Loading...
2002 10-17Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting October 17, 2002 The regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:00 P.M. on October 17, 2002, by Chairman Keith Borup. Members Present: Keith Borup, Jerry Centers, David Zaremba, Michael Rohm, and Leslie Mathes. Others Present: Bruce Freckleton, Dave McKinnon, Nicholas Wollen, Sharon Smith, and Dean Willis. Item 1. Roll-call Attendance: X David Zaremba X Jerry Centers X Leslie Mathes X Michael Rohm X Chairman Keith Borup Borup: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. We'd like to open and begin the regularly scheduled meeting for Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission for October 17th . Start with the roll call attendance of Commissioners. Item 3. Consent Agenda: A. Approve minutes from October 3, 2002 Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting: Borup: The first item on the agenda is approval of minutes from our October 3rd meeting. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: I have a couple of typos to comment on. On Page 37, near the bottom of the page -- actually, the fourth line up. People who attempt to exist this area -- that word should be exit, without the S. The very bottom line on that same page of the lane to exist, that word should be exit, without the S. Going to Page 44, the second time that I am speaking says concern is that people existing -- that should also be exiting. One that is different, on Page 52, the second time I speak, the second line says widening it and putting a driveway in there -- driveway should be island, not driveway. Those are my only comments. Borup: Okay. Any other Commissioners? Zaremba: If I'm the only picky one, then, I will move that we approve the minutes of the meeting of September 19, 2002, as amended. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 17, 2002 Page 2 of 77 Borup: October 3rd ? Zaremba: I'm sorry. October. Reading the wrong one. October 3rd . Yes the minutes of October 3, 2002, as amended. Centers: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Item 4. Public Hearing: Comprehensive Plan Test Amendments regarding Urban Services Policies in the 2002 Comprehensive Plan: Borup: The next item on the agenda is a Public Hearing for the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. First, we thought we might want to ask -- do we have anyone here in the audience to testify on the Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Item Number 4? If not -- Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: I move we delay discussion of that item to -- Borup: After Number 9? Zaremba: -- in the meeting to after Number 9. Borup: Okay. Motion to move Item Number 4 to after Item Number 9. Rohm: I'll second that. Borup: Okay. Second. Any discussion? All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Borup: We thought that might move the meeting along for those of you that are here. We don't take -- that may be a little bit lengthy. We don't know. Item 5: Public Hearing: AZ 02-025 Request for annexation and zoning of 6.24 acres from RUT to R-2 zones for Betty Lou Britton by Betty Lou Britton - 3680 West Ustick Road: Borup: Okay. Item Number 5 is a Public Hearing AZ 02-025, request annexation and zoning of 6.24 acres from RUT to R-2 zones for Betty Lou Britton by Betty Lou Britton, Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 17, 2002 Page 3 of 77 3680 West Ustick Road. We'd like to open this Public Hearing at this time and start with the staff report. McKinnon: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. On the overhead you can see the bolded outline of the subject property. It's located immediately to the south of the existing Wastewater Treatment Plant that's located on Ten Mile. The property itself fronts onto Ustick Road. Give you a picture of what the property looks like. It's a single-family home with an attached -- a detached building, a storage-type of building, large garage. There is a pasture included on the proper. On the property there are some livestock that are currently being housed on the property. Across the street from the property, as you can see on the overhead, is the Dakota Ridge Subdivision, directly across the street. Those are all the overheads. I draw your attention to the staff report. I will assume that you have read that, so I'd just like to point out a couple of highlights from the staff report tonight. The applicant has requested an R-2 zoning and according to the Comprehensive Plan land use map that was recently adopted in August, the property falls into what is called the Mixed Use Wastewater Treatment Plant, or the MUWWTP. In your Comprehensive Plan on Page 98, it specifically calls out what uses would be allowed and which ones would be -- which ones should be permitted and a requirement that all development of that area require a Conditional Use Permit. The applicant has requested an R-2 zoning. The R-2 zoning would allow for up to two dwelling units per acre. The Mixed Use Wastewater Treatment Plant in the Comprehensive Plan says no new residential units within that zone. If we allow the R-2 zoning in -- for this property, we would go against the Comprehensive Plan, because that would give rights to the applicant to put additional residential units on that property, in opposition of the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan further states the types of uses that it would be allowed in the Mixed Use Wastewater Treatment Plant and calls those out as light professional office uses, flex space uses, including light warehousing -- again, no new residential uses, limited small scale retail uses, mini-storage uses and other uses as permitted by the City Council. Mrs. Betty Lou Britton, the applicant, has talked with someone, who I believe is present tonight, about purchasing the property and they can tell you how they'd like to use this property in the future. My recollection of our conversations is that the R-2 zoning designation is not as dense as the residential that they would like to propose, but I will let the applicant and the potential purchaser of the property address that tonight. One thing that I would ask of the applicant Betty Lou Britton address tonight is the number of animals that she has on the property at this time, so that we can establish a baseline for grandfather rights, so that no more animals are brought onto the property than what currently exist on the site, because our city ordinances prohibit the use of livestock, unless they are grandfathered. With that, I would ask if there are any questions of staff? If not, I'll turn the time over to you for your Public Hearing. Borup: Any questions from the Commission? Commissioner Centers? Centers: Yes, Mr. Chairman. The primary reason for the annexation is due to the services that were provided recently, sewer and water? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 17, 2002 Page 4 of 77 McKinnon: That's the reasons why. Centers: And, of course, the applicant will address the zone request. Okay. Thanks. Borup: Okay. Is the applicant or her representative here this evening? State your name and address for the record. Britton: My name is Betty Lou Britton. I live at 3680 West Ustick, Meridian, Idaho. 83642. Borup: Is there anything you'd like to add to what the staff report mentioned? Britton: No. Borup: There is a couple of questions he had that we need to ask, then, as far as number of livestock. Did you have some additional information on that? Britton: I have -- rent three horses. Borup: Okay. Britton: But I -- it is going into the city, as they said, because I had to have services. Central Health would not allow me to put a septic tank in or a field drain. I had the septic tank, but no field drain. Borup: You needed a new field drain, I assume? Britton: Being refused. Borup: Yes. You needed a new on. Your old one -- Britton: Yes. Borup: The old one failed. Britton: Broke. Borup: Okay. The reason for that was you can -- as had been mentioned, you can continue to have the three horses on there, but they are saying no additional. Part of the City Ordinance. Do you have any comment on your requested zoning? You're requesting an R-2 zone? Britton: Because I am residential. Borup: Right. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 17, 2002 Page 5 of 77 Britton: I want to live in my house until I have sold it, but R-2 -- I mean what else are you going to put into it. It is residential. Your neighbor's residential. He's in the city. He's R-2. I'm as far away from the sewer as the subdivision across Ten Mile. Borup: Okay. Any other questions from any of the Commissioners? Centers: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Mrs. Britton, you're really not concerned about the zone that we put on it when we annex it, are you? As long as you can live there -- you can sell it as a house in the future to -- even with commercial zone or office zones. That's my understanding and if it's not true, then maybe staff can interject, but -- Britton: All I'm doing is zoning it city -- Centers: Right. Britton: -- because I was put into the city, because I couldn't have -- and it's pretty hard to run a five bedroom, three bath house with no sewer. Centers: Right. You're here on good faith and we appreciate that. Britton: I'm here on good faith. Centers: Right. Okay. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Centers, if I could answer that question. If the property was zoned L-O or C-N and the house remained on the property and she wanted to continue to use it as that, it would be what's considered a legal nonconforming use. Grandfathered. The problem that you do run into from time to time with a grandfathered piece of property is that the City of Meridian does not -- issues no rebuild letters and so if someone were to purchase that property for the residential use, they may be required to secure a nonconforming loan. Centers: Well, I'm well aware of that, but that would be up to the buyer and not a City Ordinance and she could sell it for all cash and the new buyer could live in it, so -- Zaremba: I understand that as a grandfathered use, if somebody wanted to make -- let's say we annexed it and determined that it needed to be a C-N zone, as a grandfathered use, she certainly could live there, she can sell it as a residence, right, and the next person can live there? McKinnon: That's correct. Zaremba: The fact that it's zoned C-N only comes to effect if they want to change how it's currently configured? McKinnon: That would be correct. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 17, 2002 Page 6 of 77 Zaremba: Okay so she doesn't suffer any loss. She could sell what she already has to somebody who would use it the same way. McKinnon: That's correct. Centers: Yes. Britton: It is a residence. A five bedroom, three bath house, so -- Centers: Well, you're going to be fine. In fact, the zoning may be advantageous for you. May or may not, depends on how you look at it, so -- but we want to comply with the Comprehensive Plan. Zaremba: I think the issue is the city at this point, through all of its Comprehensive Hearing process for the Comprehensive Plan and, as many of us who sit on this site know from Utility Subdivision that was proposed slightly east of you -- Britton: Yes. Zaremba: -- four years the city has been saying no new residential in that area and -- Britton: How come across the street it's -- Zaremba: Well, across the street farther away, but on your side of the street -- Britton: I live on the wrong side of the street. I thought there had to be a railroad track there, but -- Zaremba: A C-N zone could be a very attractive -- either for you as the seller or the next purchaser when they go to redesign it. If it doesn't make any difference to you and it certainly doesn't impact your way of living there, I would want to side with the City Council and the whole hearing process's thinking, as staff says, that this should be something like a C-N. Britton: Okay. Tonight if you put it as a C-N, instead of an R-2 and -- Zaremba: That's fine with me. Britton: I don't care. Zaremba: Does that change the application process or can you -- Britton: I would just -- had to be put in the city, because they -- Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 17, 2002 Page 7 of 77 Zaremba: And we appreciate you meeting your commitment. There are others who were supposed to be doing that who we discovered have been putting it off for years and years. Britton: It's just cost me 10,000 bucks to put it in the city. Zaremba: Oh, boy. Britton: And I'm 267 in the hole, so -- thousand, that is. You put 10,000 for a widow lady of my age. You're -- complying with your wishes. Zaremba: Thank you for complying. Britton: Anything else? Borup: Any other questions from the Commission? Thank you, Mrs. Britton. Centers: Thank you. Borup: Do we have anyone else that would like to testify on this application? Come forward, please. Ralphs: Members of the Commission, my name is Rod Ralphs, I represent CMD. My last named is spelled R-a-l-p-h-s. I live at 2730 North Greenbelt Place here in Meridian. I represent CMD, which is a Meridian-based Real Estate Development Agency and Company and we are looking at procuring this property. What we wanted to do tonight is to just come in and take your pulse to see just how adverse you would be to a residential application. May I approach? I have got some layouts to what we envision here. Zaremba: Do we have the overhead? Ralphs: What you have before you is a proposed 30-unit subdivision that would include multi-units attached and also you would have single dwelling attached units and detached units throughout the complex. There is a park area there in the central area and there towards the north I know there is some concern about the proximity to the Waste Treatment Facility, but there is already some existing berm there on the side where the Waste Treatment Facility is. I understand that it is going to expand to the north and to the west away from this particular location and that we would also be proposing putting in a substantial berm and trees to block out light and sound. I have nothing further, so any questions? Borup: Well, you realize that you will be coming back in with another application and -- Ralphs: We certainly do. We appreciate that. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 17, 2002 Page 8 of 77 Borup: Do you know what -- what type of zoning would you envision -- Ralphs: This one, I believe, is going to be an R-8, is what we are currently saying here. Would that be correct? It would be an R-8 is what we propose for a PUD. Borup: Unless that was zoned R-8 tonight, it would be another -- a rezone application. Ralphs: Would you like to do it tonight? McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, if I might just jump in really quick. One of the findings on an annexation and rezone requires that it be in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. If it's not in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, then the Comprehensive Plan land use map amendment be made at the same time. There is no current Comprehensive Plan land use amendment before you tonight, so that finding would be impossible for you to make. Borup: Any questions from the Commission? Zaremba: Would their interest in the property totally disappear if it were a C-N zone and had to stay that way? Ralphs: Not entirely but our thoughts when we first proposed this project was that it was consistent with what we were seeing to the south with Dakota Ridge and Inglewood Creek. Again, to provide that buffer between the Water Treatment Facility. It would not, in all honesty, go away, but this, of course, was the first preference that we have. Borup: Anyone else? Thank you, Mr. Ralphs. Ralphs: Thank you. Borup: Do we have anyone else to testify? Seeing none, Commissioners, thoughts? Zaremba: Well, I agree that it is across the street from residential, but there has been an awful lot of discussion already and a very clear direction from the city that they don't want to add any new residential on this side of the street. I mean they have -- I'm looking at a map that not everybody can see over there that the dark area there defines the Wastewater Treatment Overlay and it is not that entire quarter mile, but it is much of it and in this area all of the area on the north side of Ustick. There has been so much meeting and anguish and discussion, that I, one, would not want to be presenting a change to the Comprehensive Plan. I'm very much in favor of annexing this, but I agree with staff that it should be -- and I would choose C-N, that it should be something compatible with the Comprehensive Plan, as it currently exists. That's my opinion. Borup: Commissioner Centers? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 17, 2002 Page 9 of 77 Centers: I agree, Chairman Borup, and I have a lot of empathy for Mrs. Britton, but I don't think she's out of the woods yet. I think this applicant or the developer could come back and apply for a Comprehensive Text Amendment or change, whatever you want to call it, and that's a six month process, correct me if I'm wrong? McKinnon: Well, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, yes, you can only change the map once every six months. A text amendment can be made at anytime. Centers: Right. I guess, personally, I wouldn't disagree with residential being there, if they can sell the home, but I think we do have to comply with our Comprehensive Plan, annex the property as a C-N and go from there. Borup: Do you want to come back up, Mrs. Britton, so we can get you on the record? Britton: The place right next to me, the 1.855 acres, is R-2. It's in that orange thing. How come? Borup: It was zone R -2 before the Comprehensive Plan was adopted. Before. Britton: So? It's still in the orange thing and you won't let anybody have R-2 and he is. Zaremba: I think the element is no new residential and if there was ever an application on that property for a change, it would be changed also. The wording in the Comprehensive Plan is no new residential in that area. Existing residential can stay, but no new. Britton: Well, I'm residential. Borup: Right and you can stay. Britton: No, you can't. You just told me I couldn't have R-2. Centers: No. You're not in the city, ma'am. Britton: Oh, I'm in the county. Centers: You don't have a zone. You have RUT right now. Britton: I’m the RUT. Borup: Technicality. Any other thoughts? My concern -- and I guess I'm a little confused on such a large designation around that Wastewater Plant. We have already an application that tried to do something they thought was in compliance and City Council said no. Something needs some type of buffer. The neighbors across the street definitely would prefer a residential buffer. Anything going in here would know what's going to be coming around them and what's to the north of them and -- Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 17, 2002 Page 10 of 77 Centers: I agree. I said that. Borup: Right. I personally don't have a lot of problem, but there is a technicality to work on. Centers: Yes. Zaremba: I think the issue is, no matter how carefully they operate the Waste Treatment Plant, if you allow residences in there, there are going to be complaints about escaping smells. To be honest, I live a little over a mile from the Waste Treatment Plant, due south, and several times a month when the wind is blowing my direction, we are very aware of it, so -- Centers: Did you know it was there when you moved there? Zaremba: Yes, I did and I don't have a problem with it. Centers: There you go. Zaremba: Because I only smell it a couple of times a month and I can keep my doors closed, but I'm not 500 feet from it. I don't know how more frequently they would get that smell, being that much closer than I am, but I think that's the subject that has caused the city to say no residential there and I support that. Centers: I think the way you handle that, when you approve a Preliminary Plat for residential on that property, it's written across the plat, Wastewater Treatment is X distance from this property. You don't have anyone unaware that it's there, because if a developer develops that and sells those homes with that notification, more power to him. I don't disagree with residential. Not at all. As long as you notify the people up front. Borup: Well, if I were receiving -- if I was in the city receiving a phone call from someone complaining about that that moved in, they wouldn't be taking any of my time. That would be a short conversation. That's not really, what we need to discuss here this evening. I mean that's not what the application is for. Well, I guess partially it is, but R-2, so -- I don't think there is any problem with the request on the annexation. The decision is what zoning. Centers: Right. Zaremba: The R-2 doesn't meet the need of the stated alleged potential buyer. The R- 2 doesn't comply with the Comprehensive Plan, and my inclination would be to annex it as a C-N and the potential buyer needs to argue their case, no matter how we annex it. Right? Borup: Yes. They are going have to -- Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 17, 2002 Page 11 of 77 Zaremba: They are still going to have to discuss it when they have their real proposal to present. I move we close the Public Hearing. Centers: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Borup: Do we have -- anybody ready for a motion? Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: I move we forward to the City Council recommending approval of AZ 02-025, request for annexation and zoning of 6.24 acres from RUT to C-N zone, not R-2 zone, to a C-N zone for Betty Lou Britton by Betty Lou Britton, 3680 West Ustick Road, to include all staff comments, many of which are satisfied by making it a C-N zone. Centers: And a maximum of three horses. Zaremba: Yes. Considering that the residence continues as a legal nonconforming use with the existence of three horses. Centers: Second. Borup: Motion and second. Any discussion? All in favor. Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Borup: Thank you. Mrs. Britton, you are annexed. The zoning is C-N. You can continue to live there. If you can sell the house to someone else and they can live in the house, so that won't change that use. Britton: What are the taxes on it now? Borup: We are the wrong ones to answer that. