, obtaining the Building Permits, obtaining financing and getting it to bid and constructed. Six months would be very, very optimistic to accomplish that. Condition Number 5 we really already talked about our request to the relief from the requirement for the landscaping along the railroad where we don't think it would have beneficial impact. Number 7 we had talked about negating the fencing of the vehicle area on the right of way, the railroad right of way, and we are not really sure why this is of any concern whether the fence is blocked or not blocked. That would seem to be an operational question best addressed by the owner and the person, the entity that operates this business. Though if the Commission has some concern about this question, we would certainly be interested in responding. We simply ask that the condition -- the final sentence of this condition, no gating of the access is proposed or approved -- well, we are not sure why that's even an issue, since the fence does provide gating and security if necessary there. I believe that the applicant understands the nature of meeting the appropriate security and that's the only reason for fencing there. Number 8 talks about the parking spaces and the paving. Again, as we said before, that we don't believe that paving would be of any benefit to the owner or to the community and so we request relief from that condition. Number 11 mentions that an Occupancy Permit was not issued for the western most building on the subject property. I was the architect for that building a few years ago, have communicated within the last six months with Mr. Daunt Whitman regarding, and have assured him that the building is complete and ready for occupancy. I have written him a letter to that effect and whether he has chosen to inspect it and issue the Occupancy Certificate. Centers: But there is none right now. Gibson: I have no knowledge of -- Centers: Right. Gibson: But we have informed him that it's ready. Centers: Right. Gibson: And that was approximately six months ago and he did tell me what the issue was that he was concerned about previously. The building -- the building was built as the type of construction that would not allow open flame welding. Someone brought a welder to the building and Mr. Whitman was aware of that. It's not something that was ever regularly used in the business, it was taken away, and there has been no welder on this site. That was the issue that presented the immediate issue of a Certificate of Occupancy and this was two or three years ago. Anyway, we believe that that issue is gone now. That really addresses our assessment of the proposed conditions. In addition, we would like to just submit to you a communication from 11 friends and neighbors, residents of Meridian and generally these are business people in the area. They say, we are aware of this proposed project of Meridian Automotive and we believe it will be a benefit to our community and neighborhood. We support and recommend Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting March 21, 2002 Page 16 of 48 approval of the Conditional Use Permit being applied for. We have this -- may I submit this to the -- Mr. Chairman. Mr. Nesmith, the owner of this business, is present, if there should be any questions dealing with the operation of the facility. I, of course, would be happy to address any questions you may have of an architectural or design nature. Thank you. Borup: Any questions from the Commission? Centers: Not for Mr. Gibson. I would have a question on the letter of credit if this was approved and that probably should be addressed to the applicant. Gibson: Perhaps so. However, I have -- Mr. Chairman, Mr. Commissioner, I have discussed this with the applicant and it is not an issue. There is no disagreement with the letter of credit or bonding as requested here. That's not an issue. The applicant is willing to comply. Borup: Okay. As I have been trying to put down in your discussion, it looks like Items Number 3, 4, 5, and 8 are the ones that you may have either issue with or asking for a modification of your application. Gibson: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I believe that those are the correct numbers. Three, four, five -- Borup: Four, five -- Gibson: -- and eight. Yes and we did have a question about Number 7, why the gating is an issue of concern. The numbers you have identified are correct. Borup: I'm not sure why it's a concern either, other than were you planning on gating the main access or -- Gibson: No, not the main access to the site, simply to the area where if I bring my car in to get fixed, I'd rather have a gate closed if it's there overnight. That -- we think the applicant should do what he judges is appropriate there. Borup: Any other Commissioners have any comment on that? I don't know why that's - - Centers: I don't either. I agree. I think it's a little ambiguous. Borup: Okay. Yes. Zaremba: I would throw one in. They include -- I guess this is an explanation of what some of the Old Town requirements are. Under community design, Chapter 1.4, this is where I mentioned earlier about having it screened from view. There is mostly a Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting March 21, 2002 Page 17 of 48 chainlink fence there I think. Are you against weaving whatever that stuff is through the chainlink fence that would -- Gibson: That would be very appropriate and we have no -- Zaremba: That being included in your plans? Gibson: Yes. Zaremba: Thank you. Gibson: Thank you. Borup: I guess that will do it for now. Thank you. Do we have anyone else here to testify on this application? Commissioners? Centers: In that case I would move to close the Public Hearing. Zaremba: Second. Borup: And before any discussion? Centers: Yes. I'd like to have discussion. Zaremba: Actually, while it's still open I think we need staff to address -- Borup: Well, staff could address it either way. Zaremba: Unless the applicant wants to come up and have a discussion. Borup: Yes. That would be open for that if there is -- if the Commission would so desire. Shreeve: I think we just ought to keep it open for a while. Zaremba: I believe staff has been making notes and I'd like to hear it. Borup: The other Commissioners agree that -- I mean I had just those four items out of the 12 that staff had in the report. Just the four that looked like -- Centers: That's what had I noted. Borup: It may be easier to address each one of them one at a time, rather than -- is there any comment that any Commissioners have on Item Number 3? Centers: Three? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting March 21, 2002 Page 18 of 48 Zaremba: I would like to see -- Borup: Well, yes, hopefully -- I mean the staff report has asked for us to evaluate it and if we want to make any recommendations. Zaremba: My recommendation would be to change Number 3 to say that the existing sign -- and we mean freestanding sign out by the roadway -- shall be modified as necessary to conform to the current Sign Ordinance. Borup: It does. There is no -- I don't believe there are any standards in Old Town for sign ordinance. Isn't that correct? As I understood earlier? Hawkins-Clark: Chairman, the way we have been handling the code is still applying the equivalent use to that. I mean we still have been using that as a guideline. It's not called out of the specific zone. I believe the main three areas of the current Sign Code require them to be placed in landscaped areas is when it's currently in asphalt. The current Sign Ordinance does not allow bare posts, they need to be covered in some form or another, and the signs have to have addresses. I believe those are the three main areas where this one would not comply. Centers: What was the last one, Brad? Hawkins-Clark: The address needs to be placed on the sign a minimum of three inches tall. That's an emergency services kind of -- Zaremba: Well, I can see requiring those three items to bring it into compliance and also requiring that they finish the permit process for it. Centers: I totally agree, but I think it may be unreasonable to say it must be in landscaping. I think they got to get their permit and they got to do the poles as required and put the address on it. You know, I think if we require it to be in landscape you're going to dig that out and put some pansies around it and it's not going to look any better than it does now and I think that's unreasonable. Borup: The site plan -- take a look at the site plan they submitted, it shows it in the middle of landscaping. Centers: Okay. Shreeve: See, that's even torn up. They have got landscaping around in there. That will take care of itself. Borup: If they comply with their plan that will address that issue. Centers: Exactly. That's fine. I agree. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting March 21, 2002 Page 19 of 48 Borup: The other two would be -- if we go on the three things that staff has mentioned, one, the address should not be overly difficult I wouldn't think. So the only real modification on the sign itself would be the support. Centers: Yes. Number 4 I think -- the applicant's request for one year, I think that's reasonable. I think that's my -- Borup: If they don't have financing in place and ready to go, yes. Centers: I think -- you know, I would concur with that. Number 5 I think the applicant wants to eliminate landscaping along the railroad right of way and I don't know -- Shreeve: Brad, turn it to the other pictures that you have got. Oh, that was the right one. That was it. I'm sorry. My thought on that is -- and I think you brought up a good point as far as it not being beneficial for people. However, on the same token it sure makes that look a lot prettier on the back side with trees growing in there. So I would tend to lean towards having them put the trees in. Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, just a thought on that. The lease that they have with the railroad probably sets the north boundary at that fence line. Any landscaping, trees, anything they do outside of that lease may not be approved by the railroad. Zaremba: So requiring landscaping would require them also to move the fence probably back in. It becomes a major project. Freckleton: Quite possibly. Centers: Well, yes, you look at that fence and it's a straight line down there and that looks like the usable right of way for all of those adjoining people along there. Freckleton: The existing railroad right of way is 100 feet from the center, but the leased area -- Centers: That's what I mean -- Freckleton: Possibly the applicant could answer the question about, you know, whether his fence line sits right at the edge of the leased area or if he left some buffer room there or what. Zaremba: Mr. Gibson, do you know that answer? Gibson: Mr. Chairman, could I ask Mr. Nesmith to address that? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting March 21, 2002 Page 20 of 48 Borup: Well, do the Commissioners want to address that now or do you want to go -- why don't we go through and hit the other things in case they may be able to address more than -- Shreeve: Bruce, I guess I didn't understand what you were saying as far as the fence. The landscape plan boundary shows the fence. That's the boundary right? Borup: Well, we don't know. I guess I didn't understand your question. Shreeve: Well, the property boundary as shown on the landscape plans. Borup: Oh. Gibson: Is that the same line or assumed? Borup: You're saying that the Landscape Plan submitted has the landscaping inside the fence anyway? Shreeve: Right. Right. Yes. There is nothing outside but, granted, if you have some trees down the inside of the fence it would still look like garbage alongside the railroad. Zaremba: Back to the question I asked earlier. I would certainly think it would be one or the other. If they are going to screen that whole area off, then there is no point in having landscaping inside, because nobody would see it but them and they don't want it there. If they were to do landscaping, then I would back off from the screening, because the landscaping would become the screening. Centers: Yes. Think we need the applicant to address that again. Borup: Maybe clarify which landscaping they were talking about eliminating along the north side or were they also talking about eliminating the internal trees? Okay. Centers: And, personally, on Number 8 I feel that I would be in concurrence with staff comment to require the paving and then state and or landscape approval, you know, I'd like to see the paving. Zaremba: It would help with dust abatement. It probably would help some with the appearance, even though there may be other businesses around that are not required to do it at the moment. Borup: And I'd maybe state I think the business they referred to is not a legal business. I don't think they'd like to trade places with the problems they are having either. Zaremba: Well, my thinking is that when somebody who is in the Old Town District goes for any kind of any improvement, this is our opportunity to do the face-lift. I appreciate the face-lift that they are intending to put on the front of the Quonset Hut, but this is our opportunity to -- when they need something, to get something that the city Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting March 21, 2002 Page 21 of 48 needs along one of its entry corridors and sprucing it up. Then the people across the way need something or get their legal problems straightened out or want something that they want to change, then we will require them to do similar things. Shreeve: Mr. Chairman, I agree with Commissioner Centers. I think it's just a matter of that the pavement that's part of the ordinance, do we allow something different here. There is going to be those other businesses that the signs -- what's your -- I mean it can be endless. I think this is just one of those cut and dried things we just need to abide by the ordinance here and have them pave it. Borup: I was just thinking that somewhere we may be granted an exemption. The only one I can think of is they were talking about a temporary situation where they anticipated in a year or so they would be off the site, so they weren't looking at it long term. There might have been others. That's the only one I could think of. Zaremba: I would assume we are hoping this business does well and stays there for many, many years, so I can see sprucing it up. Borup: Okay. Does the Commission want Mr. Nesmith to come on up to answer the question on -- Zaremba: I think the question is does the fence define the property that you have leased, the current fence as we see it there. Nesmith: Yes, it does. Borup: You need to go ahead and state your name for the record. Nesmith: John Nesmith, 505 East 1st , Meridian. Zaremba: So you're saying the fence that we can see in the pictures defines the end of the property that you have leased? Nesmith: Yes, it does. I do have a comment regarding the sign, because I did have a meeting with Shari, Daunt, Kenny Bowers -- there was about five or six of us, including my attorney, regarding some of the old issues. Daunt had mentioned that part of the reason why we initially made an application for a brand new sign and because of some of the issues that we had pending, they disallowed that. What we did was just re-face the existing sign and that's the reason why there is not a box or shrouding around that and Daunt indicated that that would need to be an existing requirement and would not need to be -- Borup: So you didn't change the sign? Nesmith: We actually reduced the size and then I -- as indicated by the pole with the light on top, that's how tall it used to be. There is an address -- you can't see it very well. The old arrows is where it used to be a car lot and, I don't know, buy here or Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting March 21, 2002 Page 22 of 48 whatever they meant by that, but there is a bar across that that is lettered with the phone number and the address there. Just make sure I get clarification. I know the thing that really wouldn't comply and I think would be that's one thing we tried to do was the landscaping around it anyway. That's -- I guess it seemed to kind of be kind of difficult to put a box around it and keep the sign the way that it is. Just trying to take some of the old out and kind of face-lift it, instead of neon like it used to be, put a lit background kind of modernize it at this point. Borup: Do you understand that -- were the address letters on the sign supposed to be a certain size? Was that -- Nesmith: Actually, we didn't look into the height requirements, but they are that size. They are at least six inches tall. Borup: Okay. Nesmith: So I just thought I would get some clarification on that. Borup: So that's not an issue, then, on the address? Nesmith: No. That particular -- of the three points that were mentioned is not an issue. Centers: Mr. Nesmith, how many feet from the fence to the railroad iron? Shreeve: I would guess 40, 50. Centers: That's where I'm confused with the plan here. The plan has a scale -- the landscape plan, 3/16ths equals one foot, and I'm going to let you look at this. Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Centers, the distance from that chainlink fence to this set of rails is 20 feet, according to the site plan. I believe that second set of rails there is a super line. The main line going through is actually 35 feet to the main line. Centers: Do you have the Landscape Plan? Freckleton: I have a site plan. Centers: Yes. Borup: The Landscape Plan I have is 1-20. One inch to 20 feet. Centers: Oh. Oh. Borup: Oh, you're looking at that -- we are looking at two different spots there. Yes. That three -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting March 21, 2002 Page 23 of 48 Centers: Okay. We are fine. We are fine. Thank you. Borup: Is there any other questions for Mr. Nesmith while he's up? Maybe just to clarify a comment on the sign. You're saying the landscaping will be taken care of. As far as the bare post, you're saying you just refaced the existing sign, so you -- Nesmith: What Daunt had indicated is that, obviously, the grandfather rights involved, there really wouldn't be any need for -- actually, the sign that's actually -- Shari had brought it up at the meeting that the sign that was not approved was the one that was attached to the building that said AC Delco on that. You know, there was clarification on that in the letter, but that was -- I believe the actual correct assessment, but I hadn't gone through the legal or official processes to getting that stamped approval, but that's what we are trying to get fixed. Borup: Which will go away with the new building anyway. Nesmith: We will have a new sign obviously affixed to that, which would be in compliance with the current ordinance. Shreeve: I think the other question was on the landscaping, what exactly you're proposing to remove or wanting to -- well, I guess it was brought up about the landscape, since you wanted some -- to remove some landscaping along the parking lot. Is that all the way around or not at all? Nesmith: What we wanted to do is not have to go from East 1st and Meridian Road along the railroad corridor. Shreeve: Okay. Nesmith: In other words, only do in front of -- by East 1st , keep that part of it so it would look nice on the entry, but the part where the railroad conductor would be looking at, to have reprieve from that. In other words, have the entry corridor all the way along, including that railroad right of way, so that -- I can probably show you. Borup: You can grab that mike right there. Nesmith: That portion. This portion right here would stay. This portion right here we are asking for a reprieve. Shreeve: How about in the other -- Nesmith: In here what we would agree -- just a reprieve from irrigated landscaping, just go with some rocks and decorative that would not require additional maintenance and upkeep that I have seen in other areas get brown and, you know, that don't look as nice. Just have something that looks ice and presentable, but not be irrigated. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting March 21, 2002 Page 24 of 48 Borup: So you're still proposing to do the rest of the landscaping as shown on the plan along the east and south? Nesmith: Yes. Borup: And probably right here you're saying eliminate all this along the north and this here on the east -- or on the west I mean. Then the internal trees also. Okay. Okay. Commissioners, I don't know if anyone had any clarification. Their request was -- essentially all that is a parking area, eliminate all of that on the north, the internal trees, and the landscaping on the west of the section there on East 1st would stay. Then all the rest of the landscaping as on the plan on the south and east would all stay the same. Zaremba: The west would still get a decorative treatment? It just wouldn't be live landscaping? Borup: Right. Nesmith: Correct. Borup: How about the other trees just right north of the building outside of the yard? Those would stay also? Nesmith: Yes. Those are there right now. Borup: All right. Any other questions for Mr. Nesmith from anyone? Zaremba: A different subject, but have you resolved with ACHD the -- they are saying that the current Quonset Hut impedes into their right of way. Have you requested to get a license to -- Nesmith: I have not dealt with that and I was going to take that up with them. We are kind of ongoing and that you guys sure know it just takes time to get that accomplished. Zaremba: Your intent is to work that out? Nesmith: Yes. Definitely. Zaremba: Staff, do we need any kind of a deadline on those kind of things, like to say they have to provide to the city proof that they have the railroad right of way and that they have the license on the ACHD right of way 10 days before it goes to City Council? Fourteen days? Not at all? Hawkins-Clark: Typically -- of course, that's your call. If you would like to see it again with those things nailed down, I mean that's certainly your call if you want to see that. You know, Council has asked for most of the major things to be worked out before they Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting March 21, 2002 Page 25 of 48 get -- before they get it. We -- on some simpler things, I mean the railroad right of way, we are not sure with the Lease Agreement -- you know, the one question I had on that was it didn't appear the Lease Agreement mentioned landscaping was permitted. Zaremba: Or any improvements. It mentioned, but it didn't clarify improvements. Hawkins-Clark: Yes it mentioned the parking and the storage and associated uses, but is landscaping associated -- as I -- that kind of -- that would probably be something for us to get clarified certainly before Council. If it's not something that you feel like you need to see again, we can work with the applicant to make sure it happens. Yes, 10 days before the next Public Hearing. Zaremba: Okay. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Any final comments? Nesmith: If I can comment on that, just as long as we can get that. My feeling is they are -- you know, that thing was -- that building was there probably before ACHD was formed, but -- so I guess we will do our best to get that licensed. I do have one comment on the paving. I do appreciate your guys' input on -- and gal as far as your wanting to get your requirements done, but our thoughts were having a fence and screened enclosure, that it would not be unsightly. Obviously, it would -- you know, in improving the corridor, landscaping down East 1st and all the rest of the things we would be doing, that particular improvement would add significantly to the cost and bear on whether or not we could even do the project. As you guys know, that particular portion of -- the amount of the paving involved would be quite expensive. I would rather spend it improving the corridor and screen all that area from view. You wouldn't really even see it and it could be oiled if necessary, if dust was a problem, but there really isn't -- very little traffic going through there. I just would ask for a reconsideration on that. Centers: How many square feet is that? Nesmith: That's a good question. It's a city block long by about 65 feet. I honestly don't know if it has the dimensions on the -- Centers: This area here. Nesmith: It's about 65 feet in width, approximately, and then whatever the length is. I don't know if there are dimensions there, but just in light of trying to get the project actually accomplished in light of the other improvements that we are trying to do, it would add significantly to the cost. I can understand your point, too. We are just asking for a reprieve. Centers: Well, you would have the benefit or the detriment of being in Old Town, depending on how you want to look at it. The city is trying to, you know, improve the Old Town and the new Comprehensive Plan alludes to it. So, as I said, either from the benefit of your long time address or you have a detriment being included in Old Town Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting March 21, 2002 Page 26 of 48 and some of the requirements that they would like to see take place when an owner such as you improves your property. That's what you're looking at. Whether it's good or bad -- I guess the good part, you have a long time address there, people know where you're at and -- how long have you been there or the business? Has it been there for years and years? Nesmith: Absolutely. Centers: That's the benefit. The drawback may be the fact that -- what the city would like to see when new improvements are made. That's when they can -- Nesmith: And I do agree, but it's just the scope and magnitude of what improvements are already being proposed is -- I would think is considerable improvement to the community as well, as well as the things that we have already done and that's why we are asking for a reprieve. Centers: Yes. Nesmith: I think the scope of that, trying to take something that's, you know, really dated and make it modern, I think that, in itself, is quite an improvement and I do agree with what you're saying. Zaremba: While you're here let me ask staff kind of a multi-part question on that area. Since it's been clarified that that is a storage area and it's not a parking area for customers or really any kind of a drive-thru operation, if that entire area is paved, then there is a secondary issue of what to do with rainwater runoff. That needs to be dealt with, which is a whole other engineering feet. If it really isn't for public use, this is a private backyard for them for storage, -- I realize there will be some in and out, might it almost be advantageous to leave it gravel and not have to deal with the rainwater runoff, it would sink through. It is gravel now? Nesmith: Yes, sir. Zaremba: It is gravel now. Hawkins-Clark: I guess we will both speak to that. In terms of the Planning and Zoning side, Ordinance 11-13-4, which is the parking part of the code, it says all open, off-street parking areas shall be paved in accordance with the standards established by the city. Zaremba: But if you define it as a storage area does that still apply? Hawkins-Clark: Typically we have applied that code to storage areas if they are regularly accessed. There are certainly instances where this body and the Council have approved some gravel areas -- Centers: Mini-storage. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting March 21, 2002 Page 27 of 48 Hawkins-Clark: Yes. You know, where the actual vehicular going back and forth -- the actual vehicular use is quite minimal. Certainly daily use we would not interpret to be minimal, regardless of whether it's used by the public or not. Zaremba: Thank you. Hawkins-Clark: The only other thought that I might throw out is, you know, there is the possibility of phasing that requirement. Borup: That's what I was just – Hawkins-Clark: Right. If there is a concern for -- obviously, on Mr. Nesmith's part about, you know, the financing and we could still get it done -- I mean if we are looking at -- you know, maybe do the facade, landscaping, are the other improvements within the 12 months that you talked about and another year after that or two years. Whatever you think for the paving, but, the dust abatement is probably the main concern, particularly if you're going to see oil and other potential contaminants leach into the groundwater through gravel. I think there is -- even the professionals will have pros and cons on, you know, the aspect of groundwater contamination, I think, but it's out there for debate. Centers: Mr. Nesmith, how does that hit you when you say phase it? Maybe you could have that done within two years. Nesmith: Whether or not they could -- well -- Centers: Well, that was an option I think just to -- Borup: Well, I understood Brad to maybe say pave the automotive area and leave the towing impound area gravel. Centers: Right. Right. Right. Borup: Is that what you meant by graveling part of it and paving part of it? Hawkins-Clark: No. I mean ultimately pave it all. Borup: Oh. I see what you're saying. Okay. I did misunderstand. Centers: But the railroad right of way, possibly an option would be to allow him two years to do that portion. That would be an option. How do you feel about that? Nesmith: Of course, cost is still an issue and I honestly don't have an estimate as far as what that would cost to do. As far as phasing, as far as financing goes, I would really appreciate that, but as far as appropriately getting the financing for the whole project, it Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting March 21, 2002 Page 28 of 48 would probably make sense to do it at once -- at least within the course of construction at one time, because it is going to be a very significant cost, because the drainage, as Commissioner Zaremba mentioned, is -- as we know, is a significant cost that probably is just as much as the paving is in getting the groundwater to be drained and, like I said, I don't know a cost estimate of that, but I think that's -- you know, honestly, that's what it comes down to, is it is still effectively, you know, raising the cost of the entire project, but having some time to do it would be good, but I still think the issue is cost in trying to get the whole project done, which is going to be quite significant anyway. Centers: What we are faced with, Mr. Nesmith, partially, is we try and make everyone happy, the city and the applicant and the neighbors, and, hopefully, send it on to the City Council as something that they will approve and agree with and if we send something to the City Council that doesn't meet all of the present ordinances and that type of thing, that we may have a problem and, you know -- and, of course, what we approve here tonight or recommend tonight you can appeal to the City Council at that time, so -- but that's kind of what we are faced with. Nesmith: There is an option, depending on how -- and I don't know -- again, I was talking to a couple contractors that -- I was in a large facility actually in Oregon and they have a product that's asphalt -- actually, reconditioned asphalt that you can put down, it might be appropriate for -- it doesn't look as nice and it's not laid down in a paver, but it's just put down kind of in a gravel and it's packed. It would be significantly less money and if that was allowed to use that in lieu of -- and use the end of the property by the railroad tracks as drainage, you know, as gravel, that might be an option. Zaremba: Is what you're describing something like the cold pack that they use for temporary patches in potholes? Borup: I'm familiar with what he's talking about and there are some parking areas in Meridian that have had that put in, in the past. A small -- it's just the recycled asphalt that they have torn up. Centers: They don't put it down hot? Borup: No, they don't put it down hot, they put it down like gravel and they roll it. Centers: Can they roll it with a roller? Borup: Yes. And when it's fresh it almost looks like a paved surface. It won't hold up like the asphalt does, but when it's new it's got a very hard surface to it. I don't know how long it lasts. The one I looked at was a few months old and it looked good. So it does -- it does react a little different than straight road mix gravel, but -- Centers: Does staff have experience with that? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting March 21, 2002 Page 29 of 48 Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, the only materials I have seen go down is -- I'm sure you have all seen when they roto mill, that's the machine that goes out and roto mills roadways and you end up with a windrow of ground up asphalt. I have seen that material used -- placed and used in parking lots. I'm not real familiar with what Keith might be talking about. Do they actually add additional oil and -- Borup: I don't believe so. Freckleton: -- and pack it? Borup: I don't believe so. They may, but -- Freckleton: I was going to say, the roto mill material typically is pretty dry. But it probably still remains -- it would probably still be permeable, so it wouldn't -- wouldn't have the drainage issue. Centers: What do you call that? Nesmith: I'm not -- Centers: Recycled asphalt? Nesmith: Recycled or reclaimed asphalt, but as long as there was -- it would, in a sense, be meeting the requirements, you know, the dust abatement would not be an issue and, you know, and the cost effectiveness of it, as long as we didn't have to do -- engineer drains, you know, with like a french basin, that type of issue, would be reasonable and be very willing to do that. Shreeve: Yes. That would be -- Borup: Do you think that that might be a good compromise? Centers: I do. But I'm also thinking, speaking out loud -- the Public Hearing is still open - - I'd like to see trees along the railroad right of way. I don't think there is any need for small shrubbery, but the trees that are indicated on the landscape plan, I don't know whether it's -- I'd have to look -- three inch caliper or whatever, but all trees -- I mean you can see the intent there to make it look pretty and the shrubbery, I don't think there is any need, no one is going to see it. But certainly we will see the trees blow in the breeze. Shreeve: And you show -- yes, basically the larger trees that would grow over and above your fence, at least give some kind of a landscape appeal, but you won't see -- Centers: Meet me kind of halfway there. The reclaimed asphalt and just leave the trees. This is my opinion and Commissioner Shreeve's I think. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting March 21, 2002 Page 30 of 48 Nesmith: My only concern with that was the irrigation issue, is getting water from our property clear down -- you know, because it's all metered is the issue, because I don't have any irrigation water there and that was one of the issues is to get that done effectively, because the thing that I have seen in the community -- the worst thing that I think you can do is put landscaping in and then not take care of it. That looks worse than the lack of landscaping and I think if we did anything we could even put -- down that corridor a person could put rock -- put a weed barrier and rock down that and I think that would look nice. At least it wouldn't have the weeds and tumbleweeds and things like that growing, which definitely is an issue. Borup: If you didn't landscape would you do the paving or the recycled paving clear to the fence line anyway? Nesmith: Excuse me. I didn't understand. Borup: Well, you're saying rock in the landscaped area. Is that what you're referring to? Nesmith: I believe what -- Centers: Well, the landscape is inside the fence anyway. Where are you going to see the rock? That's -- Nesmith: Oh, I was considering on the outside of the fence. I apologize. Centers: There is no requirement for that. Nesmith: Okay. Centers: It's not even on your plan. Nesmith: On the inside -- Zaremba: It's also not on a piece of property that you have the right to do that on, so -- Nesmith: That's correct, too. I apologize. Zaremba: Probably couldn't recommend you do that. Nesmith: Like I said, I was still -- Borup: Well, maybe this is along the lines with Commissioner Centers or Shreeve -- I can't remember who said that, on the -- the interior -- some of those interior trees would be visual. I don't know if you look at a drip system. If you didn't have other landscaping around and no other trees or shrubs or grass anything to have to maintain, a drip system would take care of it at those sites without I think an extensive water system, but -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting March 21, 2002 Page 31 of 48 Centers: That is a good point. A drip system, you know, on a timer -- Borup: Well, I mean they would have maybe more than -- it might be bigger than a drip system, but -- Centers: Yes. Mathes: I have a question. Can they add a landscape meter for their landscape facility? Borup: A later did you say? Mathes: A landscape meter. Freckleton: Yes. In fact, we would recommend that. Mathes: Okay. Freckleton: Not require it, but we would highly recommend it. The main reason for that is for every gallon of water that goes through your meter you get billed sewer -- Mathes: And trash. No? Freckleton: Well, your sewer bill is a factor of the amount of water that's used. So when we have a meter that's strictly dedicated for landscape use, we read it, we don't bill sewer at all off of that, so -- Mathes: And it's not going in the winter. Freckleton: Correct. Correct. Centers: There is something new to me. Speaking of city water, I happen to be on city water and the rest of my subdivision is on, you know, irrigation, a pressurized system that I didn't get, so I know the feeling. It gets expensive. Borup: Any other questions from the Commission for Mr. Nesmith? Have we kind of reached our compromise ideas here? Okay. Thank you. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: I move we close the Public Hearing. Centers: Second. Borup: Motion and second to close the Public Hearing. All in favor? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting March 21, 2002 Page 32 of 48 MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Borup: Okay. We have kind of talked about -- I think in discussion with the applicant. Any other comments on those four items? I show that all of them were handled, except for the landscaping and paving. Centers: Yes. I agree, Mr. Chairman. I guess I don't have a problem with the reclaimed asphalt to save him some money and I'm still -- you know, the landscaping inside the fence, the small shrubbery, I don't think it's needed. I would say that we should require the trees as indicated on the landscape plan. That will be shown. And require the fence to be screened, which wasn't indicated, I don't believe. Borup: Yes. It is. Centers: Is it? Okay. And, of course, we need -- we need the railroad to tell us -- to tell the applicant that it's okay to do what he wants them to do for that area and I guess we will want -- Zaremba: And ACHD on the other end. Centers: Right. Zaremba: Both of those agreements have to be struck. Borup: Well, ACHD has recommend a modified -- I mean they are not denying the project, they are just saying -- Zaremba: They want a license. Borup: Yes. Because -- and they are not saying move the building or tear it down, they just want to cover themselves. Centers: I didn't read anything about the ACHD that was negative. Borup: No. They are just covering -- they are just saying it appears that it does encroach and they'd like to have an agreement. Probably necessitated because of the street -- probably not have it on the railroad. In my mind I'm not sure it makes that much difference. Why do we need the agreement? If the railroad has a problem with it, it's up to them to do something about it. It's not up to the city. Zaremba: Well -- and we are backing off of the quantity of improvement that was required there. The fence was already there. So that's not new. Screening it doesn't change that much. If we are not having landscaping, which I originally was thinking outside the fence and it's actually not going to happen inside the fence. It's not a significant change from what the railroad already knows to exist there. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting March 21, 2002 Page 33 of 48 Centers: No. I agree with the Chairman. If we required a letter from the railroad to pave it however we wanted it paved and trees and then the railroad says, no, can't do that, then we are back to square one. Borup: So why do we even require the letters. Should be up to them. I think that the railroad -- I mean that should be between the railroad and the -- Centers: On the other hand, we require what we want and then they come back and say, well, the railroad won't let us -- Borup: We may be worse off than we are now you're saying. Well, I was agreeing -- I mean the ACHD application be taken care of. That's something they are going to do also. Unless they were looking for us to -- that's Item D in the ACHD report is maybe all we need to make reference to. Centers: I guess -- correct me if I'm wrong, staff, you know, if we recommend approval for the paving and the trees that I indicated, subject to receiving a letter from the railroad and the railroad denies it, then I would also recommend that the full application come back for submission again. Okay. So we can do that. Then we can cover it at that time. Borup: I'm still saying why bother with the letter from the railroad. What difference does it make? Centers: Well, you're partly right. I mean the lease doesn't say anything about getting permission to plant a daisy or anything, so -- Borup: But, again, if they don't -- if they are not happy with it, then they need to take that up -- Centers: Yes. So then we could also -- if it turns out that the renter of -- the lessor of the property does not want this to happen, the applicant would have to come back to -- Borup: I would agree with that. Centers: Okay. Then I agree; no letter would be needed. You're right. You either do -- if they can't do it, they have got to come back. Borup: I think much simpler. Centers: Yes. I agree. Borup: We resolved those two things. We are talking about the recycled -- Shreeve: I think we can certainly make a recommendation to Council anyway. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting March 21, 2002 Page 34 of 48 Borup: And then are specific on what you're talking about on landscaping? Centers: I think so. Shreeve: Landscaping, basically. And, again, I agree, I would like to see -- I guess simply put, some tall trees, you know, trees that will go beyond the fence, so that the public can see it and start decorating the downtown, start providing some greenery, then that smaller shrubbery that won't be seen, granted, there is going to be a void between the big trees, but he can do with that what he wants. Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, can I add something to that? Just a question that came to mind when you said tall trees, big trees. I want to just kind of remind you that they have only got 20 feet from their fence line to the railroad spur. If you get a tree that's going to canopy out too much, you're encroaching into where a train is going to be crashing through there. Shreeve: Well, what I meant by big trees is bigger than the fence and what's been shown. Freckleton: So maybe more of a columnar type tree. Shreeve: Yes. Centers: What they have indicated on their plan. Borup: Well, what they are showing is red flower and crab apple is what's on the landscape plan. Centers: And they don't get huge. Zaremba: So if I can interpret what we are saying about landscaping is theoretically they are doing all of the landscaping plan that they presented, except along the north border, they are only putting in trees, and the west entrance they can do non-live, attractive rockscape. Centers: Yes. I mean if -- I don't have the landscape plan, but if trees are required at the west entrance per the landscape plan, then put them in. Wherever trees are required on the interior. That's my feeling, you know. Borup: You're saying put the trees wherever they are indicated now? Centers: Yes. Borup: All those indicated by letter C? Centers: Right. Then there is no question. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting March 21, 2002 Page 35 of 48 Shreeve: I would say all those indicated by C and D and B even. Centers: Isn't B a tree? Honey locust? Yes. All trees indicated per landscape plan. I mean I don't have to say B, C, and D. Shreeve: That covers it. Centers: And A, B, C, D. What do you think Commissioner Mathes? Mathes: I agree. Get rid of the shrubbery and put in the trees. Centers: Put in the -- I had never heard of that. A landscape meter. Great. I'm prepared to make a motion, Mr. Chairman, if you would want me to stumble through it. Zaremba: I'm prepared to second it. Centers: Okay. Borup: Are we clear on what -- well, go ahead. I will ask when we get the motion. I wonder if we are clear what we are asking for on the ACHD. Centers: Okay. Borup: Well, item C just says should be required to apply for and receive a license agreement. Centers: So per staff comments. Borup: Yes. Zaremba: Including the ACHD comments. Borup: Okay. Centers: I would move that we recommend approval to the City Council Item 5 on our Agenda, CUP 02-004, request for a Conditional Use Permit for an automotive repair business and vehicle parking and storage for Meridian Automotive and Machine by Meridian Automotive and Machine, Incorporated, at 505 East 1st Street, including all staff comments and as amended. Number one, further plan and per -- per their plan the sign shall meet the city ordinance as read earlier. Page two of the staff comments refers to a letter of credit or bond. I concur and would add that if a letter of credit is obtained, it would have a term equal to at least the time