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, if I could jump in really quick. Betty Lou, you're not actually annexed at this point. The Planning and Zoning Commission can only make a recommendation -- Borup: Right. McKinnon: -- to the City Council, so you still have a City Council Meeting. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 17, 2002 Page 12 of 77 Borup: Right. No comment on the taxes? That's not your department either. Centers: And, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a comment for Mrs. Britton and her representative, that they plead the same case to the City Council and get a feel there and you will know where they are at, because anything that goes through us has to go to them. Borup: We are a little more bound by ordinances and Comprehensive Plans. The City Council doesn't always have quite the same restraint. Wollen: Commissioner Zaremba, I just wanted to clarify that -- the one part of the motion about the three horses. Was that a limitation on all livestock or only three horses? McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, if I might, we could -- Zaremba: I'll defer to staff, because they are the ones that quoted the rule. McKinnon: Our ordinance actually refers to livestock and they give the definition of livestock and it includes pretty much any four-legged animal that you can take care of, horses, cows, and sheep -- Britton: Not in the county it doesn’t. Horses are pleasure and that's why I'm in residential. If I had a cow or a chicken, I would be -- McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Betty Lou, the definition of livestock in the city is different than livestock in the county. Zaremba: But that would not preclude dogs and cats also right? She could have pets? McKinnon: Oh, yes. Borup: Do you want to change your motion from horses to livestock? Centers: I think it should be existing livestock, is the wording, in my opinion. What she's got -- Borup: Is three existing animals. Centers: Right. That would be my recommendation. Zaremba: The maker of the motion would be happy to make that amendment and change it from horses to just livestock. Centers: You're not going to buy anymore anyway, are you? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 17, 2002 Page 13 of 77 Zaremba: They give birth sometimes. Borup: Okay. Do we need a revote on that motion or was that just a clarification? Zaremba: It's a different motion. Borup: We have a different motion. Do we have a second? Centers: Yes. Borup: All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Item 6. Public Hearing: CUP 02-029 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Childcare facility for 12-24 children in an R-15 zone for Joni R. West by Joni R. West – 923 East 4th Street: Borup: Okay. Thank you. Okay. Item Number 6, Public Hearing CUP 02-029, request Conditional Use Permit for childcare facility for 12 to 24 children in an R-15 zone for Joni West by Joni West, at 923 East 4th Street. I'd like to open the Public Hearing at this time and start with the staff report. McKinnon: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Move forward through to the site plan. As noted in the staff report, the property is located at 923 East 4th Street. That's the bolded area on the site plan in front of you. It's right adjacent to the alley on 4th Street. A couple pictures of the site. This is a -- was what would be -- it was a single-family residential home and the proposed use now is to not have anybody live in the home, but to convert this to a full-time child care facility for 12 to 24 children. In the R-15 zone, such a day care use would require a Conditional Use Permit and that's why it's in front of you at this time. I assume you have read the staff report. If you have any questions about the staff report, I would be happy to answer those at the end of my staff report. This piece of property is currently in what would be considered the older town of Meridian. It's not Old Town zone, but according to the new Comprehensive Plan, should there be a request for it to go Old Town on a rezone, it would be allowed to go to the Old Town zoning designation. As such, this is an old site and a fairly old home in an existing neighborhood the property itself was never established with any garage or any on-site parking. The site right now is devoid of any parking at all. The site photo that you see in front of you at this time is indicating with the arrow where the applicant would like to propose a driveway that would be 80 feet in length, approximately 15 feet wide. The driveway would be immediately adjacent to the property that is being used currently for a single-family residence -- residential unit on the right-hand side of the photo. The applicant has not proposed any landscape buffer for the neighbor adjacent to the parking. If you can turn to Page 2 of the staff report, you will see that the parking was brought up as far as the number of parking spaces required for off-site parking. According to our code, it would be a requirement for four Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 17, 2002 Page 14 of 77 regular parking stalls, plus one handicapped stall, for a total of five parking spaces where none currently exist. The landscaping buffer -- I'll address two issues on that. With this photo right here, as you can see on -- I'll grab Bruce's laser pointer. The proposed driveway is on the right-hand side of this site plan. To the north of his property is a single-family dwelling, and, again, to the east of the property is a single- family dwelling. There is no landscape buffer between the single-family dwellings on either side for this use. There is a small distance with a deck and then some sand area and some sand area, a tree, and no landscape buffer and just an existing fence that's at that location. Again, as you can see, the proposed driveway. A couple things to point out with the driveway is it's an 80-foot driveway and it's only 15 feet wide. Any vehicle that's parked here, here, here or here will have difficulties ingressing and egressing, based on cars being behind it or in front of it trying to get out. It would be staff's opinion appropriate to allow parking in this location if there was a landscape buffer and if it was tandem parking, but not allowing a full four vehicles, especially people picking up and dropping off children. That would become problematic. On this proposed site plan you will notice that there is no sidewalk that is proposed by the applicant at this location. The Meridian city code requires that a five-foot sidewalk be installed at this location, where none is proposed. Ada County Highway District, in their review of this application, did not require, as part of their requirements, a five-foot sidewalk at this location, that's strictly a City of Meridian requirement. In ACHD's report for this project they also did not require the asphalting of the alley. The alley is an unimproved alley at this time. However, the applicant is not proposing any parking off the alley and ACHD does not believe that there would be any additional increase of use on the alley. Based on the fact that this site plan essentially does not provide a buffer to either of the single- family dwellings that are immediately adjacent to it, nor does it provide enough parking per the requirements of the code, we cannot, as you will note in our recommendation, recommend approval. It's not to say that the City of Meridian would not support such a use at this location, but some modifications may need to be made to the site plan to make it appear to meet the intent of the ordinance. Some landscape buffering, some on-site parking that would be appropriate. There are some things that can be done to bring this into compliance with the ordinance. It's not a lost cause, but based on what was submitted to us, we cannot recommend approval, because it does not meet the intent, or the letter of the ordinance. With that, I'd ask if there are any questions? Borup: Questions from the Commission? Mathes: I have a question. How many kids can go in 768 square feet? Twenty-four seems like a lot. McKinnon: The numbers of kids that are allowed within that are based on one child for every 35 square feet and in that 35 square foot calculation, you do have to take out bathrooms and other non-inhabitable areas from that calculation. If we were to take a rough estimate of 768, divide that by 35, talking about approximately 21.9 children so 21. Like I said, you would have to -- Zaremba: That's without deducting bathrooms -- Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 17, 2002 Page 15 of 77 McKinnon: That's without deducting bathrooms and other non-inhabitable areas, you know, closets and utility closets, that type of thing, has to be deducted from that. The number of 24 may be higher than what would be allowed. Those are regulated by state regulations. Zaremba: Yes. Borup: Seven hundred feet would be 20, so it would be 20 or less. Zaremba: On Page 5, under site specific requirements, you mentioned -- Item Number 5, you mentioned the fence. For other day care, childcare facilities, we have added that it's a non-sight-obscuring fence. Does that need to be considered here? McKinnon: No. I think we are actually okay with the type of fence that they have put up. One of the problems with -- possible with the fence is that the fence, I believe, was constructed without a permit. That's the type of fencing that would be appropriate. We have allowed this type of day care use with that type of fencing. Zaremba: They would have to do the paperwork and get the permit before occupancy would be -- McKinnon: That's correct. Zaremba: Let's see. That's all I have for staff. Borup: Questions from the other Commissioners for staff? Is the applicant here and would like to make their presentation? West: I'll state my name. Joni West. My address is 2132 West Chateau Drive in Meridian. I do have a permit for the fence and I have the approval code from the city on that, so we did meet all the requirements that were asked of us on that. We don't -- my daughter and I want to open the day care. She's pregnant right now, we wanted to provide a day care where she could stay home, and we could provide day care service for other kids, too. We searched for a long time to try to find a house that was in an area zoned for it, because there are a lot of restrictions. If you get in the newer subdivisions, they have the covenants and nobody wants to let you in there and so we did check this out before we bought it to make sure that we were in an area that was zoned to be, you know, commercial day care. There was a day care across the street from us that was licensed and she has now closed, last month she closed down, so we feel that they are not really -- we are not adding anymore traffic or anymore, you know, anything to the neighborhood that wasn't already there. She had I believe up to 12 kids in hers and they had -- from what we saw it didn't seem like a lot traffic all the time. We were over there working on the house a lot and it wasn't a lot of traffic picking up the kids. There is just one day care closing down and another one opening across the street, so we are hoping that wouldn't be a problem. We didn't want to have 24 kids. I know we are not even -- we don't have the square footage for it. We planned on maybe Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 17, 2002 Page 16 of 77 12 to 16, but when we applied for it, they said to put 12 to 24, so we probably would never have that many anyways, but that was our plan. We didn't do any remodeling. I know one of the letters that you got said we are remodeled without a permit and the house was completely remodeled when we bought it. The only thing we had to do on the inside was we painted halfway up and put wallpaper in. Everything else was completely remodeled, inside and outside, the siding was already up, and everything was up. I didn't know about the permit for the fence and when he told me, I did go get one, and so, you know, they did come and approve and say everything was up to code. We only intend to be open Monday through Friday from 7:00 to 6:00, so there wouldn't really be any noise at night or on the weekends for any of the neighbors. There wouldn't be anybody, you know, there during that time, so we -- that's why we thought this would be a good location. The school bus from the Meridian Elementary School has a drop off right in front of the house, so the kids could be picked up at school and dropped off right there at a safe place. It was a good location, we thought, when we bought it and that's our intentions for it. Borup: Questions from any of the Commissioners? Centers: Mr. Chairman. Mrs. West -- and while I think of it, is Meridian Elementary at the end of 4th or is it 3rd or 2nd ? West: It's Pine and 1st . Centers: Okay. I was wrong all three times. When you bought the property you bought it with the full intent of putting a day care there? West: Yes. Centers: Did you check with the city before you signed an agreement? West: Yes and they said we were zoned for it and since there was a day care across the street, we probably shouldn't have too much trouble getting that in. Centers: Whom did you talk to? West: To Dave. Centers: Let me continue, Dave. Did they give you the requirements that would be necessary to -- so it would meet our day care facility requirements and landscape buffer, parking, et cetera, et cetera? West: Not to the degree that it was after. When we first went down and did it -- I'm sorry. We got the wrong the impressions of it. We thought we were told that we needed to fix everything and then come back and apply for the permit, because we tried to go down and apply for a permit and they said you needed to -- Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 17, 2002 Page 17 of 77 Centers: What permit? The fence, you mean? West: No. No. To get a day care -- yes. They were -- a Conditional Use and then we explained what we were going to do and they said that they thought we would be able to get an Accessory Use Permit and have five kids there while it was pending, so that was our intentions to do that. Well, then we went, we put the fence -- you know, we fixed it up, put the swings -- we got everything ready, went back to apply for the permit and then they said, oh, that we didn't -- they know that we didn't qualify for an Accessory Use Permit. We don't have any kids there and we had -- I have rented it out to someone right now temporarily until this gets resolved and so we -- we were under the impression that we were zoned for it. Centers: Well, you're not necessarily zoned you're in an area where a Conditional Use Permit would be allowed. West: Right. Centers: If you meet the CUP requirements. West: Right. Centers: Nothing was given to you in writing, so -- I think the bottom line here is nothing definite was told -- West: Right. Right. Centers: And you bought it? You own it? You're on the title? West: Right and the mortgage company, yes. Centers: Yes but you didn't buy it subject to obtaining the necessary permit from the City of Meridian? West: No. No. We -- you know, we did come up with a different plan as far as parking, because after we -- when I read what they had written about -- that this was not, you know, a real good area to do it. We came up with some options that maybe the parking in the front, we could take the grass area out and park in front, that way there would be no noise to the neighbors. You wouldn't need the buffer zone or anything, because you would have parking -- we thought maybe that if you put the parking in the front, instead along the side of the house -- and we can put the sidewalk either in the front or closer to the house in front of the parking. There wouldn't need to be a driveway along the side, there wouldn't be any noise to the neighbors on the side or the back. That was what we came up with as far as an option to it. You know, I understand the situation. I thought we could put in a fence either along the side where they want and then if they want a buffer -- I mean they know there is not enough room to do the car, but we could put the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 17, 2002 Page 18 of 77 buffer on the other side, if the neighbor would like to have bushes on his side, we could pay to put it on that side. Centers: How long have you been in discussions with Dave or the people in the planning area? West: Originally, we bought the house in May and that was when we went the first time and then, like I said, we were under the impression we were supposed to fix all of these things and then come back and apply for a permit, which we went back in August to apply. Then I had a meeting with them and we actually sat down and discussed all these things, which we had never been -- we didn't know we had a meeting with them and discussed all this before, so we -- Centers: Did you read the report? West: Yes. Centers: Okay so they pretty much told you these things in your last meeting? West: They told us that, but he thought -- I thought that you would tell us what you would like us to do, because they said don't anything until we decide what you felt was appropriate, because I didn't want to go put in a driveway and do all these things if it's not what you wanted, so -- Centers: Right. West: -- as I said, we would do it after, if we found something that was acceptable. Centers: Right. Okay. West: But we are willing to definitely work on what it would take to make this acceptable for their terms. Borup: Mrs. West, you said you thought you had to take -- you had to fix everything up before you could apply. What were you referring to? Earlier you said you didn't fix anything up. West: Well, like putting in the fence and having everything ready to be in use, because they told us that we had to have the Fire Department and the Health Department and everyone had to come out and inspect everything and that we had to have their approval. We thought it meant we had to be ready to -- whatever it was going to be, ready to open is what they wanted to see. We put the fence up and got, you know, the yard and everything ready. We put the furniture in and had it what -- you know, put up the exit signs and -- that's what we thought we were supposed to do was get it all ready for them to come out and approve it and so that's what we spent our time doing. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 17, 2002 Page 19 of 77 Borup: Mr. Zaremba, did you have a -- Zaremba: I was going to ask staff if a copy of this made it over to you. Okay. Is it a workable solution to put the parking in the front yard? McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, there is a few things that I would offer on this site plan without having a chance to review it in depth. The three- foot sidewalk, which is slightly above no sidewalk, it still doesn't meet the requirements, but that's something that could be workable. The dimensions of 19 feet with the grass, there could be some discussion about overhang if there was some overhang you would have that. As a note of preference, not necessarily something that's specific to the City Code, replacing all the landscaping and landscaped area with asphalt does not help the visual appearance of this. If some of the parking could possibly be placed off of the alley directing -- West: There is not -- there isn't any parking available from the alley, because if we came in the back of the house, it would be too close to the house. We only have 10 feet between the house and the fence. Borup: Your site plan shows 24 feet between the alley and the house. West: No from the house to the fence behind us where the deck is. Borup: Right. West: It is 24 feet across. It's not -- eight feet from the deck to the back fence. If you came in off the street -- the alley behind it, you would -- are you saying towards the front of the house or the back of the house? Borup: Well, I think what Dave is maybe saying is having parking along this area here, coming in from the alley, turning in here, and parking. West: Oh. Okay along the back of the house. Borup: Is that what you were referring to? McKinnon: That's what I was referring to. Zaremba: That eliminates all outside play area. West: Yes. McKinnon: Then you open up the driveway. Borup: Then this would have to go to play area on this side. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 17, 2002 Page 20 of 77 McKinnon: Counter point to that. This site plan I have got in front of me right now has a really wide -- that's a really wide driveway. ACHD may not want to have it that wide open with that many parking spaces directly backing out into 4th Street all at the same time, because that's backing out directly onto a public street, rather than to an alley area and I think ACHD would have fits with that. West: We could just do four, though, because we don't really need six. I think we just drew it that way on the -- because we couldn't have more than 20 kids anyway, because of the size of the house. I think we need one parking space per 10 children and then one per worker. That would leave us four. If we have four in the front, we could do that and put buffers around the sides, maybe, to make it more attractive. McKinnon: It's definitely workable. Centers: You get four from here to here, 42 feet, four times nine is 36, and then you could get one here. West: Yes and they are the same -- and we don't have that on the map, but where it says sand, there is a huge swing and slide place, but we could move it to the other side. Centers: And then, you know, put a fence here and have one parking space and then add the other four back there. I think the area needs a day care. We can't push -- in my opinion, speaking out loud, we can't push it through tonight with what you have there. West: Right. Centers: But what we can show you is what may get through. West: Sure. Centers: But that, I think, would work, wouldn't it, Dave? McKinnon: Yes. West: Could we try to keep them more on the grass pointing inward, so it wouldn't have to take away the play area in the back? Could we keep the cars parked more to the front? Yes. Where it says grass on the bottom part and keeps the cars pointing in that way? Centers: Well, you're going to need four and one is five. Staff had said five would be adequate. Borup: That was with 24 -- 24 children, not 20. Centers: Oh. Okay. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 17, 2002 Page 21 of 77 West: We can't have 24. Borup: The new calculation would be four. Centers: Yes. Okay but you know you can't have them backing out onto the street. I don't think you can have -- other than one residence. Have one -- West: Right. Are you completely opposed to the four, then, along the driveway if we put a fence and -- so that would not be a good way to go, then? Centers: Well, you can recommend it be tandem parking. I don't know. West: You can actually put two in the back, because it's a wider area to the -- you can fit two cars in the back, so then there would only be two ahead of the staff that would have to be coming in and out. Zaremba: The difficulty with having your parking on the north side of the building is that you leave no possibility of a landscape buffer or any other kind of a buffer to your neighbor. Having them enter off of the alley was much more attractive. West: Okay. Right so the best bet would be to go with the parking on the grass area, then, like from the side coming in from the alley? Could we keep it in the front, though, so the kids could keep the back area or -- where it's fenced in that -- Borup: Well, I think you would probably need some separation from the road and some type of -- West: Oh. Okay. Because they only have to be nine feet wide, right? McKinnon: That's correct. Zaremba: Just for the effort of turning in and out, I would think even if you move forward on the property, the first stall would have to start like here, it couldn't start right along the street line. West: Okay. Zaremba: Because a car needs some room to move in and out. West: Move in and out. Okay. Centers: How wide is that alley? McKinnon: I believe it's 16 feet wide. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 17, 2002 Page 22 of 77 Centers: See, that way you get to utilize the alley. West: Yes. Centers: I think it makes more sense to put the parking off the alley. West: Sure. That's great. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, if I might, one of the requirements of this application is a site specific of requirement -- I believe it's Item Number 2, that stated that a revised landscaping and parking plan should be submitted at least ten days prior to the next Public Hearing. It sounds like Mrs. West here has the ideas that we are going with and she could submit that and we could just continue this until the next available Public Hearing where she has an opportunity to submit a new plan. We can work with -- it sounds like I have got ideas where you're going with the parking off the alley. ACHD would have to review that again. They may say you pave the alley, but not if you're not paving the driveway, the driveway is 15 feet wide and the alley is 16 feet wide, you're not out much more in paving. Is that the direction that we are going at this time? Zaremba: That was my sense of what we are doing. I do have one other question before we move on. McKinnon: Okay. Zaremba: And I'm -- either the applicant or staff can answer this, if they can. In the actual photograph that you had, down in this corner was a pretty sizable tree stump. Do we know how recently that tree was taken out? West: Well, they made us -- well, it grew up through the power lines, and so I called everybody, city, county, highway, Idaho Power, and they said I had to remove it. They all said it was my responsibility, so we had to have someone come and cut it down and that's as far as he could get it and now we need to get it to tree stump removal to take that out. Zaremba: So my question to staff, then. Does that have to be mitigated as a tree that's been removed? McKinnon: If it was a nuisance tree -- West: It was dead. McKinnon: Excuse me. If it was a nuisance tree, it does not have to be mitigated for. Zaremba: Okay. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 17, 2002 Page 23 of 77 West: That was what I was kind of leading onto to see what you guys wanted to do before we got it all plowed down. Rohm: Mr. Chairman? Joni, is it a hardship for you to go back to the planners and redesign the layout, incorporating your parking off the alley, and then bring it back before this board again? West: Do we have to wait another two months or can it get in sooner? I mean it would be -- if we could get in sooner it would be great. McKinnon: Joni, the Commission sets their agenda, so they can move this to the next available meeting. The typical standard is that they move it to the second meeting of the next month, so that would move it to whatever the November second meeting might be. That's the typical procedure. West: I mean it would be good if we could go sooner, just because we are losing a lot of money if it's sitting there -- I'm renting it for half the amount of the payment, but if that's what it takes, that's -- you know, it's not a problem. We would be happy to modify the plan and that sounds like the way to go. Borup: It looks like the plan would probably need to be reviewed by ACHD and staff and there would need to be some time in there, so -- West: Okay. Borup: Just to get through that process. West: Okay. Borup: It looks like you're proposing -- are you trying to work out a design with three parking off the alley and one in -- West: In the front? Zaremba: Where the stump is? West: Okay. Borup: Or even -- I mean the other option would be two off the alley and two tandem on the -- McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, they could just do all four off the alley. Borup: Right. You have got at least three options. Four off the alley, three on the alley, or two on the alley and two on the other driveway. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 17, 2002 Page 24 of 77 Zaremba: I probably would not promote the two and two, just for the very reason that we are adding more cars backing onto the real street. Borup: I guess I'm assuming that the two would be the employee parking. West: And that would be put all day sitting. Borup: Okay. That's Commissioner Zaremba's preference. Any other questions from any of the Commissioners? Zaremba: Not at this time. Borup: We may have some more questions before we close the hearing. West: Okay. Thank you. Borup: Do we have anyone else that would like to testify on this? Come forward, please. Day: I'm Debbie Day and I live at 404 East Pine and we are kitty-corner from where she's at for the day care. We are actually right there. We are very opposed to this day care. For one thing, when the other lady shut down her day care, we understood that our area was not a commercially zoned area that it was residential. We don't know when it was changed to commercial or if it even has been. We fought her traffic on a daily basis for dropping off and picking up her children and if she is proposing 20 children to be at her day care and on allowing her two spots to park, where are the other 18 people going to be parking when they drop off their children? In our -- all of the surrounding people's parking area is where they will be working. The noise factor is a factor, but mainly our -- my biggest complaint right now is parking, because I know I had to fight on a daily basis to keep my parking area clear, so I could come and go as I please. We have already noticed when they were working over there that they did take up parking that we use for their vehicles. We are just really opposed to it. It also -- I understood, too, if it's a commercial business you also have to have a handicapped parking spot. Where is that one going to go? You also have to have the doors widened for handicapped, if I'm not mistaken. I might be wrong, but I'm not sure on that. I don't know how the safety features and that goes, but all I know is personally I am very opposed to this day care going in around me, because I am a residential area, not commercial. That's all. Zaremba: Can you direct me -- tell up or down -- this is you right? Day: Right. We have that whole lot. Zaremba: Where was the other day care? Here? Day: Right there. Right -- and they actually -- they would drop off and pick up their children and block the alleyway. I mean that was a daily basis. They would park by our Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 17, 2002 Page 25 of 77 house, you know -- I mean it was like we had go out ask people to move in order to be able to park our own cars and we shouldn't have to do that. Zaremba: Did they have any parking on their property or were they all parking on the street? Day: All parking on the street. Well, their car parked in their driveway and everybody else was parked on the street so that's a big concern for us. Borup: So you had to go ask them to move their cars? This is people dropping off children or -- Day: Picking up, dropping off their children, because you just don't run in and run out, I mean you talk with the day care provider, you say bye to your kids, you know, and I just -- I get tired of waiting for people and I would just have to go ask them to move. Borup: So you could get out of the alley? Day: Yes. Get out of my own driveway. Borup: Or out of your driveway? Day: Right. Right and so what I'm saying is if you're allowing her two places to park and she's going to have up to 18 kids, I don't see where the other people are going to be parking to drop off and pick their kids up. Borup: It sounds like the other one had no place to park. Day: She really didn't and she was in-home also, so she didn't run it as a business and she didn't -- I don't believe she had 12 kids, because she had four of her own or three of her own, so those were included in her combined group, is what I understood from her. Borup: Okay. Any other questions? Centers: Yes. Ma'am, how long had that other day care been there? Day: You know I'm not sure. I really don't know. Centers: Before you were there? Day: No. They came in after us. Centers: Well, would you have an estimate how long they had been there? Day: I'm guessing maybe three or four years. They were there maybe five. I don't believe it was that long. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 17, 2002 Page 26 of 77 Centers: How long have you lived where you're at? Day: Since 1989. Centers: Okay. You mentioned that this applicant took some of your parking? Day: Yes, they would -- well, they would drop their kids off, and then they would park while they were -- Centers: No. I mean the applicant tonight. Day: Oh, they would park along the side of our yard when they would go to work on their house and so we would have to go -- we would have to go by -- my son would have to go and he would have to drive around. I know that's street property it's just common courtesy, too, that you let the people that live in the house park their cars there. Centers: And as far as 18 children, that hasn't been approved. If I'm not mistaken, the applicant was looking more at 12, something like that. Day: She said 12 to 20. But, again, two parking spots, that still leaves 10 more people dropping off children. Another thing, we did not get a notice about this hearing tonight. We understood that 41 letters were sent out, we know of three people that got them of our -- because we went almost door to door asking people and there were three people that got letters notifying about this meeting. We don't know what happened to the other 38, but we didn't receive a notice. Smith: Mr. Chairman, if I may. I did not receive anything in return mail on this project and we did make phone calls -- my staff did call and verify with several property owners and they did receive them, as well as several who didn't. I am sorry but I don't have an explanation. I know they were sent. Day: So it looks like there is 37 letters are out there floating around somewhere. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, just one item to add to that. Oftentimes what happens is we send the letters to the actual owner of the property and if there are rental people in a building, they do not receive notification, because the notification goes to the owner of the property. Day: I believe maybe there is one or two rentals and the rest are owners. McKinnon: From time to time that becomes a situation that someone says I live right next door and I never had it. It's because it went to the owner, not the renter so sometimes this does come up. Day: That's all I have got. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 17, 2002 Page 27 of 77 Borup: Thank you. Dickerson: I'm Byron Dickerson and I live just west of this house that they are planning on having the day care in it. From the patio -- from the -- would you show the picture up there again? From the deck it's about 13 or 14 feet to my property line and on the other side of my property line we have a patio where we -- it's a -- we have chairs and tables out there and we eat our evening meal out there a lot of the time. Right now they have a fence up, but the boards are -- have shrunk and there is that much space between them and the sand is blowing in on our patio. I feel like being a citizen of Meridian and a resident of that area, that we should have some kind of rights and I am definitely against a day care center. I've lived there for 26 years and I've gotten along with the neighbors and I would -- I understood that we were to get a notification of this meeting and I understood that they sent out 42 letters. We didn't get one and we live right there next to it. We are the closest one to that property and I think we have been ignored. Borup: You're at 331 East State? Dickerson: What was that? Borup: 331 East State? Is that your address? Dickerson: Yes 331 East State. Borup: There was a letter sent to that address. Dickerson: There was no letter sent there. Borup: There was a letter sent. You may not have received it, but there was a letter sent. Dickerson: How come we didn't receive it? What's the matter? Is it the fault of the Post Office or the fault of the Planning and Zoning? I went to Planning and Zoning right in the beginning when these people first talked about making a day care and he promised me that they wouldn't -- you could -- within 300 feet of the residence, that I'm only 15 feet from it. Rohm: Well, sir, with no disrespect, it appears as if you are having your opportunity to speak your mind and that's what these hearings are for. At this point in time, you have not been injured by anything, because you got your opportunity here, so we appreciate your testimony and then certainly it will be -- Dickerson: I hope my testimony will be taken into consideration. Rohm: Yes. Obviously, it is. Dickerson: Okay. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 17, 2002 Page 28 of 77 Borup: Thank you, sir. Do we have anyone else? Letz: My name is Larry Letz. Could you put that picture back up there? No. No. There you go. I live in the house to the right. Been there for years and years. Let's start off with the property line. See that stump is sitting on the property line. There is no room over there for a driveway. I was told she was going to put a driveway in there. Well, let me be honest here. That's a little two-bedroom house and both bedrooms are right there. Why would I want a driveway -- I could spit that far to my bedroom. Now why would I want that? I'm totally against this. I mean I have been there for years and years. This other day care unit, they didn't say it the way I'll tell you. It's been a nightmare. The noise and traffic and the near misses with kids, I mean it's an every day thing. It's been a nightmare. This is the wrong place for a day care center. Let's get real. If they -- say they don't want to put that driveway in there, if you look at where the property line is, you see it can't be done. There is a fence there that doesn't show very good. There is just not that much room in there and put a driveway back there by my bedroom windows? Let's get real here. If they put a -- if you put parking on that side, that fence will have to go over here for a place for kids -- for the kids to play. That's how many kids at my bedroom window? We have been dealing with this for two years and it's a 150 feet away, this other childcare center. Don't tell me the kids aren't going to scream and holler I have raised five kids. You are not going -- you got two places in front. This is a real, gentleman. You got two places to park. Realistically, look at the last two years. They had almost a dozen, sometimes, across the street. You might as well go to Wal-Mart, because you're not going to find you a parking place, the street is full of kids. Then you got school buses and you got everything going here. That road is dangerous. Right now with the children, without this day care center, it's dangerous. That's a growing neighborhood. I've watched all these kids grow up, there are a lot of them, and there is a lot of traffic. There are a lot of stupid people on that road. We get out there in the evening and have to holler, slow down before you kill a kid, and we want another day care center in there? No. No. Just wouldn't be right. Centers: Did you get a letter? Letz: No, I did not. I was told by a neighbor. I'm a disabled veteran. I stay in my house, I mind my own business, and I spend more time at the Veteran's Hospital than I do at home. I can tell you this, if there is a day care center, I can't -- I can't live there. I'm not going to last much longer and that's the way it is. I need to die in peace. That's straight up. I am concerned about these children. It's very dangerous right now, even though they shut that one down. It's just not in the neighborhood, folks. It's not the place for a day care center. Look at it. Centers: Do you know why the other one shut down, Mr. Letz? Letz: Actually, I do, but I wouldn't say it here. I can't -- yes, I do. Centers: Well, say it nicely. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 17, 2002 Page 29 of 77 Letz: The house was dysfunctional. Centers: The bedrooms were in the wrong place or the stove didn't work or what? Letz: A dysfunctional house. Centers: The house was dysfunctional. Okay. Letz: Dysfunctional residence. Centers: Thank you. They had to leave because the property wasn't functioning properly? Okay. Letz: No. They just didn't function real well. Centers: Okay. Letz: Don't get me wrong. I get along with everybody. Everybody over there will tell you. Centers: Okay. I don't want you -- Letz: That's the reason. Centers: -- to put your foot in your mouth or anything. That's fine. Letz: I'll tell you right now, if there is a day care, I can't stay there. Centers: Okay. Thank you. Cole: I'm Orville Cole and I live at the other end of the block. Some of these folks -- and my point is one that you haven't brought up. The alley is dust and just the local traffic going through there creates enough dust that I washed my car yesterday and there is dust all over it this morning. The dust from the extra people they are going to have -- and they are going to drive down that alley, there is no way you can block them off. We are going to have to put up with more dust, plus the ones he's talking about, I'll agree with him there. They run up and down that alley. There is dogs that run up and down that alley and from my opinion, the sand back there where the kids will be playing is a direct invitation for all the cats in the neighborhood to go over and use it. You know what I mean they are going to use it for. That's a health hazard and for those few little items I would be against it for that reason. As far as the noise or anything like that from it or the traffic from it, I'm far enough away that it isn't going to bother me. The dust is. My wife is allergic to a lot of different things and it does affect her, too. That's about all I have to say on it. The rest of it is covered pretty much with what needs to be said. Okay. Thank you. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 17, 2002 Page 30 of 77 Borup: Do we have anyone else? R. Day: I'm Ron Day. I live at 404 East Pine. My wife was the first to speak. Centers: So it was your wife that spoke first? R. Day: Yes. Centers: Okay. R. Day: What I'm trying to do is -- and I'm trying to keep my composure, because I'm a little emotional over this. It says on the Public Hearing notice that there are 12 to 24 children supposed to be coming to this facility. You were told that another facility across the street shut down and they were going to take its place and we shouldn't have any problem. The facility that was directly behind me on the alley certainly wasn't a commercial venture, it was -- I can't remember what they call it, family -- anyway, it was a day care where the family watches a few kids and that's okay in a house. Centers: How long ago did it shut down, if I could interrupt you? R. Day: I think they quit business sometime this month. Centers: Just this month? R. Day: Maybe last month. It's been within the last couple of months. The biggest problem I have, naturally, would be the parking and the traffic that's brought into the community. Well, we all know that anyone could park anywhere on a public street and we are willing to grant that. Either my wife or my kids or I or the people that are on the other side with the facility directly across the alley from us, picked up the balls and the broken toys and the things that came over to our driveway and dinged our car. I finally got tired of going over there and saying, hey, can something be done about the people blocking us out, I have got to go to work. Sure. We will work on it. It's always, well, we were just going to be here a minute. Now we are talking about a facility that's supposed to be a business coming into a residential area. In this residential area they were trying to squeeze in four parking spots, two of which will be employee parking. Now we got two available for folks that are going to use the facility. Unfortunately, if you can get the pictures back up, maybe look at it from my point of view, which is the left-hand side, you're looking at it from my property. It's a small place. I don't understand where you're going to park four cars conveniently where they can't back out even into the alley and there is no other way to back out, either in the alley or the street. When you put two people parking in front of there, two people on the other side of the road using their parking, public parking, it's enough to -- you have to drive, you know, carefully to pass. What I would have liked, as a citizen, is for the staff to go over there and look at that and say, my God, it's a residential area, why are we bringing a business into a residential area and why are we trying to make four places for a person to park, so that we can have a business in the middle of a residential area? I was under the impression Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 17, 2002 Page 31 of 77 Planning and Zoning helps steer things to different areas and there is commercial space available. Given what's happened thus far, somewhere around May that house sold and the next thing I saw was a pile of sand in the street, which was moved to the back, which is fine, and then a fence was put up, which was fine, then there is this -- well, what's going on, what's happening over there, what -- my God, we have got a business moving in. How can that be? We are residential. Then we are told, well, it doesn’t matter, because once we get all of this done, it's going to be approved, and I'm going, my God, they didn't buy a house next to -- we have done this before. We were the nice guys on the last time and went around and said, sure, bring a business into our residential area. We found that it doesn’t work. It just doesn’t work so I'm choked up about it. I'm embarrassed I'm standing up here feeling this way, but the truth is, that place is not designed to have 12 kids. We say, okay, let's don't have 12 let's have six kids. I thought that commercial day care centers had to meet some regulations, fire codes, sanitary codes, sick room codes, this code, that code, so I would think somebody come along and say, well, you can't just buy this house and make it into a place for a business. Apparently, I'm finding out not only that it can be done, but right now it's happening in my neighborhood and I'm not really happy about it, because I don't think it's fair. I think business should be moved to the business area where we are zoned for it and the streets are made for it and where folks that live -- and neighbors of mine since 1990 -- actually, '87, because we lived across the street before we moved to where we did, all of sudden of finding out in their retirement years they don't have a place to sit and rest. They have got to deal with a business that moved in on us. We feel invaded, absolutely invaded, because it didn't matter what planning and zoning or what we are designed for, it's just happening. I don't I get a lot of respect when we find out that you guys are doing recommendations and the city can do whatever they damn well feel like it and that scares me. Centers: Well, you're making assumptions and -- that aren't necessarily true. R. Day: Well, I appreciate that -- Centers: You have definitely made your point and -- R. Day: What you're trying to say is go sit down. Centers: No. R. Day: I will. Centers: It's very obvious that you have made your point and, yes, there may be other people that want to speak. That's true. R. Day: Okay. Centers: Thank you. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 17, 2002 Page 32 of 77 Borup: Thank you. R. Day: You bet. D. Day: My name is Derek Day. I live at 404 East Pine. My father just spoke. I had a big problem with the former child care facility there from parking. There was quite a few times I would have to back out from my lawn and drive through my yard just so I could go to school in the morning. That was -- it caused me a heartache from being tardy for school, almost having to do Saturday school and take time from activities that I would do on the weekend and stuff, just because we had the child care facility right next to me. Another thing I have a big problem with is when I was a little kid, I went over with the people that lived in that house and I would play over there and they would come over to my house and we'd play and things like that. When I was a little kid about like half my size that was not enough room for us to play in, period. How are they going to squeeze 20 kids into an area that big to play? They just can't do it. Inside there was barely enough room for the kid's bed to be inside the bedroom and have room for some of his toys and stuff like that in there. How are you going to squeeze 20 kids into this small of a residence, plus that on the outside? Is the kid’s safety not being seen here? If they are going to put parking in the front yard, are the kids going to have to walk through a parking lot to get to their day care? Than just doesn't make sense to me and that -- even though doing this construction, I come home from school and there is a big dump truck and a bobcat tractor sitting in my parking spot where I have to go. I had to go around and park in front of my house just so I could go home from school, instead of going where I normally go. I just have a big problem with this. I'm lucky, because if this goes in, nine months I'm leaving for active duty with the Coast Guard. I'm not going to have to deal with it, but for that nine months that I'm still here, I'm going to have a lot of heartache just from sitting in my room and hearing some -- listening to little kids scream and holler and stuff like that. I'm trying to do my work for school and finish up and do stuff like that. That's all I have to say. Borup: Thank you. Anyone else? Yes. Joni, if you'd like to make any final comments and then we will -- West: I would like to comment on some of the things that they said. The whole house is entirely set up just for kids. When he said there is not enough room, every square inch of it is made into play area. We don't live there, so it's not like a normal person's home where you have bedrooms and your furniture and things like that that they won't be able to use. Every square inch of that house is strictly for the kids, every bit of it's play area, toys, you know, things that are just constructed for them. There is plenty of room for everyone to play. There is areas for the napping, you know, all the things that are necessary for them. They don't have the restrictions like the other lady had in her house across the street. That was her home, so they had a small area that they all maybe had to stay in and this one they get the entire house, every bit is strictly for their use and so they are doing a lot there than normal. The parking -- the only time we ever parked across the street was when other people parked in front of our house, because we didn't have anywhere to park. We would have to move up or over or whatever and Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 17, 2002 Page 33 of 77 we did have the bobcat parked in front of theirs one day when we were trying to tile the driveway, but it was only one day. We had the sand and the sand was brought and we had it moved the exact same day, you know, we didn't leave it out there on the street or anything. We have tried really hard to keep it a neighborhood, because we didn't want to come in and be a business right off the bat. You know, I'd like to comment on their comments about how it's such a residential area, but if you go one street over, there is businesses up and down the next street if you go a block -- two blocks down, there is Lumberman's Building Center, there is, you know, Valley -- there are numerous businesses in that area. When -- you know, we are not the only business that's there. There is one right around the corner, there is a lady that has that beautician -- you know, beauty salon. There are craft stores all around us. There are a lot of businesses in there. We are not the only business that would be going in there, so that's what we -- we wanted to try to keep the front of it looking as normal as possible. I know that they said we could put up a sign that's like, you know, four by six or whatever. I didn't want to do that, because I didn't want the neighbors to have to look at that. I just thought let's just try to keep it looking as, you know, normal as possible, so we can fit into the neighborhood, so we really, really are trying to be cooperative to the neighbors and fit in. I know there are a lot of residences -- I mean a lot of commercial things in that area, so I know we wouldn't be the only one that's in there. Okay? Centers: Mrs. West, when did you close on the purchase of the property? West: I'm guessing it was probably the end of May. Centers: Okay so the gentleman was fairly correct. You mentioned that you hadn't done any work -- West: On the inside. Centers: Yes. You said you just painted you put some wainscoting. West: There was nothing else we did. The bathroom probably should be done. Centers: So when you bought it, it was like that? West: Yes. We could get a realtor to tell you, but that's -- Centers: Okay. Are the walls intact, the interior walls? West: They did a very nice job. Centers: But everything is just open? Is it a two-bedroom home? West: No. There is definitely -- there are two bedrooms, one bathroom, a long living room, and a kitchen. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 17, 2002 Page 34 of 77 Centers: Okay. West: So it's -- Centers: But you purchased it with the sole intention of -- you signed a Purchase Agreement, probably, the first part of May? West: Right. Centers: With the sole intention of using it for a day. West: Yes. Centers: One hundred percent? West: Well, no. We own three -- well, we have two other rentals and our home and why buy it and thought, okay, if it doesn't work, we can turn it into a rental. Centers: When did you contact the city regarding a day care? West: Before we purchased it, because we had tried to buy property in a different subdivision and actually put down money, so we talked to them before we ever purchased this property. Centers: And they told you that the area would allow for it under a Conditional Use Permit? West: Yes. Centers: Right and that's about it? West: Yes. Centers: Okay. Thank you. Borup: Any other final comments? West: No. Borup: Thank you. Commissioners, how would we like to proceed? Centers: Well -- Zaremba: Are we going to have discussion without closing the Public Hearing? Borup: Well, are we going to continue it or -- Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 17, 2002 Page 35 of 77 Centers: No. I'd like to close the Public Hearing. I will move. Zaremba: Second. Borup: Motion and second to close the Public Hearing. Any discussion? All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Centers: And, you know, the staff -- excuse me, Mr. Chairman. Borup: Go ahead, Commissioner Centers. Centers: The staff always has this comment -- and I'd like to read it to the audience, that the proposed use, if it complies with all conditions of the approval imposed, would not adversely affect other property in the vicinity. Then they say -- and they comment to us: Commission and Council should rely on public testimony to determine if the development will adversely affect the other property in the immediate vicinity. Staff has received written objections to this proposal -- and then I will add we had other objections -- I count four, really, four property owners. Please consider the written testimony, as well as oral testimony, when making the finding. I guess you know where I'm leading, because that's my opinion. I agree with the staff. I appreciate the staff always reminding us of that, that we need to listen to the neighbors, if there is good reason to listen. Zaremba: Well, I would add that that is part of the process. This is a residential neighborhood, R-15. The Planning and Zoning staff interest in this is to make sure that all legal requirements are met and that's why this is required to have the Conditional Use Permit if it's going to be allowed in a residential zone. That is a legal requirement that a person can apply for a Conditional Use Permit. Part of that process is this hearing and in determining whether there will be the Conditional Use issued or not, public testimony of the neighbors, who have had experience with a similar thing right next to them, is very important. This is still an R-15 zone, whether the CUP is approved or not. What I'm hearing from the neighbors is this is not theoretical, you have already had one near you, you have had the experience, you know what it's like, and I agree with you, this appears to be a small building for having very many kids in it. It is still useful as a residence, so it does not lose its primary -- what it was when you bought it and what it still is, is still available as a use. Just as an opinion, I'm inclined to deny this, mostly on the testimony of the neighbors and my own initial inclination when I read through this to see that it's going to be very difficult to squeeze all the requirements onto this little piece of property. I'm through. Centers: Yes and I -- just to continue that, I think it would be unfair to the applicant to ask them to come back and redo their drawings and redo this and redo that, if 30 days from now we feel the same way after additional testimony. I agree with Commissioner Zaremba, I'm inclined to deny it with the neighbors' testimony. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 17, 2002 Page 36 of 77 Borup: Any other comments? Do we have a motion? Centers: Yes. Mr. Chairman, I would recommend that we recommend denial to the City Council regarding Item 6, CUP 02-029, which was a request for a Conditional Use Permit for a childcare facility for 12 to 24 children in an R-15 zone for Joni R. West by Joni R. West, at 923 East 4th Street. Zaremba: Second. Borup: Motion and second. Any discussion? All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Zaremba: All right. That does conclude that item. Centers: I think the applicant should be aware that they could appeal this to the City Council. Borup: Item Number 7 is a public -- Zaremba: Let me just say, those of you that did not get the notice, which apparently was sent, we apologize for that. When this goes before the City Council there will be another hearing and hopefully you will get the notice. Item 7. Public Hearing: AUP 02-007 Request for an Accessory Use Permit for a Family Daycare in an R-4 zone for Sherrie Martin by Sherrie Martin, 2215 East MacKay Court. Borup: Item Number 7 is a Public Hearing, AUP 02-007, request for an Accessory Use Permit for a family day care in an R-4 zone by Sherrie Martin. Is Sherrie Martin here or her representative? Tessman: I'm here against it. Borup: Okay. I assume we proceed ahead, David? I'd like to open that Public Hearing and start with the staff report. McKinnon: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. This is the staff report for an Accessory Use Permit for a family day care, that's up to five children, in addition to their own children, in an R-4 zone for Sherrie Martin and as we just established she's not here tonight. The property is bolded on the property map. You can get a picture of what the house looks like. The reason this is in front of you tonight is because we did receive an objection. Typically, an Accessory Use Permit can be allowed, unless there is an objection within the time period specifically allowed by the City Code. We did received objections -- multiple objections to this and that's why it's in front of you tonight. There are not specific findings that can be made for a childcare -- Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 17, 2002 Page 37 of 77 or a family childcare home. However, there are some standards, which are included in the application for you tonight. As far as the letters of objection go, it sounds like there is someone in the audience tonight that wants to address some objections. Please refer to the written objections that you have received. As far as the subdivision's codes, covenants, and restrictions, that is not in the purview of anybody from the city or on the city staff to enforce any of the CC&Rs for a private subdivision and should not lend value to your decision this night. As a recommendation, again, it's stated that you should consider public testimony, written and verbal, when making your decision tonight. With that, I would turn it back over to you for any questions and let you continue with your Public Hearing. Borup: Questions from the Commission? Zaremba: Several of the objections to it stated that there is an existing business being operated out of the home and while it may or may not be a CC&R issue, it is also a -- either an Accessory Use or a Conditional Use issue. Have we determined if there is such a business, A, and, B, if there is a permit? McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Zaremba, if you could note in your packet that you received, you should have received an e-mail sent to me from Joe Belmont, the City's Code Enforcement Officer, regarding the fact that he has received -- Zaremba: We don't have that. McKinnon: Okay. Let me read it to you, what it says. It says, to Dave McKinnon from Joe Belmont, regarding David Martin. At the request of the Meridian Fire Department, I went to Mr. Martin's home to check on a report of paint and various flammable materials stored in his garage. Mr. Martin allowed me complete access to his garage and I found it neatly arranged with probable not more than 10 to 15 gallons of paint. I saw nothing to sustain the complaint I had received and so informed the Fire Department. When Joe had received this complaint, it was from a neighbor that said there was a large quantity of flammable materials in the garage from his painting business. Mr. Martin is not here tonight to discuss whether or not there is a business use there. I would not be surprised if Mr. Martin has a business use at his location and he would need to have an Accessory Use Permit for that. There is nothing in our code that says you cannot have two Accessory Use Permits at one single home, as long as they meet the requirements of the Accessory Use Permit, just no significant traffic, no employees, only the people living at the home, working in the home, and no more than 25 percent of the house being used for that accessory business. Mr. Belmont, in phone discussions with him, he said that he saw no -- he saw no vehicles of employees parked at the site as per the complaints that he received, as well as the written complaints that you have in front of you tonight. I visited the property twice at various hours of the day and I have not found any vehicles to be parked in front that would be considered employee vehicles. In fact, I haven't seen any vehicles located on the street or in the driveway for the home at the times I have visited the property. If he has one -- if he doesn't have an Accessory Use Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 17, 2002 Page 38 of 77 Permit, he needs to get one. A review of our Accessory Use Permit file shows no Accessory Use Permit for this address at this time. Borup: Can you explain the definition of a home business? I mean I understand in this situation 100 percent of the work takes place off site. Zaremba: Well, unless he gathers his crew there and instructs them and they leave their cars there, that would be -- Mathes: But if he's just doing his bookwork there -- Borup: Is that any different than a bunch of employees meeting at one employee's house and then car pooling, if no work takes place? I just -- I guess just for my own benefit, what the definition of a home business is. McKinnon: I'll tell you what it is in just a second, so I don't make it up on the fly. Zaremba: Well, I think we've had the definition. It's no more than a quarter of the square footage and it's only for files and telephones and a desk. McKinnon: There actually is a definition in 11-2-2 and it says any gainful operation, profession, or craft which is customarily incidental or carried on in the dwelling place and wherein the use is clearly incidental and secondary to the use of the structure for dwelling purposes. If it's something secondary and it's just -- it happens to be incidental, like you said, it still would be considered a home occupation. Borup: How many other times have there been little craft stores and even that type of thing in their homes and that was an accessory use? McKinnon: That's correct. If we go back a year, we just did one off of Meridian Road, I believe it was one Spicewood, that did a contractor's office out of their home. There was a lot of discussion at that time as to whether or not the contractor should be required to go through that. It was determined at that time that if people are coming and going from that location and using that as a base of operation, it should be considered a home occupation. I would note one other item that I believe that last time we met or two months -- a month and a half ago, we met and discussed a new home Occupation Ordinance that would be more specifically defined what a home occupation is and we would have more information to work off of than what we have got right now. What we do have is somewhat vague. Zaremba: While there is no particular rule prohibiting two Accessory Uses in one house, I would assume that any parking spaces required is additive. In other words, they can't count the same parking spaces for both businesses. Borup: I guess the question I had it says that the definition is a business that's carried on in a dwelling place. That's part of the definition you read, wasn't it? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 17, 2002 Page 39 of 77 McKinnon: Yes. Borup: Carried on in the dwelling place. McKinnon: Carried on in the dwelling place. In a dwelling place. Borup: Yes. Okay. Well, let's move on. The applicant isn't here, so, sir, if you would like to testify, come on up. Tessman: Good evening. My name is Andy Tessman and I live at 2218 Dworshak Court in Sherbrooke Hollows, that's right around the corner from where the proposed day care center is. As far as I'm concerned, I'd like to have day care centers on every corner, but when I moved into the development, I read the CC&R's and it states that no business to be run from the homes and other people read the same CC&Rs. I got -- I was in Southern California when this was turned in and the neighbors got first wind of it. I got home and my answering machine was clogged full. It ran out of tape from so many phone calls and the neighbors were really up in arms about it. They don't want a day care center. They are also upset about the people already having a business run out of there and I go by there a couple a times a day and if you went by it and didn't see any cars parked there, I'd like to know what day that was, because I go by there a couple of times every day. Right now if you go over there you will see the business horse trailer with painting supplies parked in the driveway, with a couple of other cars there and in the daytime, if the horse trailer is gone, there is three other cars parked there. The guy that -- it's his employees that they park -- sometimes they park right in front of the place, sometimes they park in neighbor's -- in front of the neighbor's houses and that doesn't make the neighbors very happy. We have had a real problem with that, because he doesn't have a permit to run a business out of the house for the painting business. We are doing the investigating, we are getting all the ducks in a row, and then we will pursue it with the city and they'll either get a permit or cease and desist. That's down the road apiece, as soon as get all the data lined up to go approach that. As far as a day care center, the CC&Rs state that there is no -- Borup: You mentioned that, sir. Did you understand Mr. McKinnon mentioned that is not an item that we can even take into consideration, that's something we don't have any control over, and we don't have any enforcement ability? Tessman: Well, if it were a business, then the homeowners association would have to take action. Borup: Right. Tessman: And they would have to move or not have the day care center. Borup: Correct. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 17, 2002 Page 40 of 77 Tessman: So, sure, it would -- the homeowners association would have to put up some money and go to court and get the job done, but we could do that, we will do that. Zaremba: I would say your first step is to have the homeowners association write them a letter and remind them of the parts in the covenants -- Tessman: I talked to them personally and reminded them. Zaremba: Well, it's better in writing. Tessman: Well -- Zaremba: The legal aspects of it are there are some things that can be approved legally within the City Zoning Ordinances, that if they are prohibited by CC&R’s, your association needs to enforce that part. Tessman: Yes. We will. Zaremba: Okay. Tessman: And I listened to the last one -- this couple bought a home just so they could have a day care center and that was turned down. They don't have any handicapped parking here, they don't have parking for all the vehicles, and so I can't see any reason for them to have a day care center at all. I mean if the last one was turned down, this one doesn't stand a ghost of a chance. Zaremba: I suspect you're right. Borup: But they are two different applications. This is an Accessory Use for five or fewer and the other one was looking at 20, so it was a different type of day care. Tessman: With five or fewer you don't need any parking or -- Borup: No. There is some things they still need to comply with, but -- Tessman: Do you have to have handicapped parking for five or fewer? Borup: What's the definition of handicapped parking? Tessman: A handicapped parking zone. Borup: You want signage and stripes, you mean, or just -- Tessman: With a sign on it that says for handicapped parking. I mean any handicapped parking space I have ever seen was marked designated as handicapped. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 17, 2002 Page 41 of 77 Borup: With an Accessory Use Permit that's not necessary. Tessman: But yet the one previous had to have handicapped parking. What's the cutoff limit? Borup: Well, the previous one that was doing that as a -- the only use for the house was as a full-time business, 100 percent. This is just an Accessory Use for their having three to five children that they are babysitting and still -- and the home would still be used as a home. They are still going to live in the home and sleep in the home and eat in the home they are -- Tessman: Well, it seems to be that it would be better if you're going to have a day care center, just to have it for a day care center, then that eliminates a lot of crossover. You don't have to have living in the home, as well as a day care center. You don't have to have the furniture and TVs and everything that you have to have living in the home. Borup: Right. If that's your full business, but I mean this is more the approach of doing some babysitting. It's a smaller use. Is there any other -- do you have some -- you said you had some objection because of the -- anything else besides the CC&Rs? Tessman: Well -- and the objections -- the letters -- I think a number of the neighbors sent letters in. Borup: And we have record of those. Okay. Thank you, sir. Centers: Thanks. Borup: I don't believe we have anyone else here on this application. Centers: Mr. Chairman, I have a question for staff. Did the applicant know that if there were objections, then there would be a hearing and she would have opportunity, or he, to be here tonight and plead their case? Were they aware of that? McKinnon: I haven't personally spoke with the applicant, but -- Centers: Would you assume they were aware of that? McKinnon: I would assume that they are aware of that. Absolutely. We wouldn't have this hearing unless they were notified. Centers: Right. Okay. Borup: The clerk's office also left a phone call -- a phone call message for them. They had written notification, too, didn't they, of a Public Hearing? McKinnon: I believe they did. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 17, 2002 Page 42 of 77 Centers: I would move that we close the Public Hearing. Zaremba: Second that. Borup: Motion and second to close the Public Hearing. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Centers: Well, as far as I'm concerned, it's pretty clear to me that the applicant is not interested in being here to plead their case and we have numerous letters against it, I just want to make it very clear we could care less about your CC&Rs, that's up to you to enforce them. That painting contractor you mentioned -- and you mentioned coming to the city, I'm not a legal beagle, but I would recommend that you don't come to the city, that you get your own attorney and you do your thing. Don't bother the city with that, because that's against your CC&Rs or if feel it is, that's up to you. Get your attorney and go from there, because, in my opinion, he's not operating a business out of his house. I think there is a legal definition there. As I said, I'm not the legal beagle. Anyway, I'm inclined to deny this application. Zaremba: Well, on that part I agree with Commission Centers. Again, part of the reason this comes before this Commission is that in a residential zone a business is not automatic and the neighbors do have something to say about it. CC&Rs aside, we have enough objections to it. I'm not even swayed by the fact that the applicant isn't hear and I think I would have been swayed by the neighbors' objections and am satisfied that this would not be welcome in this neighborhood. Rohm: I think it's the consensus of this Commission that this should be forwarded to City Council and with a recommendation to deny approval and I'd like to -- if a motion -- Borup: Go ahead. Rohm: I'd like to move we forward to the City Council for denial of this -- Borup: Because this is an accessory use it does not go to City Council. McKinnon: This does not go to City Council this is a decision that you will make tonight. If they would like to appeal your decision, they can appeal it to the City Council, but your decision tonight would be the final decision. It does not go on to Council, unless there is a request for appeal. Rohm: That's a learning process for me. I'd like to move that we deny approval of this AUP 02-007, request for Accessory Use Permit for a family day care in an R-4 zone for Sherrie Martin by Sherrie Martin at 2215 East MacKay Court. Centers: Second. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 17, 2002 Page 43 of 77 Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Item 8. Public Hearing: PFP 02-003 Request for Preliminary/Final Plat approval of 1 building lots on 3.8491 acres in a C-C zone for Goldstone Center Condos by Sundance Company – southeast corner of South Eagle Road and East Overland Road. Borup: Item Number 8, Public Hearing PFP 02-003, request Preliminary/Final Plat approval of one building lot on 3.8 acres in a C-C zone for Goldstone Center Condos by Sundance Company, southwest corner of South Eagle Road and East Overland Road. Open this Public Hearing and start with the staff report. McKinnon: Thanks, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Just forwarded passed all of my slides I wanted to show you. This is an existing building in the Silverstone development. It's one of the first buildings -- multi-tenant building. When the project was originally approved, it was a large shell building under one ownership and the applicant has requested that they be allowed to condominiumize the property that would be subdividing the area within the building to be able to be purchased by other people. There is no change in the exterior of the building. There is no change to the interior of the building. This is essentially dividing up the interior of the building's airspace in order to sell to different people. Staff has no objections to this. We have elicited some note changes and revisions that need to take place at this time, but other than that. We have no objections to the request by the applicant and if they can meet the conditions of approval, we are very much in support of the application as presented to you tonight. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Would the applicant like to come forward? Zaremba: Let me just ask on the mechanical process. Does that mean that things like hallways and bathrooms and stuff become common area maintained by an association? I see a nod yes on that. Borup: Okay. Staff has recommended approval. Do you have any additional comments? Tealey: It's not a day care center. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, my name is Pat Tealey, office address is 2501 Bogus Basin Road, Boise. I'm here representing the applicant Sundance Company. This is something new for you guys and the City of Meridian. This is the first time a condominium project the City of Meridian has and -- Borup: Commercial. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 17, 2002 Page 44 of 77 Tealey: Commercial and as I understand, even residential. There have been some other townhouse-type applications that you have dealt with. This is a little bit different, because we aren't -- you know, we aren't dealing with your standard Planning and Zoning issues, dedication of new roads and right of ways and landscaping, utilities. This is an existing building and a way to subdivide and try to provide a different form of ownership to people who choose to be in this building. If there is any questions -- we have read the staff report and agree with their -- Borup: Any questions of Mr. Tealey? Centers: Yes. I had a question or -- how many potential owners do you anticipate? Tealey: That is just basically determined by how many square feet -- square foot -- square feet each owner would want. In other words, we could divide that thing up according to -- without ownership in as many spaces as we wanted, according to building codes, you know. In other words, if there wasn't an ownership involved in it. All we are doing is providing the ownership of spaces that would normally be occupied by people either leasing or renting. Centers: So you don't anticipate parking demands or requirements will change? Tealey: The parking demands and requirements are based on the square footage of the overall building itself and this is an existing building that has gone through the process here in Meridian and has adequate number of parking. Centers: I'm aware of that -- and I'm aware of that and that's why I asked how many owners are you expecting, because that was my concern with the parking and, you know, I guess staff has addressed that and I'm familiar with condominiumizing projects. Tealey: The parking demand for a condominium wouldn't be any different than a parking demand for the building if it were leased out to various people. It wouldn't be any difference in the demand for parking. Centers: Well, I beg to differ with you, because if you have all of those units that you sell and you have two or three or four people working in each unit, do you think that was the original intent of that building to begin with? Tealey: It was built as multi -- it was built as a multi-tenant building. Centers: Yes. Tealey: And certainly, we can't get any more people in it, because it's going to be a condominium versus whether it was rented or leased space. I'm sure staff could -- McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, when the project was built, it was built as a shell building and the types of uses were discussed at that time and the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 17, 2002 Page 45 of 77 parking was dimensioned based on it all going off as if it was the highest use for that for parking, which was based on one for 400 gross square feet. Centers: One for 400? McKinnon: One for 400 and, if I remember correctly, they have gone above and beyond the minimum requirements. I believe that they have probably gone to closer to one to 250, maybe even possibly higher than that, to meet market requirements. They are over-parked, according to our standards. Centers: Good. Borup: The plan does show one to 250. Tealey: Yes. That's a standard that they like to use, or even better than that, one to 200 -- they like to get at least one to 250, just to make it leasable. Centers: You just might keep that in mind when you market it, because I have seen that become a problem in the past on other projects I'm familiar with. Borup: Well, according to the plan, it says one to 250 would be 155 stalls. They have 128 -- 181 on site. Centers: Good. Thank you. Tealey: Thank you. Zaremba: Let me ask one other question. In the -- I'm not sure where -- either in the original annexation process or in the original platting process, ACHD would have added a requirement to the current property owner to encourage traffic mitigation, car pooling of the businesses that are there. Are you going to add any element in your CC&Rs for the condo owners that would -- to pass that message along? I know the City of Meridian can't actually enforce that, but I sure would like to know that the people are made aware that there has been a requirement for traffic mitigation. Tealey: I have got the review by the Ada County Highway District here and they haven't mentioned anything about traffic mitigation. Zaremba: It was in the original for this whole subdivision, as I recall. Tealey: Yes and I'm sure that the owner has addressed this as a whole in the subdivision. I don't know that we can put anything on the plat or any type of warning note on the plat that, hey, you have to car pool. I mean that doesn't belong on a plat. But I'm sure if there is a requirement from the city that this mitigation needs to notify the people that there have taken care of. It is a very professional development and one Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 17, 2002 Page 46 of 77 that Meridian need be proud of and should be proud of and they don't want to do anything to jeopardize that. Zaremba: Thank you. I think staff has a comment. McKinnon: Just to comment on what your questions was, Commissioner Zaremba. On the overall site plan, the applicant and the city have worked together to make arrangements for alternative transportation, pick-up and drop-off type locations and so on the overall plan for this project, which is multiple buildings on multiple lots, there have been accommodations made for the mitigation of parking. Zaremba: Thank you. Borup: Do we have anyone else to testify on this? Commissioners? Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: I move the hearing be closed. Centers: Second. Borup: Motion and second to close the hearing. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: I move we forward to the City Council recommending approval of PFP 02- 003, request for Preliminary/Final Plat approval of one building lot on 3.8491 acres in a C-C zone for Goldstone Center Condos by Sundance Company, southeast corner of South Eagle Road and East Overland Road, to include all staff comments. Mathes: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 9. Public Hearing: PFP 02-004 Request for Preliminary/Final Plat approval of 3 building lots on 5.5 acres in a C-G zone for Norco Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineers, Inc. – 2150 East Fairview: Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 17, 2002 Page 47 of 77 Borup: Item Number 9 is Public Hearing PFP 02-004, request for Preliminary and Final Plat approval of three building lots on 5.5 acres in C-G zone for Norco Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineers, at 2150 East Fairview. I'd like to open this Public Hearing and start with the staff report. McKinnon: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. This is another non-day-care one, so it should go fairly smoothly tonight. This is a fairly simple application. It's a Preliminary/Final Plat for a parcel of ground that already has multiple developments on this. As you will notice on the overhead in front of you, the highlighted area is the area that we are talking about tonight and it currently houses the Norco building, with the medical retail-wholesale warehouse, and it also has a small strip mall type development and very recently you and the City Council approved a Sonic Drive-in at this location. The applicant, when he originally received approval for this development, had it all in one lot. They are now requesting that it be placed on three separate lots. The arrangement of the Preliminary/Final Plat places all the required parking for each one of the uses on each lot. You have some funky shaped lots that don't follow standard dimensions, squares, and rectangles, but that was to accommodate all of the parking for each individual lot to be located on its own lot, so there would not have to be any people saying that their parking should be in front of the building. Other than that, that's the major, significant note that I would point out to you. It's a fairly simply simple application. Staff definitely supports it. The development improvements were already in, with the outstanding Sonic improvements to be installed soon. Bruce may have one comment concerning the site specific comments, if you could turn to page two. Item number three, I'll let Bruce address that concerning the statement to graphically depict all existing easements lying through the boundaries of the subdivision. He can offer some clarification on that. Freckleton: Thanks, Dave. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, this note -- I wanted to just propose a change to that note. When I wrote that I didn't realize that the water main easement to the City of Meridian is a blanket easement across the entire subdivision and to graphically depict the blanket easement would be impossible. What I have asked the applicant to do is just note it in the plat notes, the existence of the City of Meridian water main easement and -- but all other easements of record should be shown on the plat, per State Code. Oh. Dave just noted that it is already on the plat, so we are covered. Zaremba: That's a delete? Freckleton: Yes. Delete the note. Zaremba: Okay. Freckleton: Thank you. Zaremba: I have one question for staff. My recollection is as we were recommending Sonic drive-in for approval, one of the conditions, since this was all one property, is that Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 17, 2002 Page 48 of 77 there be some additional screening put around the corner of the existing Norco building to protect these property owners from Sonic Drive-in noise and headlights. If these are going to be two separate properties, is that enforceable? It was real easy when it was one property. McKinnon: I believe it's still enforceable as a requirement of the application when it came before you of things to change afterwards to -- you have to deal with it and I have had subsequent follow-up conversations with the owner of Sonic and he's more than happy to place them there. Zaremba: But it's no longer on the same property. McKinnon: It was a requirement when it came before us when it was one property and he still will be held to that. Zaremba: Okay. That was my only question. Borup: Do we have any other comments, questions? Oh, would the applicant like to come forward. I was ready for a motion. Centers: We like the applicants to be here. We get offended when they are not. Zaremba: Even if all you say is boo, you know. Boyle: Boo. Zaremba: I move the Public Hearing be closed. Scrap that. Boyle: At least let me get on record here. Clint Boyle with Pinnacle Engineers, 12552 West Executive Drive in Boise, Idaho. Now that I'm on the record and my company at least knows that I showed up for the meeting, I agree with all of the staff comments tonight. It is a fairly straightforward item and, again, as far as the three lots, the actual existing owner, Jim Kessler, will retain ownership of what would be the Norco building lot and the retail center, just since we were going through the process, he figured that he'd split it into three lots. Then at some point in the future if he wanted to sell off the retail center he wouldn't have to go back and re-plat. Anyway, outside of that, staff answered it and -- a little lonely in here, but, anyway, if there is any questions I will answer them and would request your recommendation of approval. Thank you. Centers: There is one owner right now of all of it? Boyle: Yes. Centers: Does that answer your question? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 17, 2002 Page 49 of 77 Boyle: And I believe, Commissioners, that just like staff, that Conditional Use Permit will run with the land regardless of change of ownership, you know, for platting or other purposes, the provisions of the Conditional Use Permit would still run with any assigns, heirs, successors, however that -- I'm not a legal beagle either, but whatever the language is. Thank you. Centers: Thanks. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move the Public Hearing be closed. Mathes: 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? Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward to the City Council recommending approval of PFP 02-004, request for Preliminary/Final Plat approval of three building lots on 5.5 acres in C-G zone for Norco Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineers, Inc., 2150 East Fairview, to include all staff comments. Centers: Delete Number 3 on Page -- Zaremba: With the exception of deleting comment Number 3 on Page 2. Mathes: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Centers: Could I move for a break? Borup: Yes. So moved. Was it? (Recess.) Item 10. Public Hearing: Comprehensive Plan Test Amendments regarding Urban Services Policies in the 2002 Comprehensive Plan: Borup: We'd like to reconvene our meeting this evening. We had moved Item Number 4 on the agenda to this point. This is a Public Hearing on a Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment regarding urban service policies of the 2002 Comprehensive Plan. Open the Public Hearing at this time and start with the staff report. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 17, 2002 Page 50 of 77 McKinnon: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. There are a few of you that are new to the process. I think Commissioner Zaremba -- I don't know if you were on the Commission when we went through the Comprehensive Plan, Commissioner Mathes, Commissioner Rohm. Nick, I think, a well. Just a little bit of background for you on the Comprehensive Plan and the process and why this is in front of you tonight. Part of the State Code is the -- oh, Title 67 of the State Code, the Land Use Planning Act, charges you, as the Commission and the city, to go through and make a Comprehensive Plan for the city. That's a future land use map and to take into consideration all of the things that you see in the recently adopted Comprehensive Plan. One of the items that was heavily discussed during the Comprehensive Plan hearings was the urban services planning area, the effectiveness of an urban services planning area and the enforcement of an urban services planning area and whether or not it's legal to use it as a growth prevention tool and other discussion items related to that. The reason that we are talking about this again tonight is because in the old Comprehensive Plan there was language that prohibited developers from developing in the city's area of impact within the urban services boundary -- on this map it essentially follows all of the area of impact, except for this small portion of land down in the corner of Victory and Ten Mile area. Urban services planning area follows the entire map, other than that location. The old Comprehensive Plan it said that anybody that was proposing development in those areas that did not connect to the City of Meridian's services, which would be utilities and other services, but more specifically the discussion dealt with water and sewer, if they did not connect, it did not comply with the Comprehensive Plan and so any development in those areas didn't meet the Comprehensive Plan, therefore, the city said we should deny it. The reason why that's important is because somebody can go to the county, because the land is in the county, it's under county jurisdiction, Ada County would send us a letter if they received any development applications in our area of impact and they would say we have received this development application, does this comply with your Comprehensive Plan. The answer used to be automatically no, because it does not meet city services, it doesn't connect to the city, so we should not connect it if it does not comply with our Comprehensive Plan. There were other items for saying no, leapfrog development and other types of issues, but our Comprehensive Plan was very specific saying, absolutely not, if it doesn't connect, don't let it happen in the City of Meridian. This city -- not the city, but the county does have ultimate decision and we are a recommending body only when there is a development that takes place in our area of impact and it's applied for in Ada County, Ada County has the final decision. Let's fast forward to the new Comprehensive Plan. The new Comprehensive Plan has language in it that allows for members of the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council to consider development in the area of impact within the area -- within the urban services boundary area, to consider approval of those with private water systems, private septic systems, batch plants, that type of service. Now the City of Meridian does not have an automatic no when they come -- when someone tries to develop in the county. We can't say, no, it does not comply with our Comprehensive Plan, because we do not allow development in this area. Now we can say it does say that you can consider it and some members of City Council felt that it should be allowed to take place out there. There is a lot of areas Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 17, 2002 Page 51 of 77 in the City of Meridian's area of impact that could be developed with a private system that the City of Meridian has a long time to go before we will be able to provide services and some people felt they should be able to develop in those areas and so there was a lot of discussion to decide what criteria should be required of those people wanting to do that. Should they be allowed to have their own private system and never be required to connect with the city in the future? Should they build a system that would allow connection to the city in the future and would work with our master plan? Or should it just be outright prohibited in those areas, according to our Comprehensive Plan, and there was a lot of discussion. You have got a packet that Brad Hawkins-Clark put together for you and he outlines, in much more detail than what I have gone over for you tonight, the information concerning this and if you could turn to the very end of your packet, it has an Option A, Option B, and Option C. In the heavy discussion that took place, Option B was something that was felt could work and that would be the option that would allow new development to take place. It should only be considered if connected to the City of Meridian's water and sewer systems where extension to and through those developments constructed in conformance with the City of Meridian's water and sewer master plans. Rather than just allowing the development to stay private, it would have to be built in a way that would allow connection in the future to that. There are a number of developments in the City of Meridian's area of impact that do currently receive water and sewer from the city that are not annexed. Keltic Heights -- not Keltic Heights, Vienna Woods, thank you, and Edinburgh Place, both of those subdivisions are not currently in the City of Meridian's city limits, but they do receive city services, water and sewer service, from the City of Meridian. In the future they will be required to connect -- not connect, but to annex into the city. There was an agreement that was signed by the developers to say that in the future when this property is contiguous to the city -- for those of you that may not know in order to be in part of the city you have to be contiguous to a current part of the city. When it becomes contiguous it would be required to connect to the City of Meridian. But Option B falls more directly into what has taken place in those areas. They do connect to the master system, but they were brought to -- the lines and the services to those areas prior to us wanting to necessarily do that as part of our master plan. That's the option that was the preferable option. There are opinions that there should be no urban services planning area that people should be allowed to develop, because it's land and if they can bring the services to it or provide the services to it, they should be allowed to develop it. There is the opinion that the City of Meridian should be able to control the development of that by limiting the development area to the area that we can provide services to, so that we don't grow faster than we can provide services. One of the reasons that can be made for not allowing the city services to go the areas that not annexed is one of the issues involved with this. We can go through some of the specific questions that Brad brought up in another part of this report concerning if we allow the development in the county. All the development fees that would be -- other than the water and sewer fees, such as building permit fees, those fees would go to the county and the city would not get those. Park fees would not be retained, because they would go to the county. There are a lot of issues at play with this. One of the options could be that the Ada County, in adopting our Comprehensive Plan Area of Impact Agreement, they could agree to allow the City of Meridian to take park impact fees from developments outside Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 17, 2002 Page 52 of 77 of the City of Meridian, but in the area of impact that are not annexed at this time. That's something that could be added to that, so that those people that would be utilizing the city services are actually paying into those services. That when they become part of the city -- when they become contiguous, that they be required to connect -- that they be required to be annexed into the City of Meridian. Let's go to Brad's notes. He's got some questions, actually, that he had asked the Council to address. Let's get you the page that's on. It would be Page 3 of his memo, dated August 23rd . To Mayor Corrie and City Council. Those questions start on Page 2 at the very bottom. These were -- he labeled those as talking points to the City Council Meeting and that they just -- they start from there and go forward. If you wanted to go through each one of those as presented, that could be a way that we could handle this Public Hearing tonight. If you're comfortable with the language that's in the current Comprehensive Plan right now, you could recommend to the City Council that we keep the exact language that we have right now with no changes. If you see some changes that you would like to make during the discussions tonight, you can make those changes as well and make that as a recommendation to Council. This is a text amendment change only, it's not a Comp Plan map change, so we can make this without prohibiting anybody six months from doing this, and this is something that can be done at anytime. Borup: I would like to -- and maybe some input from the other Commissioners, after looking this over, I would like to maybe discuss the three options, and I don't know if we need to go through all of the talking points, because I think those are incorporated in the three options, if that's -- would the rest of the Commissioners like to discuss those? Would that be an appropriate place to start? Centers: Yes. Zaremba: I would ask a couple -- I guess theoretical questions. Borup: Go ahead. Zaremba: Before we get into -- Borup: Did you have anything else to add, David? Okay. Go ahead. Zaremba: I can see that it's in Meridian's best interest to do two things, to keep growth contiguous, prevent leap-frogging, you know, so that things stay dense and growth expands in an orderly manner. The other piece of it -- it's in Meridian's interest to -- the specific service, to control water and sewer usage, since the water table is so close to the surface and Meridian's source of water is deep wells, I don't see how we can risk having people in our neighborhood just develop their own systems. Who knows whether somebody will not maintain it and contaminate our water source. Borup: Well, those are regulated by state, but -- agencies and such. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 17, 2002 Page 53 of 77 Zaremba: But my thought would be our control on that would be to say that development can only happen -- probably go back to the old statement, the '93 statement, that development can only happen contiguous to the city, that it be annexed -- Borup: The current language that we have came about just to allow some flexibility as it -- you know, as a pro item since, but -- and I was advocating that strongly, because I just think it can be a bad thing to eliminate something completely and have no flexibility, no options. The thing that concerned me the most -- and I'm not in favor of the present language anymore, and that's because of the fact that the city loses control. The way I understand the present language could allow the county to approve a development with other than -- you know, asking for input from the city, but the city has no veto power or anything and that -- that's my biggest concern with the present language. I don't think Meridian wants to give up that control. Centers: Yes and, Mr. Chairman, I don't think -- and, Dave, correct me if I'm wrong -- the city didn't have veto power before. McKinnon: That's correct. Centers: The county would come to us and we would write a letter back. Borup: That's the way the current language still is. Centers: Couldn't they have done, even under the old Comp Plan, they could have approved what they wanted to? McKinnon: Yes. That's correct. Centers: Okay so we didn't have veto power before. Borup: No. Centers: And since I have got the floor, this was a hot topic of discussion in the Comp Plan meetings, Mr. Chairman, as you know, and a hot topic with builders, developers, realtors, and is this an end run? Because I don't see any builders, realtors, developers here, other than him staying, because he just knew we were going to talk about this. That's what kind of irritates me, is this an end run around the public that testified at three different Comp Plan hearings -- and I don't think you were here either, then, Dave -- or maybe for the last one or so. This was a hot button and, to be honest with you, I have objection to the current wording, especially when you read the last sentence. All requests for annexation in the city limits will still require city-owned services. If they put in their own private sewer system, if they put in their own well, we will require them to hook up to city water and sewer. That's what that says. Final sentence. I'm highly in favor -- totally in favor of the present language just the way it's written, because I like the flexibility. I don't know like to hamstring a developer that he's sitting out there two, Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 17, 2002 Page 54 of 77 three miles from our contiguous city property, that would be contiguous, and he's sitting there with land that he can't develop if he wants to develop and put in his own well and his own sewer system. It's been done in the City of Boise and since annexed. They have numerous -- well, I shouldn't say numerous. I know of one subdivision in particular on South Cole that was on its own sewer system and has since been annexed, so, you know, it -- but it gave that developer the opportunity to develop it without city services being provided. He did his own thing and he put up his own money and he went for it and I don't think the developers should be hamstrung and limited to not being able to do that if they want. They have got to have money and the ability. I'm in favor of the present language. Zaremba: I can be swayed by Commissioner Centers' argument, in that I have many times said that I have difficulty inserting my own judgment after something has gone through hearings and hearings and hearings. Centers: That's right. Zaremba: I do agree that most of the issues are covered in the current wording. I think the issue that is left out and is actually a mechanical thing in how it's operated and doesn't mean a change of the wording. The thing that is left out is that when a development is done outside of the city limits, the city doesn't get a review fee or an inspection fee at the time it's being built. That may be able to be solved by -- well, if somebody outside the city puts into the middle of an existing sewer, they pay a latecomers fee. Can we attach, not by changing the wording on the Comprehensive Plan, but something in an ordinance that says there is a latecomer fee for everything. There is a Park Impact Latecomer Fee there is a police and fire -- Borup: Well, the Boise collects their park impact fee in the county, because they have got an agreement. I have been asking why the city -- why Meridian hasn't had an agreement in place for years. We haven't had any subdivisions until Vienna and Edinburgh, to that's the first one that we have lost the park impact fee on, but Meridian -- or Boise collects all the park impact fees from county subdivisions. Mathes: Who does the inspections? The City of Meridian or county? Borup: The county. Zaremba: Well -- and at the time that they apply for annexation or we force the annexation, either way, I could see there should be another inspection fee. The city still needs the -- Borup: Not for the Building Department, there is not another inspection. Zaremba: Well, are we going to accept this system if it hasn't been maintained? Maybe it was reviewed by the -- Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 17, 2002 Page 55 of 77 Borup: Yes. That's two different things. The one inspection fee you're talking about is the building department. You're saying the sewer. The sewer would be inspected -- Zaremba: The water system and sewer system. Mathes: Do they have to pay to hook up? Freckleton: Yes. In the case of Vienna Woods and Edinburgh, it is a City of Meridian system and we provide all of the plan approval, plan review and approval, all the construction inspection. They come in, they pay the hook-up fees with us, and they pay for our permit -- or our water meters, everything right at our permit counter. It's kind of a weird deal with them, because they have to go to the county to get the Building Permit, but they have to come to us to get their hook-ups. In those cases we actually had a -- there was a two-part agreement. One was a Non-Build Agreement, which means -- and now these agreements were with the developer. The Non-Build Agreement basically stated that people are not going to be going to the county to get Building Permits until they have -- until the subdivision is at least built to the criteria that they would be required to be built in the city to get a Building Permit. In other words, the streets -- street signs have to be in, the water system has to be in and passed all of its bacterial testing and pressure testing and have live fire hydrants, so that we have fire protection. You have got to at least have a road base in that will support a fire truck and that sort of thing. These are things that every developer has to comply with in the city limits. That agreement covered those developments. Then we also had a Non-Occupancy Agreement, which basically covered us for all of the final items in the development, the landscaping, fencing, street lights, everything had to be totally finaled out before we agreed to release that agreement or release that developer for occupancy on those homes. We did retain some control, but that was all done through the process of approval for those developments. I believe they also, in the process, they actual filed an application for annexation and zoning as part of their plat approval process. That's on file, so as soon as we become contiguous, we basically act on that application and it's a done deal. There is language in the deeds, I believe, that the homeowner accepts -- you know, that makes them aware of that situation when they buy a home, that eventually you're going to be in the City of Meridian, whether you like it or not. Zaremba: But did the developer just go along with that out of cooperation or did -- or would we be able to say that's a rule and enforce it on somebody else? Borup: That was a condition of running the services there. Freckleton: Correct. Centers: If you want to get city services, you have to sign on. Zaremba: But can they eliminate all of that by the county saying you don't need city services, the way it's presently worded? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 17, 2002 Page 56 of 77 McKinnon: The City doesn't have a veto ability with the old Comp Plan or the new Comp Plan. If the county says we are going to allow them to do this, it happens. Yes. We are just a recommending body to the county. That hasn't changed. By the wording on this -- the wording would be more specific as saying, okay, Ada County Commissioners, previously it said we wouldn't allow this at all, now the language says we would consider it. If we were to take Option A, that would go back to the old way. Through option B it would be to Edinburgh, Vienna Woods -- the Vienna Woods option saying let's give you the services, but let's make you part of the master plan. Then Option C is the language as it currently is and that leaves it wide open, saying if you guys want to propose something, the City of Meridian is open to that possibility. B is -- provides a little more control for the city in saying, okay, county, we got your referral letter and if you are to approve this, county, we would like you to approve this with them connecting to the city and providing services to and through this property, just like Vienna Woods. Centers: What if your services aren't available? Then there is a lot of -- you know, the utilities aren't available to all the areas you're speaking of where Option B might be applicable. Borup: I think that was the intention of -- was it just the two of us that were here? Okay. That was -- my intention at that time was that the city would have the stay and if the city didn't approve the project, that it could not be approved by the county and I'm assuming that's probably what the City Council assumed, too. Maybe not. Centers: But, Keith, that was never the case. Borup: Well, that's what we are finding out now. Centers: Yes. Even before the county could approve it without the city -- Borup: Well, but they weren't and maybe -- McKinnon: In working with the other government of Ada County, they would follow along with it, so that there are good relationships. They understand that we are trying to plan a city, rather than planning segmented growth, and so they usually just follow with the recommendation -- Centers: But don't you think that relationship would continue? McKinnon: I do and it's -- like you said, it was a hotly contested item and the reason why it's hotly contested is that the probability is still there, it opens the door a little more than it was before. Centers: Let me ask you this, how did this come up? A couple members of the City Council felt that they wanted this reviewed and because of the legality and the text change, it had to go back to the P&Z with a notice of Public Hearing? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 17, 2002 Page 57 of 77 McKinnon: That's correct. Centers: So did I hit it right on the button? McKinnon: Right on the -- Centers: It was a couple Council members? Okay. McKinnon: And during that time they wanted to have it come back to you, because that's the proper way to do it. Centers: After the Comp Plan was approved. It had to be. Borup: Right. Centers: Because of the text change. The whole Comp Plan was a done deal. McKinnon: We discussed at the time -- Centers: They had five meetings, didn't they? Borup: More than that. Centers: Yes. Borup: They went on longer than we did. Centers: And now they want to come back to it. Or a couple people do. Borup: Now why -- whom were the notifications sent to? I mean besides the public -- I mean a notice in the paper that -- was that sent to the stakeholders -- major stakeholders that testified in the original hearings? Zaremba: Ten other people or something like that. Centers: I think just the notice in the paper, that's what I -- McKinnon: That's about it. Centers: Yes. Which no one reads? Borup: So a letter did not go out to any stakeholders or interested parties? Some of the major interested parties that -- like the BCA and the realtors and some of the major - Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 17, 2002 Page 58 of 77 McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I'm not aware of who the notices went out to on this application. Zaremba: I thought in passing I saw that letters were at least -- notice was sent at least to Mike Wardle, Larry Durkin, Mark Estess, and John Eaton. McKinnon: That was the title of the memo that Brad Hawkins-Clark prepared on August 26th. Zaremba: Yes but somewhere else it said those people were noticed for this meeting, I thought. McKinnon: Did it? Borup: For this meeting tonight? Zaremba: I thought so. I could be wrong. Centers: I didn't see that. One of those individuals probably wouldn't get his mail. Borup: Don't think it would be forwarded? Zaremba: Well, I guess that -- the only reason I would be willing to review this is the comment that if private use -- we have a statement in the current approved one that says that if private utilities are constructed. It will be the city's policy that said private services be constructed to City of Meridian standards, because they will eventually revert to the city upon annexation. What I saw in -- was it Gary Smith's comments -- was who is going to review that now while they are installing it and Brad's answer to that is that they go to our Building Department, they file the fee, we go inspect it -- I'm comfortable with the current language. Centers: Well, here is another point -- and I refer to this every once in awhile. We have a couple of members of the City Council that want this reviewed. I would like to see us just go with the present with the present language and let the City Council fight it out. They are the ones that have to approve the text change anyway, so if they want to make a text change, let them make it. Borup: Or submit to us a proposed change, basically what you're saying? Centers: I don't think it would have to come back. I don't know. Borup: Yes, but a text change has to originate here, doesn't it? McKinnon: It originates here. The text change would -- they can make a recommendation for a text change. If there is no change that you guys propose -- Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 17, 2002 Page 59 of 77 Borup: Can they do a text change without a recommendation -- can they do a text change on their own? McKinnon: They hold a Public Hearing based on what you submit to them. Borup: But what if -- McKinnon: They can change your recommendation. Borup: No. Can they do a text change without P&Z recommendation? Without a P&Z hearing? McKinnon: No. You guys have to make a recommendation, whether it's a recommendation to forward the existing -- Centers: Yes, but what Keith's asking, if we recommend retaining the existing, it goes to them, they have that recommendation, can they say, no, let's go with Option A or B? Borup: Sure. McKinnon: Sure. Centers: Yes. Okay. That's what I'm saying. Let them have at it. Wollen: Wouldn't that essentially be an origination in the City Council, then, instead of - - instead of in the P&Z Commission? If it's brought by the City Council to the P&Z, P&Z does not change anything and, yet, there is a text change made. I think that that -- you know, if there is the procedure that it must originate in P&Z, and then I think there might be problems there. Centers: Does the text change need to originate or does the Public Hearing need to originate? McKinnon: The Public Hearing needs to start here. We are not a governing board here, we are just a recommending body to the governing board, so you would make a recommendation and the governing board would make that decision. Centers: And they can override our decision and go with A or B. McKinnon: That's correct and, Commissioner Centers, if we could go back to a comment that you brought up earlier, where did those lines come from, the sewer lines. When Vienna Woods was approved, when Edinburgh was approved, the developer paid for the sewer lines to go there. Borup: That was a temporary basis. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 17, 2002 Page 60 of 77 McKinnon: And so those sewer lines that were placed to provide services to those locations, were provided by the developer and so they are the ones that paid the cost of the development of that. Centers: How far did he have to take them? Half a mile? Borup: They took them about where the grade school -- the school is there on Locust Grove now. The new -- the new -- what do you call it school? Freckleton: It was approximately a mile. Centers: How close do you have sewer down in this area? Freckleton: We have sewer to the Thousand Springs Subdivision. Center: Okay. Freckleton: And the Sherbrooke Hollow Subdivision so when the Tuscany develops -- yes. What Dave is pointing to will -- Centers: Yes. That's -- Freckleton: And the Sutherland Farms. Zaremba: So we are nearly within a mile of the outer limits of the impact area anyhow, almost all the way around. Borup: Except for the southwest. Zaremba: Except in the northwest. Freckleton: There are other constraints that we live within and that is capacity of lines, trunk lines, and that sort of thing. Keith kind of touched on it a little bit when he said that they were temporary. Let me just explain that a little bit. The Vienna Woods and the Edinburgh development, they put in a lift station. They are pumping their sewer back south to a line by the Summerfield Subdivision by the new school site, which is the wrong service area for discharge of their sewer. At the time Vienna Woods and Edinburgh went in, the White Drain, the trunk line that you guys have heard about, we didn't have it and that was the only way that we could get the sewer down there, was to let them pump to that wrong service area. At the time that that happened, we had some extra capacity in the South Slough Trunk to take that sewer. There was a lot of pressure at the time Vienna Woods and Edinburgh was happening, they were talking with our neighboring jurisdiction about services and, you know, the possibility of getting the line moved. You know, the approval was that they would be able to pump temporarily back into the South Slough's trunk service area. Now that we are doing the White Trunk, at the time the White Trunk comes across to Locust Grove Road, their line Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 17, 2002 Page 61 of 77 will be cut off and it will discharge into the White Trunk. So -- which is still the wrong service area. Borup: That's what I was going to say, shouldn't it be going to the North Slough? Freckleton: Basically, the way the sewer works is we have got a trunk line in this three mile section, we have got another trunk line in this three mile section and so, basically, we are just getting it a little closer to where it should be. When that White Trunk goes in, it will have plenty of capacity to pick it up with the developments that are being proposed. The Lochsa Falls project is coming in it's been approved, that's the start of the North Slough in the north -- Zaremba: Well -- and it's actually annexed, so it's got to comply with the rules. Freckleton: Right and, you know, we have seen the plans on the subdivision that's next door to it. You guys haven't seen it yet, but that's basically two miles of the next trunk line that's being built by developers. No city funds. Mathes: Who paid to hook from the one into the other and then into the other? Does the developer? Freckleton: The city is going to be the one that -- to make that conversion at Locust Grove Road, which is not a big deal. Borup: It's pretty minor, isn't it? Freckleton: It's not a big deal, no, because we are running the trunk like right to Locust Grove. It's just a matter of intercepting their line and dumping it into a manhole. Mathes: So if you have one down there that they their own community sewer and water and you finally get services down there, who pays to hook it up from the community into the city? Freckleton: Well, that's a good question. We have not been faced with that. That's a very good question. You know, their system would have to be designed such that elevations were set per our facility plans, so that when we do get there, you know, they wouldn't be below us, they would have to be matching up grade wise with us to be able to gravity. Mathes: You would have to be able to do that also, wouldn't you? Freckleton: Oh, Yes, yes, yes. Borup: See, my idea on designing something that is going to be compatible is that would all go into a manhole and then go to their -- their sewer system, but when the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 17, 2002 Page 62 of 77 sewer line came up you could connect in that same manhole that's already there, so there wouldn't be an expense, I don't know if that's practical as far as -- Freckleton: Sure. Sure. It's just a matter of making sure that that manhole elevation is going to be at the right elevation once we get there. Borup: But they could build and design a system, but it should be a matter of hooking a pipe to, which -- Freckleton: Sure. Borup: And not even constructing a new manhole. Freckleton: Exactly. Borup: And maybe blocking off the one -- Freckleton: Gravity to the low end of the development and put a stub out. Borup: I'm going to -- is there a -- sometime here I'd like to make a motion not -- before we end, that the city -- and I don't know if that can originate here or originate in the City Council, but that we have a Park Impact Fee Agreement drawn up and signed with the county. We may never have anything going to come up again, but if we wait -- if we wait until -- that was the excuse last time with Vienna Woods, they said, well, it would take too long to get it together. Well, if we would have jumped on it then, we could have got three-fourths of that subdivision and Edinburgh, too. Before we leave I'd like to maybe make that as a motion and whether we ever use it or not, that's fine, but I would think -- Zaremba: At the conclusion of this subject? Borup: Yes. The other question I have is -- is there a limit to types of agreements we can have with the county? Has that come up before? Can we have -- can we have a written agreement with the county that they agree to that they would not allow any development in our area of impact without full city approval, that does give us veto power then? Wollen: It would be tough, Mr. Chairman, to enforce that or to even have -- it would be tough to get the county to agree to any such agreement and -- Borup: Within our area of impact? Wollen: Within your area impact. I still think that the county is going to see, you know, signing such agreement or the agreement in principle as taking away from their power and giving it to the City of Meridian. I -- you know, if the city could convince the county to enter into such an agreement, I don't think see anything basically wrong with it, but I really doubt that the county would ever do that. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 17, 2002 Page 63 of 77 Borup: Well, I would say not maybe on everything, but, you know, I'm saying what we have got now, you know, five acres and below -- Freckleton: That's what I -- maybe entertain the idea of an urban density type agreement. If they want to entertain the idea of an urban density type development that -- Borup: Right. Wollen: And practically speaking that might be -- Borup: Yes. I'm sure they would want some type of restrictions there. You wouldn't want the city to veto a five-acre subdivision or something like that. A five-acre lot size, I mean. Well, I would like to see that pursued, too. Well, I guess it depends on what happens with this, actually. McKinnon: Just one more item number to note is that the City of Meridian has adopted this Comprehensive Plan. Currently, the county has not adopted it and the county is currently using our old Comprehensive Plan. Until such time as they adopt the new Comprehensive Plan, they are still working off the old Comprehensive Plan. Borup: So do they have that scheduled for a Public Hearing? McKinnon: That was something that we discussed when the Commissioners met with the Council. There have been some formal discussions as to when that will take place. I can't remember any specific dates that were discussed at that meeting with the county commissioners. The Ada County Commissioners have to approve the city's Comprehensive Plan, because we are dealing with areas that are in Ada County right now. We are talking about the development of lands that currently reside within Ada County’s jurisdiction. Borup: What's the procedure on adopting our Comprehensive Plan? Do we need to apply -- do we need to make application? Do they do it automatically or -- McKinnon: I have actually hand delivered copies to all of the Commissioners at the county, went down and dropped them off for each one. They have an opportunity to review it just like our City Council does. They hold a Public Hearing and they adopt it. Borup: Who determines when? They don't have any time frame or -- McKinnon: There is no specific time frame that was set up when I dropped them off. We met with the county commissioners about two weeks ago here to talk about some area of impact adjustments. At that time, I raised the issue that the new plan was not yet adopted by the Commissioners. Our Council asked that they set up a specific time to do that and they said that they would. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 17, 2002 Page 64 of 77 Borup: They said that they would? McKinnon: They did say that they would set up a time to do that. Currently they are working off of our old language. They haven't yet adopted this language, so if there is any changes to it, when it changes it goes to the county commissioners again. They are also approving the language that we are adopting. Borup: So they will move that along as quickly as they did the boundaries? McKinnon: We had the discussion with them and they said we have reviewed it and we don't see any problem with it. We need to formalize it and actually take care of it. They have had a number of weeks, months, now to review it and when they were here they didn't have any -- Borup: Well, I mean the boundary approval I think took from '93 to -- McKinnon: '97. Borup: -- 2000. McKinnon: Oh, the area of impact? Borup: Yes. The area of impact boundary. McKinnon: Right. That was a long time. You're right. Borup: Seven years before they approved that. McKinnon: The very preliminary discussions I had with the commissioners was very favorable towards adopting it. They said let's get this adopted and let's set up a time to do that. If we make any changes to what they adopt, of course, this will go back to them as well and they have to approve it as well. Otherwise, it's not something they are working off of and they would revert back to the old Comprehensive Plan that says absolutely not. Borup: Commissioner Centers, you know, I can only really remember -- and there might have been another one. I can remember one application that felt they wanted to develop something and with their own septic system, other than a couple of the guys in the north, because they thought they weren't going to be approved, but that's behind us now. Centers: Yes and -- Borup: The only one I can think of was Walt Waters' commercial project that he was talking about doing at Meridian and Amity. No. Bob Warner. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 17, 2002 Page 65 of 77 Centers: Yes. It was -- Borup: Anyway, that's where the gas plant is there and where they were going to put the ball field -- yes. He was talking about wanting to do a C-Store or something there with eventually apartments and townhouses, but the townhouse stuff he wanted to wait for sewage. He was talking about getting the sewer system in just for the commercial development. I can't remember anyone else that had anything -- McKinnon: Powder River. Westborough. Borup: That testified at the Comp Plan Hearings? McKinnon: I don't believe they testified at the Comp Plan Hearings. Borup: Okay. That's the only one I can think of at the Comp Plan Hearings. Centers: Yes. It was mostly the developers and -- Borup: The wanted to leave the door open, but nobody had anything specific, they just -- Centers: Right. Right. Well -- and, you know, how many specifics did you get, really? Borup: That was it. Other than -- well, there was some of the guys in the north area that were concerned about that. Centers: Most of the specifics were regarding zoning and -- Borup: Right. Centers: Yes. Borup: You were starting to say something, David? McKinnon: Nothing. I was just going to try to crystallize, I guess, the issues. We have got the three options and the three options really represent the old Comprehensive Plan. The last one, Item C, or Option C represents the current, and B is a modification that falls somewhere in between both of those and those are the three major ways to handle this. Do we allow them to develop and then connect, such as Vienna Woods? That's the Option B. Option A would say no. Option C would say yes and B would say yes as well. Borup: But B would say, yes, with our sewer and water. McKinnon: Our sewer and water. Just like -- Borup: C could leave it open to their own private system. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 17, 2002 Page 66 of 77 McKinnon: C would leave it open for a private system, like the -- Borup: In the interim. McKinnon: Correct so these are, really, the three main options, past, present, and somewhere in between. Unless you guys have another way of wording it that could be added to that. Zaremba: In my opinion, the wording covers it. It says even if they do private utilities, it will be constructed to the city standards and reverts to the city upon annexation. I mean how much more -- McKinnon: Is that Item B that you're talking about? Zaremba: I'm talking about the current wording. I copied this out of page 92 out of the current Comprehensive Plan. That was the next to the last sentence. I guess the side I'm coming down on -- to use an example from Monday Night Football and challenging a ruling on the field, I don't see any controvertible evidence that would compel me to overrule the wording that has been developed in all the previous hearings. Centers: And that's the way I feel. Zaremba: Everything we question I find covered in here. Centers: That's the way I feel and I'd like the City Council to decide, because we went all the way through this many times and if you have a couple dissenting voters on the Council now, they should have done it earlier. They had a number of hearings. If they want to change it, that's up to them. They are the bosses. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, just one item on the way the existing is written. What they can propose would have to build to city standards, but it doesn't necessarily have to connect at anytime in the future, it would just be that the city would take over. The wording is that the city policy on private -- if private utilities are constructed, it would be the city's policy that said private services be constructed to the City of Meridian standards and would revert to the city upon future annexation. It doesn't necessarily say that it will connect, just revert to the city. The reason to keep people form doing that is because if they developed it out there, like Bruce was talking about, with the depths being at a different depth than what our master plan shows and our sewer comes passed there at 15 feet under what they have got, the City of Meridian will never have that connection. The City of Meridian may take over the private facility that's there and take over the maintenance, but the connection is not guaranteed by the -- Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 17, 2002 Page 67 of 77 Borup: What's the definition of the City of Meridian standards? Does the Public Works Department determine that and if they don't -- if they don't provide for connection, then that doesn't meet the standards. Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, that would be my interpretation, would be our standards and specifications that we have established. However -- Borup: Can they be established or can you establish them as you review the project? Freckleton: Well, we do have a master plan for the entire sewer system that lays out rough elevations. It gives us a guideline of where we need to be main size wise and depth wise to make the whole system work. Borup: Because I mean they are not going to have -- you're not going to have a written set of standards that's going to apply to every project they would be looking at, so you would need the flexibility in saying this is what our standards are. Freckleton: That's what I was going to say we don't have standards for private owned -- or private self-contained systems. They would be a case by case, but I believe that the full intention of where we were going with this is that they would be designed to be able to hook up to our system once they were annexed. Borup: You would need to review their plans and that's part of what -- Centers: Right. We have said that. Zaremba: And that's the way I would read constructed to City of Meridian standards is that it has to be connected. Freckleton: Yes. Zaremba: It has to be at the elevation that we will eventually approach them at. Freckleton: I don't think the city is interested at all in operating a packaged system. Zaremba: The standard is it has to be connected. Freckleton: We have spent a lot of money on a sewer treatment plant, so -- you know, maybe that language needs to be clarified a little bit. I don't know. Maybe that's where we are going with this is making that a little clearer. Borup: Well, what I thought where we had the control is the sentence that says may be considered and assuming that the city was the one that would make that decision if it would be. If the city doesn't have complete control and, you know, if there is a chance that the county is not respecting the wishes, then I still have concerns. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 17, 2002 Page 68 of 77 Centers: The key to the whole paragraph, which satisfies the developers and the builders, was, however, it is recognized that some development may precede the ability of the city on its own to extend services for such development. Upon formal request to the city, the development that is on property not immediately serviceable -- but that was the verbiage that they really wanted in there. Zaremba: Well, unless, as Commissioner Centers pointed out earlier, the final kicker is the last sentence. If it's ever going to be annexed -- Centers: We are going to own what they put in. We may not -- Zaremba: And it had to have already been built to city standards, which, includes to me, connectivity. Centers: As Bruce said, we may not want to own some of those, but better to own them than not. McKinnon: Well, I have exhausted everything I have got to say on this topic. Zaremba: Is a motion in order to close the Public Hearing on this? Borup: Unless any of the other Commissioners have any other comment. Well, even if they do, we can still make all the comments we want. Zaremba: So moved. Borup: And staff can, too, so we are not excluding anybody here, are we? Centers: Second. Borup: Oh, I'm sorry. Motion and second. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Borup: What are our feelings here? Which direction are we leaning? Zaremba: I have stated my peace. I'm comfortable with it saying leave the current wording. Centers: Yes. I'd like to make a motion, Mr. Chairman, moving on, regarding previous Item 4, now it's Item 10 on tonight's Public Hearing, Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment regarding urban services policies on the 2002 Comp Plan, I would recommend to City Council that we retain the existing wording referred to in tonight's conversation on the text amendment regarding urban services planning area, which is referred to on page 92, the bottom paragraph. Retain the existing language. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 17, 2002 Page 69 of 77 Zaremba: I will second that. Borup: Motion and second. Any discussion? No one would like to speak to the motion? All in favor? Any opposed. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Borup: Okay. That closes that Public Hearing. Item 11. Tabled from September 18, 2002: Planning and Zoning In House Laundry list – Subdivision and Zoning Ordinance Amendments: McKinnon: I guess I have got just a couple things for you on the laundry list. First and foremost, if we are going to talk laundry, I talked to Brad about the shirts and he said this would be the last time we talk about it and -- actually, it's not the last time we will talk about it. It's something that we can probably do. We are starting in the new budget year, it's the beginning of the year, so it's probably something we could work in at this time. Last time we talked it wasn't part of the new budget year and we were scraping the bottom of the barrel, but it's probably something we can work out. Borup: Maybe this better be the year, because next year's budget may not be -- McKinnon: So that's something that you guys may want to think about, what type of shirt. We could probably support a variety of different types and there was some discussion of denim dress shirt or a dress shirt, an oxford or the polo shirts. Discuss amongst yourselves and we talked about it enough at staff level that the girls in the office wanted me to let Commissioner Mathes know that the polo shirts have matching female ones as well that are specific for you. It was something that has received some discussion in our office. Onto some other issues. The Sign Committee that the City of Meridian used for developing the new sign ordinance that we have and we have been using for the past year and a half is starting to resurrect itself again. There are a number of issues that were raised. Some of you were here when Blaine Jacobson from Subway and his architect came in and talked to you concerning some modifications to the sign ordinance. There are a number of other modifications to the Sign Ordinance that need to take place, such as sign standards for the Old Town District, which we currently don't have. I wanted to put it as an option to one of the -- a couple of you as Commission members to see if you would like to sit on that committee. It would be a couple meetings, probably two or three hours at a shot, probably starting in the month of November, probably the second or third week, the 11th through the 15th , that workweek. They will probably try to meet the first. Commissioner Zaremba, are you volunteering or -- Zaremba: I would be happy to. I will be out of town until the 11th . I come back on the 11th . Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 17, 2002 Page 70 of 77 McKinnon: Okay. Then we will keep you in the loop. If there is anybody else that wanted to jump in on that, I just put that out to you. I have already touched on the fact that I will probably have some more language for you concerning the new annexation laws that were adopted by the state, so we can get those into our ordinance. Since you guys are aware of what's happening, then we will get those to you, including the new state legislation, and I will try to get that in the packets as soon as possible. I have got the information I just need to assimilate it into our ordinance, because our annexation information is in various sections of our code. Other than that, I don't have anything else on our laundry list. If you have anything that you would like for staff, myself or someone else on the Planning and Zoning staff to address -- we are still working on some additional definitions for industrial. I haven't forgot that, but we have had some turnover in our office, so we have been busy. Centers: What was that? Zaremba: I did notice in the Comprehensive Plan -- Centers: We are not changing it, then. Zaremba: And I forget which page it was. That there is a distinction in the wording in the Comprehensive Plan between light industrial and heavy industrial. McKinnon: That's correct. Zaremba: I think there was one sentence each in the middle of some other paragraph, which I cannot immediately turn to right now, but reading those I thought was pretty good guidance for establishing that there are really two different zones. McKinnon: Well, we will have to create a new zone and we will be having to create a whole new list of what uses are permitted in a conditional prohibited based on that once we get to that point of the discussion. I'll try to get something for you. Like I said, we are working on that. We haven't forgot it, it's just hasn't taken the largest portion of our time. Borup: I think we still have quite a long list of things that were potential to discuss, but are any of those that we need to be concerned with at this time? McKinnon: You guys have tackled a whole bunch of them. Borup: Does everybody still have that list? Except for Michael, probably. Zaremba: I don't have it in front of me, but, yes, I have the list. I wrote it down and I didn't bring it. There was one thing that we ran into, either the last meeting or the meeting before, that I thought needed to be identified someplace, but that's way to big for anybody to discuss, so -- Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 17, 2002 Page 71 of 77 Borup: Oh, I don't know, we could probably do it. McKinnon: I was going to say, we are still waiting for our Chairman to come up with some new language for measuring frontages, so we will wait for that to be forthcoming. If you guys think of anything throughout the weeks or something comes up between now and like -- I guess you're meeting on next Thursday as well, just a reminder 6:00 next Thursday, there is a special meeting for the education center. If you think of something in between time, please feel free to give us a holler. Borup: I have got a couple of things right now. Zaremba: Yes. How do we initiate the Park Impact Fees Agreement with the county? Borup: I think that just needs to be turned over to the legal department and tell them to write it up, doesn't it? I mean Boise already has one. Just use theirs. Zaremba: Change the name to protect the innocent. Borup: Yes and hopefully we will never have to use it, but -- I don't know how many homes went in those two subdivisions. McKinnon: It was a seven-phase subdivision for Vienna Woods, 30 to 40 homes in each phase. Borup: We still could have caught half of that subdivision or more if we would have dealt way back when the -- and that was -- that was a recommendation, because I made it. I remember doing that. Nothing was happening on it so that is a formal request, Nick. Wollen: What's that? Borup: That's a formal request. Have you got that down as a formal request from this Commission? Wollen: I do. Borup: Okay. I have got one other and I was a little concerned on -- what was her name? Joni West and her misunderstanding on the procedure. Somehow she thought she had to have all the decorating done and the whole bit before she could even apply. I'm sure that's not what you told her, because I know you wouldn't tell somebody something like that. Still, she came away with the wrong impression. I would like to see -- could Meridian go ahead and put together just a little written brochure, something along this line? I would like to say probably Conditional Use Permit and home occupations be the first two, as the priority. Those are something that Boise has and I think they -- well, they have it available for people just to pick up or give to them so they have got something in writing. You know, I don't know if it will solve a lot of problems, Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 17, 2002 Page 72 of 77 but at least they can say -- they can't say, well, no one told me that. You know, there it is in black and white. Centers: Good idea. McKinnon: Yes. It's a great idea. We can plagiarize with the best of them. Borup: Yes. That's what I was hoping. It's ways easier to start with what someone else does and make the changes. Centers: I suspect that she was maybe -- maybe knew that person going out of business, because that day care just closed -- didn't they say this month? McKinnon: This month. Borup: Well, see, that was also -- or last two month or two months ago. It's been a big problem for them. They couldn't park in anything, but they weren't sure if it had been gone for one month or two months. Centers: But she bought it with the full intent of a day care and she admitted that the city didn't say she could do it. McKinnon: You know, when they came in it was actually not Joni West that came in, it was her daughter, and there was no site specifics that were discussed, it was can we do this in an R-15 zone. It's a Conditional Use Permit. That's something that is an option that would be available to you. Borup: See, this would have been better if they would have come here, found out no, and then they would have not fixed it up for a day care. It doesn't sound like they really changed anything, other than they probably got bright colors in there or something that someone wouldn't want in a home. I don't know. Centers: Well, I'd like to know the realtor that sold it to her without making it contingent upon -- that was her sole reason for buying that was a day care. Zaremba: Well, she knew that if it didn't work out, they could rent it and they have other rental property and they just make it one of those. Borup: But it sounds like it's not a cash flow rental. Centers: She said half the payment. Zaremba: Well, that's because she can't tell the tenant how long they are going to stay there. If she can sign a long-term lease she can do it for whatever she needs to, but, you know, she's probably on a week to week with this tenant saying if I get the day care approved, you're out of here. You can't charge very much for that. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 17, 2002 Page 73 of 77 McKinnon: Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission, I will take a look at what we got here and I don't know if you'd want to see these before we change -- Borup: I don't know. I think that's an in-house -- McKinnon: Yes. I was going to say, if you wanted to see something before we used it, I could take it back to you, but I can get this with the rest the planners and I'm sure we will divvy it up somehow and we can get these things put together. Borup: Well, I think the first two, probably the home occupation and Conditional Use Permit that that's usually the ones that private individuals do the most often and most potential for misunderstanding. McKinnon: Just so that you know, the home occupation standard is possibly changing and you guys saw -- Borup: I'm aware of that. McKinnon: So we might hold off on that but as far as the Conditional Use Permit one, we can start with that tomorrow. There is no reason that we can't do this. Zaremba: I didn't see that, but you're thinking it's just kind of a primer for people who only do this once in their life? Borup: Yes and now Boise has them for rezone and all the way down and I think I gave several others there, but some of those are -- to me, not quite as necessary as -- and I did have one comment on there, maybe recommend that people don't start development or construction until they have approval. McKinnon: Just flipping through this really quick, this is all very standard boilerplate information. If we really wanted to, we could change the logo on the back and -- Borup: Not even retype it. McKinnon: You wouldn't necessarily have to. This is very straightforward. It’s got all the state requirements, you know, the noticing within 300 feet and some of the findings and, you know, is it compatible, does it comply with the Zoning Ordinance, how does it impact other services. Traffic. Transportation. Is the site big enough? There is nothing specific to Boise City's Ordinance in here. This is -- Borup: That's what it looked to me like. McKinnon: This would be very simple to -- Centers: I can take it to the office I have a two-sided copier. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 17, 2002 Page 74 of 77 Borup: I already make notes on it. Is that the one I made notes on? Yes, I did. We can go down to Boise and get another one. McKinnon: Do some cutting and pasting with this directly. We can get something out like this easily. I think it's a great suggestion. Borup: It might be on their website. I don't know. McKinnon: Make it even easier. Centers: You'd probably only need eight or ten a year. Has anything proceeded on the -- telling the developers or people that talk to the neighbors -- Borup: Having neighborhood meetings? Centers: -- before you come to the P&Z? Neighbor meeting. McKinnon: Neighborhood meeting discussion? Centers: Right. McKinnon: The City Council -- the recommendation has been made, just to refresh those of you that may not have been here when it happened. There was a recommendation for changing the noticing requirements and putting in strong language saying we very much support you doing this. We don't necessarily require you to do this. However, P&Z or Council may require one if they feel the need. The Council has not yet seen that. My understanding is that either the 22nd or the first meeting in November -- Sharon might know. Do you know if the recommendations that they made on ordinance changes are coming up? For some reason it stick in my head the 22nd was a possible -- Smith: Dave, Mr. Chairman, I’m sorry but I have nothing on the agenda yet. I have been waiting for a draft ordinance to come through to put on a pre-council meeting for discussion. McKinnon: Okay. We have swapped some e-mails back and forth and they have been forwarded to at least Will and I know that the legal department has worded up the recommendation on that with some discussion. Borup: The legal department has done a draft wording? Wollen: On which? McKinnon: Of the draft ordinances that we talked about on the cell tower ordinance, the noticing ordinance, the home occupation ordinance, the AUP Ordinance. You guys have done a lot and -- Bill has done that. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 17, 2002 Page 75 of 77 Wollen: I have not personally done the draft ordinances, but Bill Nichols has. McKinnon: There has been some e-mail back and forth as to when this should be on and in talking with Brad, we were trying to get those onto an agenda. For some reason the 22nd is sticking out in my mind. It's not on the agenda yet -- and it should be forthcoming, but it's going to make it there. You guys made the recommendation, it's going to go to Council, and once Council makes a decision, we guys will know, because you will get a lot larger packet than normal, because it have all those changes Zaremba: Not to move backwards, but I just remembered what it was that I thought of earlier. We talked about the cell tower ordinance, which is now going through the process. The last meeting when we determined that the one that had come before us at the meeting needed to have a mat, nonglare finish, that probably should be in the ordinance all of them. McKinnon: It actually is in the ordinance. Zaremba: Oh, is it? Okay. McKinnon: In fact, a lot of those things that I placed as conditions, I pulled directly from the draft ordinance. Just a note for you guys, I actually spent sometime after that meeting talking with someone that works in the cell -- he's an RF engineer, radio frequency engineer, for one of the -- actually, for Mericom, one that came in. We did have some discussion concerning whether or not the enamel finish or the painted finish would suffice out here and he said, hands down. It will work for years and years and years, here in our environment and that they have no objection to going ahead and doing that. Our conversation was, essentially, that he was going to submit a position statement saying that they did not have an objection to painting that and that they would paint it to match the existing buildings. They probably will do a Position Statement and he said that if you, as P&Z staff, would like to write a Position Statement saying that that would be the suggested way, he said he would appreciate that as well. Just so you know, the enamel finish does work for years and years and years, according to the RF engineer. Zaremba: The point that Mike brought up is that the utility poles are finished with something that's a mat finish and we don't know what that is, but it's a good suggestion. The power -- the electric power lines, the 60-foot, 90-foot tall power lines are nonglare. Freckleton: I think a lot of those are galvanized. Borup: That's what I thought. Freckleton: I know some of them on Franklin Road over in Boise that are that rust color. That's actually the type of steel that they are built out of, it's called Corten steel Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 17, 2002 Page 76 of 77 and it is design and intended to rust. That is the protective coating that has been -- that goes on. Rohm: Well, these along Franklin Road out here do have some sort of a coating on them and they are not just a galvanized steel. I know that there is a coating available and that's what I was speaking to. Zaremba: The ones I'm thinking of probably run along Franklin and I know they go up Black Cat and across Ustick and up Ten Mile and over McMillan. There is definitely a mat finish on those, whatever it is. Borup: I think McMillan has got galvanized. McKinnon: I just tell you that, just because it was a conversation I had and he said that in this environment the enamel that they use would last for a long, long time. Zaremba: Okay. McKinnon: Just so you can -- in the future. Borup: Good. McKinnon: Have you got anything else? Borup: I don't. McKinnon: You guys ready to go home? Centers: I'd like to move that we adjourn. Zaremba: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:28 P.M. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) APPROVED: / / KEITH BORUP, CHAIRMAN DATE Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 17, 2002 Page 77 of 77 ATTESTED: SHARON SMITH, DEPUTY CITY CLERK