of the construction or no term expiration on the letter of credit. Some letters of credit have an expiration date. The expiration date on that letter of credit should not be sooner than the time to construct and should be from a notable bank. Amended page five, under site specific comments, we covered the sign, item four. Strike six months, insert 12 months. Item 5, all landscape -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting March 21, 2002 Page 36 of 48 Zaremba: May I clarify? The proposed improvements include prior uncompleted improvements? Centers: Where are you at? Zaremba: Item 4. I'm just defining what proposed improvements mean, that it includes this application, plus the former application. Or were all those issues resolved? Centers: Well, I think we are just talking about this application, aren't we? Borup: I think they probably will be resolved. I mean the ones that weren't, aren't on this plan is my understanding. Zaremba: Okay. I withdraw any comment. Centers: Item 5. The landscaping to be as submitted per the landscaping plan, with the exception of removal of all shrubbery within that railroad right of way and parking area. All existing trees per the plan to remain identified as A, B, C, D on the landscape plan. I'm talking the enclosed area only for the landscaping. Item seven, line out the last sentence, no gating of the main access is proposed or approved. I found that to be ambiguous and we are covered with the remainder of the paragraph. Item 8, reclaimed asphalt would be acceptable within the railroad right of way parking area. Borup: Do you want to clarify that by saying reclaimed, rolled, and compacted? Centers: Good. Reclaimed, rolled, and compacted is acceptable. Should this not be allowed by the lessor of the railroad right of way, the applicant would be instructed to come back to the Planning Commission for re-approval of the entire project. That's all I see. Zaremba: I would add screening. Centers: Yes. The fence around the railroad right of way should be screened. Borup: It is on the application. Centers: Oh, really? Borup: Yes. Anything else that needs to be added to that motion? Zaremba: I'll second it. Borup: Motion and second. Any other discussion? All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting March 21, 2002 Page 37 of 48 Borup: Thank you. Thank you, Commissioners. Okay. Do we want to proceed ahead? Does anybody need a short break? Centers: Yes. Borup: Okay. We should be able to make this fairly sort. We'd like to recess for a short break at this time. RECONVENED AT 8:57 P.M. Item 6. Public Hearing: PP 02-003 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 8 building lots and 11 other lots on 113.15 acres in an L-O zone for Touchmark Living Center by Touchmark Living Center – south of East Franklin Road and east of South Eagle Road: Borup: Let's go ahead and reconvene our Public Hearing. Go on to Item No. 6, Public Hearing PP 02-003, request for Preliminary Plat approval of 8 building lots and 11 other lots on 113.15 acres in an L-O zone for Touchmark Living Center. Commissioners, I'm -- and I realize we should have done this at the beginning of our agenda. I wonder if it might make sense to switch Items No. 6 and 7. How many people do we have here on Item No. 7? Never mind. We don't need to switch if we don't have anybody. Oh. You're the only one. Okay. Shreeve: Did you want to switch it then? Borup: Well, I would be open for a motion. It depends on what the other Commissioners think. Centers: Yes. I would suggest that, because I think it's going to be -- I have read that. Zaremba: I move we continue Item 6 until after Item 7. Item 7: Public Hearing: AUP 02-003 Request for an Accessory Use Permit for the operation of home office and tools and parts storage for a HVAC service and repair business in an O-T zone for James W. Steinebach by James W. Steinebach – 319 East 3rd Street: Borup: Item No. 7, Public Hearing AUP 02-003, request for an Accessory Use Permit for operation of a home office and tools and parts storage for an HVAC service repair business. I'd like to open this Public Hearing and start with the staff report. All right. Sorry, Brad, that I got you out of sequence there. You don't have any exhibits for this anyway, do you? Hawkins-Clark: We do. Yes, we do. So you are ready for that one, then? Borup: Yes. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting March 21, 2002 Page 38 of 48 Hawkins-Clark: No. 7? Okay. Well, the lot -- subject lot is outlined here in bold. Corner of -- it's on the west side of 3rd here. Here is the alley between Ada and King Street. The site photos are here. The site for East 3rd Street on the left and the south side of the house from the alley there on the right-hand side. Here is the floor plan of the house in terms of where they would propose using for the accessory use, the storage areas, as you can see part of the garage there. Typically staff on Accessory Use Permits, the only reason that this body sees Accessory Use Permits is if we receive some kind of written comment from a neighbor that receives notice and you should have received that -- that letter in your packets. There was two of them, I believe. One of them was from a C. Melvin Clapsaddle and there was I think three particular comments in that letter, dated February 8th, that they specifically asked the P&Z Commission to consider the parking. He says I would request that parking be addressed by the Commissioners and also the time limits be spelled out as to the coming and going of service vehicles. And then he also says I have concerns about shop labor going on into the night. So when we receive that, that triggers a hearing before you. You are the final decision on Accessory Use Permits, so there is a 30-day appeal period, but if you recommend approval, then findings come back to you for approval, it does not go on to City Council. Just wanted to clear that up for you and the applicant. But other than that we have not prepared any kind of conditions, because home occupations are pretty clearly spelled out in code and they need to comply with those regulations. Borup: Thank you. Any questions from any of the Commissioners? Zaremba: Yes. Can we -- at least addressing two of the items on Mr. Clapsaddle's letter, can we establish hours of operation? Just say that, you know, there cannot be coming and going or use of the garage as a shop after 10 P.M. or before 7:00 A.M.? Conditional uses often have those kinds of conditions on them. Hawkins-Clark: Right. Right. This is not a Conditional Use Permit. Zaremba: That's true. Hawkins-Clark: So I would actually prefer that legal answer that, but since we don't have legal here, I'm not sure. But typically Conditional Use Permits are the only way you can do that. We do have in ordinance, though; there can be no disturbance of any neighboring uses. It's pretty clearly spelled out. There are employees permitted in home occupations. They cannot sell anything that is not made on the premises and -- Zaremba: So existing ordinances wouldn't cover what you just said. Hawkins-Clark: My understanding is you cannot place additional conditions unless it's a Conditional Use Permit, but -- Hawkins-Clark: Maybe Mr. Steinebach maybe can answer -- would you like to come on up, sir. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting March 21, 2002 Page 39 of 48 Steinebach: My name is James Steinebach and I live at 318 East 3rd Street. Borup: Is there anything you wanted to add or just like some questions? Steinebach: Yes. There is no shop work there. There is no employees. It's just me. Basically a home office. That's it. I also store a few parts in the garage. That's it. Borup: And you have been there for how long? Steinebach: I have since 1985. Zaremba: All of your parts are stored inside the garage? You don't have big duct work stored around the outside? Shreeve: Oh, no. Nothing like that. Centers: How did you happen to come before us? Steinebach: They said when I applied for the home office I had to go through this. Centers: So you came to the city and said I want to do a home office and maybe a shop? Steinebach: Right. Centers: Okay. How long has the duplex been next door to you? Mr. Clapsaddle's duplex, I take it, how long has it been next door to you? Steinebach: Which one is that? Centers: Is it a four-plex? 226 -- the one owned by Mr. Clapsaddle. 226 through 232 East King. Steinebach: King. Okay. He' s been there as long as I have lived there. Centers: Okay. And you have been there since '85? Steinebach: Yes. Centers: I thank you for coming to the city. Steinebach: Just keeping ahead of the rest of them. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting March 21, 2002 Page 40 of 48 Zaremba: Let me just ask one question. Again, in Mr. Clapsaddle's letter he mentions parking in the alley and ACHD also brings that up. Do you regularly park in the alley or why are they raising that issue? Steinebach: I have no idea. I don't park there. I park right there behind my garage. Borup: And I assume they are thinking that the business nature is going to change, he's going to have a lot of customers coming or something. I think the thing to note is he has been here since '85 and Mr. Clapsaddle said there hasn't been a problem in the past, so -- Steinebach: There is no office or anything for anybody to come in and buy stuff or anything like that. Zaremba: Just your records keeping and the files and a phone and a typewriter. Steinebach: Yes. A computer. Borup: Okay. Any other questions? Thank you, sir. We didn't see any -- I guess is there anyone else to testify in this? And we have no indication of anyone else. Commissioners? Zaremba: I move we close the Public Hearing. Shreeve: Second. Borup: Motion and second to close the Public Hearing. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Borup: Do we have a motion -- Shreeve: Mr. Chairman, I'd make a motion that we approve AUP 02-003, request for an Accessory Use Permit for the operation of a home office and tools and parts storage for an HVAC service and repair business in an O-T zone for James W. Steinebach, 319 East 3rd Street. Zaremba: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 6: Public Hearing: PP 02-003 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 8 building lots and 11 other lots on 113.15 acres in an L-O zone for Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting March 21, 2002 Page 41 of 48 Touchmark Living Center by Touchmark Living Center – south of East Franklin Road and east of South Eagle Road: Borup: Thank you. Appreciate your patience and the others. I think that makes sense to make that change. Item No. 6. I think I read that. I can't remember if I opened that Public Hearing. If not, I'd like to open the Public Hearing on PP 02-003 at this time and start with the staff report. Hawkins-Clark: Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission, for the majority of you the project is a platting of an already approved Conditional Use Permit, so we have -- we have that at the Clerk's office if you want to see the details on that, reams of paper for your reading pleasure. Generally the platting that is before you is required for two main reasons. I think one is the -- anytime you add a new public street that's dedicated in the City of Meridian that's deemed a subdivision, so given the public street that is a portion of this project, that triggers the need for a subdivision application. There is also a city well lot that is part of this and typically we do like to see those on separate lots. Originally, the Conditional Use Permit that was approved in 2000 was for this on this site that's designated here. Again, we are just east of St. Luke's Montvue Subdivision is here. Franklin Road here on the north. The Conditional Use Permit was for all of this property and a portion of this up here as well. Here is the northern portion of the Preliminary Plat. Again, Franklin Road on the north. The principal entrance, which is proposed as a public street, enters here. Gaudians, which is the R.C. Willy's site is just over here to the left. So the entrance comes in, they have a city well lot here, some office lots and medical lots here, the public street comes to this roundabout and here is the southern half. I guess that's a phase plan there. Maybe -- it looks like -- Centers: Brad, there is nothing right here right now? Hawkins-Clark: Well, that's Montvue Subdivision. Centers: That’s what I mean. Right. Hawkins-Clark: Actually, that's the same drawing, isn't it? I'm sorry. I guess we do not have in our presentation a southern -- I mean this is not the preliminary plat, but this gives you a sense for what the southern half looks like. I apologize for not having the second sheet of that preliminary plat, but here is the roundabout and then it becomes private streets. What they are proposing here is a mini park in the center of the project. Their continuing care facility, multi-wing care facility is here. Again, I-84 is down here. It is 19 lots, eight of them are building lots. There are 11 other lots. We have reviewed it in terms of the layout and the street design and it does comply with the Conditional Use Permit that's already been approved. So, again, this is just platting the land, getting the utilities and whatnot set up. The phasing of it -- and maybe the applicant can address this further, but the street is part of phase one that comes in from Franklin Road and then -- the park is part of phase one and this is part of phase one and then I believe this kind of a maintenance facility portion is part of phase one here and then phase two is here along the Montvue side coming down towards St. Luke's. Most of this western Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting March 21, 2002 Page 42 of 48 portion of their project. Phase two I believe also includes some of this residential over here and then phase three up here and then there is some other phasing patterns, but the plat itself -- I believe that the applicant -- their representative, we spoke today and they are in agreement with our recommended conditions in the March 18th staff report. I don't think there is really any of those that I need to point out to you, unless you have any questions. Borup: Questions from the Commission? Zaremba: Brad, I couldn't tell from the drawings that we had in our packet, but it appears to me on the basic plan that you have up on the screen there will at some point be a second roadway that connects to Franklin? Hawkins-Clark: That's correct. Zaremba: So that some day it will be through two ways in and out? Hawkins-Clark: Right. I believe Ada County Highway District has set a requirement that signals will be at both of those. Borup: Anything else from any of the Commissioners? Is the applicant's representative here this evening? Arnold: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, for the record Steve Arnold with Briggs Engineering, 1800 West Overland Road. I'm here tonight representing Touchmark Subdivision with this application. I will go through and briefly outline some of the aspects of this subdivision, go through the entire report as quick as I can, and I'll sum up. Try to be as quick as possible. I know that most of the people have been waiting around this evening. Basically what you're reviewing tonight is what was required of the development agreement. Based on the development agreement for the conditional use and the annexation -- the annexation and re-zone, we are required to dedicate right of ways, of which goes to Montvue and what is seen here tonight with the cul-de-sac. We will be doing the eastern phase in the future and there will be a second public street within that eastern portion. So tonight you're just looking at the western portion of the development at the plat. On May 15th that development agreement was approved by the City Council and, again, as I stated, that is why we are before you tonight. In the city ordinance there is no means of dedicating right of ways without a plat, therefore, we plat. The other reason we are here, we are dedicating property for a common lot. We have gone through a session of negotiations with the Highway District. This plan complies with everything that they required and it is in compliance with their development agreement approved March 21, 2001. We have reviewed the conditional use and there are reams of paper and I don't mean to keep people here tonight going through all the details, but there is approximately 300 independent and assisted care living, 450 single family dwellings, with duplex and single family townhouses and multi- family. There will be medical office, commercial and retail, all within this proposal. So basically the only reason we are here tonight is to follow through with the agreement -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting March 21, 2002 Page 43 of 48 of the signed development agreement that we have entered into with the city. To go through the staff report, to sum up, we agree with it completely. We will accept all the site-specific conditions. That's the sum. We are asking for approval based on what the city required us to do through the development agreement and conditional use. If you have questions of myself? Borup: Questions from the Commission? Centers: Yes. Curious. What's going to be the total taxable value when you're all done? Arnold: A lot. Centers: Do you have any estimate? Arnold: I don't have that number, but it's significant. Centers: How about ten million? Arnold: The applicant -- my client is here. He might have a specific number. I do not have that, but it's significant. Centers: Yes. I just would be curious. You know, it doesn't have to be specific. Just a range, Ten to 15 million or 20 to 30 or -- Borup: I think Commissioner Centers is just interested in getting more tax money. Centers: Exactly. Arnold: You're going to get a lot. Centers: Now that I figured out how to do the calculation, you know, what comes to the city, so -- anyway. Borup: Any other questions? Thank you, Mr. Arnold. Do we have anyone here to testify on this application? Seeing none, Commissioners? Zaremba: I move the Public Hearing be closed. Centers: Second. Borup: Motion and second to close the Public Hearing. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Borup: Maybe we didn't need to switch those two around. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting March 21, 2002 Page 44 of 48 Zaremba: My only comment would be this appears to be another foray into the mixed use that we all have said we want to have happen and this looks like a nice project from what I can see and, clearly, much of this was done before I came on the Commission, but -- Borup: An awful lot was. Zaremba: The part that I can see appears to be a fine project, a fine addition to the city. Centers: I agree. Zaremba: That said, I would like to move that we approve and forward to the City Council Item 6 on our agenda, PP 02-003, request for Preliminary Plat approval of 8 building lots and 11 other lots on 113.15 acres in an L-O zone for the Touchmark Living Center by Touchmark Living Center, south of East Franklin Road and east of South Eagle road, to incorporate all staff comments. Mathes: I second that. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Borup: Thank you. Anything else the Commissioners would like to bring up this evening? Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Borup: We are taking a short break. (Recess.) Borup: We are back in session. Commissioner Zaremba was starting to bring up a letter that we received. Zaremba: I think we all got this in our city boxes. This is a letter from Pastor Bob Jacobson of the Calvary Chapel in Meridian. He made some comments and I just felt that it probably would be appropriate -- I don't know who the letter should come from, maybe Shari Stiles, maybe from the Mayor, to at least respond to him and I had some thoughts about what the response might be, which we can either discuss or just leave it up to Shari, but I was thinking we should say something like the City of Meridian welcomes churches of all denominations. Currently churches are allowed in six of the 13 types of zones and it is possible to apply for a variance for a church in some of the other zones. The denials that you mentioned appear to come from the owners or realtors and not from any city action. We hope you will continue to grow and prosper in Meridian. In the future if you identify a property for church expansion, Planning and Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting March 21, 2002 Page 45 of 48 Zoning staff will gladly advise you of the accessibility of the church use prior to your discussion with the owner-realtor. Something along those lines should be the response to him, I believe. Borup: Any other comments? I think that would be appropriate. I don't know that's the - Zaremba: Not from me, but the question would be who should it come from? Centers: Who normally responds to these kind of letters, Brad? It's addressed to the Mayor, City Council, and Planning and Zoning. Won't someone respond to it? Hawkins-Clark: Usually they are directed to department heads. If the Mayor is listed, then often it will come -- he will direct a department to do it, certainly. I have not seen that letter. Centers: But someone will respond to it. Borup: You don't have a copy right now? Zaremba: Let me give him mine, so that it has the suggested response and maybe the end result is to pass it on to Shari. Borup: Well, the question I had after reading it and looking at the charges, you're right, there is only six, but why would it be allowed on an eight and not a four or a C-C, C-G. Zaremba: I noticed a couple holes in there, too, that I thought were odd. So then I would assume even if it's not by code they could get a variance for those pretty easily, couldn't they? Borup: Would that be correct, Brad, a variance? Hawkins-Clark: No, you cannot get a variance for land use. Borup: Which is what I was -- Zaremba: Okay. Well, I'm not suggesting that my suggestion be verbatim. It needs to be cleaned up, but it's a tone. Hawkins-Clark: We have actually requested such language on several items in the past, particularly if you receive it, and so we welcome that. We feel like it gives, you know, our letters that much more -- Zaremba: You can -- anything that I said erroneously, please. Correct. Hawkins-Clark: Okay. But, yes, the schedule of use control, you know, needs a lot of work and we will hopefully be -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting March 21, 2002 Page 46 of 48 Borup: This would be a good subject for -- to put on the -- what do I want to say? My mind just went blank. Workshop. On a workshop or something and it wouldn't have to be complicated, just deciding whether it's appropriate in some of the other zones or not and add it to the -- Zaremba: I don't see why it couldn't be -- many growing churches and certainly as a growing city we are going to have churches that are going through transitions that do rent business spaces and after a number of years maybe build their own property, but it would seem to me, even if you consider 10 or 15 years temporary, they should be able to be in almost any zone. Borup: Well, other than R-4. Maybe. I don't know. Zaremba: Yes. Probably not R-4. Borup: I didn't realize they were restricted in that many zones. I had always thought churches were pretty much allowed anywhere. Hawkins-Clark: Yes. It does appear that based on his letter that it sounds like the industrial area is kind of what he's mainly concerned about, but the industrial is going for about, what, between two and four dollars a square foot or something. That might not be accurate, but -- Zaremba: The first example he gives, though, of the Rite-Aid that's on the corner of East 1st and Cherry Lane I think he's talking about, that's within an area that if I look on the Comprehensive Plan, the church would be acceptable. I think it's the realtor that told him it couldn't be there, because that wasn't -- Borup: And that doesn't have anything to do with the city if the landlord doesn't want to rent it. Zaremba: Yes. Borup: But it doesn't -- if it was the landlord or the realtor. Hawkins-Clark: The other route that some cities nationally are going is to almost do away with zones entirely and you plan based on intensity of use, rather than just setting up this whole series of zones and saying prohibited or allowed, you know, which you're never going to get all the uses. Never. You know. So just set up a set of a series of standards based on hours of operation, you know, vehicular trips, you know, the -- any potential noise, vibrations, fumes, and sort of set up somewhat of a criteria that, granted, is a little bit subjective, but that would be what this body would help to do. Centers: Everything is a CUP pretty much? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting March 21, 2002 Page 47 of 48 Hawkins-Clark: Not necessarily, but there is certainly a little more stringent criteria that's more specific just based on what are you actually going to do there, it's not based on what you call yourself, which is right now. Like this evening we had the whole thing about wrecking. Well, our definition of wrecking yard is where you have two vehicles that don't operate sitting there for 30 days or more. Zaremba: Or storage, which is the other part of that phrase. Hawkins-Clark: Yes. So, you know, then you get down to all the definition stuff and, you know, and you have things like gymnastics studios, dance studios, I mean what do you call them? Are they okay in some industrial areas and so it's an interesting approach, but particularly people in the east coast and Austin, Texas, and a few others are trying that -- you know, it makes sense to me. Zaremba: You know, it would seem to me is we begin to emphasize the mixed use, which is an overlay onto many existing zones that, yes, as we go along the zones should become irrelevant. Hawkins-Clark: Right. Downtown, if you wanted to come in and purchase a shop downtown and you want to do a shop below and live above it, you couldn't do it under zoning, but most people agree that it kind of makes sense. So it would be a change of -- certainly a change of business particular for the realty, you know, the multi-listing service uses zones and it has an impact on other industries, but it may be something that we might at least throw out there as an option in the future for you to talk about. Centers: That's kind of what you're doing when you name an area mixed use too -- because mixed use allows almost everything. Hawkins-Clark: Right. Centers: Except they have to come for a CUP in mixed use. Hawkins-Clark: Right. Centers: In a designated area. Good idea. Borup: Any other comments? Zaremba: Not from me. Borup: Anything else anybody would like to do tonight? Hawkins-Clark: Just to clarify, would you like us to draft a letter and get a copy back to you for review or are you just saying we go ahead and send it? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting March 21, 2002 Page 48 of 48 Zaremba: I don't see the need for review myself. I guess since I'm the one that brought the subject up, I will make the decision. I don't think we need to see it. Hawkins-Clark: Okay. Shreeve: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Commissioner Shreeve. Shreeve: I'd like to move that we adjourn. Zaremba: Second. Centers: I second. Borup: All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:10 P.M. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) APPROVED: / / KEITH BORUP, CHAIRMAN DATE ATTESTED: WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CITY CLERK