Loading...
2004 04-01Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting April 1, 2004. The regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:00 P.M. by Chairman Keith Borup. Members Present: Chairman Keith Borup, Commissioner Michael Rohm, Commissioner Wendy Newton-Huckabay, Commissioner David Zaremba, and Commissioner David Moe. Others Present: Chris Gabbert, Tara Green, Bruce Freckleton, Anna Powell, Wendy Kirkpatrick, Bill Musser, Craig Hood, Steve Siddoway, and Dean Willis. Item 1: Roll-Call Attendance: Roll-call ___X___ David Zaremba ___X___ David Moe ___X___ Wendy Newton-Huckabay ___X___ Michael Rohm ___X___Chairman Keith Borup Borup: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. We'd like to begin our regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission for April 1st. Start with attendance. Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda: Borup: Anyone wish any change on the adoption of the agenda? Zaremba: I would only mention that Anna Powell, the Planning and Zoning director, has asked for some additional discussion after Item 15. Borup: Okay. We will add an item 16, additional discussion. Item 3: Consent Agenda: A. Approve minutes of February 5, 2004 Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting: B. Approve minutes of March 18, 2004 Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting: C. Approve minutes of March 4, 2004 Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting: Borup: The first item, then, the Consent Agenda, which consists of minutes of February 5th, 18th, and 4th. Do we have the minutes for the 5th? Meridian Planning & Zoning April 1, 2004 Page 2 of 89 Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I did not find minutes for February 5th. I would move that we remove that item from the Consent Agenda. Borup: Is that the same for everyone else? Rohm: Yes. Borup: Okay. All right. Item 5 removed. Zaremba: Remove Item A from our Consent Agenda. Borup: Do we have a motion? Rohm: Second. Borup: Okay. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Borup: Do we have a motion on the Consent Agenda? Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we approve the Consent Agenda consisting of Items B and C. Moe: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 4: Recommendation: VAC 04-001 Request for a Vacation of sewer easements on Lots 13 & 14 of Taylor Subdivision by Larry and Becky Palmer – west of North Meridian Road and north of West Franklin Road: Borup: Okay. We do have -- our first two items -- well, let's just take them one at a time, I guess. The first is an easement vacation, VAC 04-001. This is not a Public Hearing, but it will be a recommendation from P&Z. So, I'd like to go ahead and continue with the staff report. Siddoway: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The location of the subject easement is on these three existing lots that are on -- this is Meridian Road and this is Franklin, so we are north of Franklin. The red parcel here is Napa Auto Parts and there is currently a sewer easement that comes off of Meridian Road and crosses these three parcels at a diagonal roughly in this area. The applicant desires to vacate that sewer easement. The easement is no longer needed. Staff has verified that no other users tie into it upstream and that the sewer in that location is only used Meridian Planning & Zoning April 1, 2004 Page 3 of 89 by those parcels. At one time it did serve also the Napa Auto Parts Store, but they now tie in directly to the sewer main in Meridian Road and do not use that easement. The applicant wishes to redevelop the property when it is vacated. His application would be a permitted use in the zone, I believe, so he is going through the vacation now and, then, will submit for a certificate of zoning compliance at a later date. Staff does recommend approval of the vacation. There is only one condition of approval and that's that they submit evidence that the vacation has been approved by all applicable agencies before we issue the certificate of zoning compliance and with that I'll stand for any questions. Borup: Questions from any Commissioners? Zaremba: I have one question that probably, actually, goes to Bruce, but I'm not sure. I don't know if it makes a difference, but it wasn't clear to me whether there is actually a pipe in the ground under this easement and if that's being abandoned or they are going to hook into it otherwise or could somebody later be digging it up not knowing there is a pipe there and -- Freckleton: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Zaremba, there is currently a pipe in the ground. When the Napa Store went in, the sewer used to come across and go right on through and Napa, in their site development, ran new sewer service out to Meridian Road and basically cut it off at this location. With the redevelopment of this parcel or these parcels, their proposal is to run new service lines out to Meridian Road and do away with the line that bisects the parcels, so it will be abandoned. Zaremba: My question is, then, where that pipe -- where the existing pipe connects with the city's main line, probably out in the street, does that need to be capped off sometime, so there is not a future risk of breach? Freckleton: Their proposal is to use the existing eight-inch line where it enters their property and that's where they would connect up to. Zaremba: Okay. So, that solves the -- Freckleton: Yeah. Zaremba: All right. Thank you. Freckleton: You bet. Borup: Okay. If no other questions, again, we just need a motion for a recommendation. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I would move that we forward to the City Council recommending approval of VAC 04-001, request for a vacation of sewer easement on Meridian Planning & Zoning April 1, 2004 Page 4 of 89 Lots 13 and 14 of Taylor Subdivision by Larry and Becky Palmer, west of North Meridian Road and north of West Franklin Road. Moe: Second. Zaremba: I'm sorry. To include all staff comments of their memo for the hearing date of April 1st, 2004, received by the City Clerk March 26, 2004. Moe: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 5: Recommendation: VAC 04-002 Request for a Vacation of easements for Lots 2 & 3, Block 1; Lots 3 & 4, Block 1; Lots 1 & 2, Block 2; and Lots 4 & 5 Block 2 for Scottsdale Subdivision by Landmark Engineering & Planning, Inc. – south of West Franklin Road and east of South Linder Road: Borup: Next item is, really, the same thing, VAC 04-002, request for vacation of easements of Lots 2 and 3, Block 1, Lots 3 and 4, Block 1, and Lots 1 and 2, Block 2, and Lots 4 and 5, Block 2 in Scottsdale Subdivision. Again, we'd like to start with the staff report. Powell: Chairman Borup, Members of the Planning and Zoning Commission, you will have to forgive me, I had agreed to take this over for Brad and forgot until about two minutes ago, so, hopefully, we can puzzle through this with Bruce's help. This vacation of an easement is located off of Franklin near 8th. I believe this is Alden Street that traverses through. This was originally platted as a commercial subdivision and, then, they re-subdivided it as a residential subdivision. When the re-subdivision went through, they failed to account for the easements on the commercial subdivision, so we are having to go back and vacate those appropriate easements from the commercial subdivision and I think Brad has detailed those pretty well. They are five foot public utilities drainage and irrigation easements and also there is a couple 12 foot public utility easements and, then, the 20 foot landscape buffer easements, which are no longer appropriate, because there is not a change in use that's -- it's gone to a residential use. So, we have received relinquishments on all those easements, meaning that there aren't facilities in there, and I'm looking at Bruce for verification. Yes. He's nodding. So, these are -- the only reason it's coming to you is because it was created through the plat process and it needs to be vacated through the plat process as well, so it needs your recommendation to the City Council. Staff is suggesting that you -- or recommending that you do recommend approval. Borup: Any other questions from the Commissioners? Meridian Planning & Zoning April 1, 2004 Page 5 of 89 Zaremba: My only comment would be on page five of -- it is the staff notes on page five, there is a map that focuses on the Troutner Subdivision. Powell: Yes, sir. That had me confused. Zaremba: The property in the upper left. Powell: That had me confused for a bit, too. I was worried. Zaremba: This property does show on this map, but it's not the one that's emphasized. Powell: Yes, sir. It does show, doesn't it? Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward to the City Council recommending approval of VAC 04-002, request for a vacation of easements for Lots 2 and 3, Block 1, Lots 3 and 4, Block 1, Lots 1 and 2, Block 2, and Lots 4 and 5, Block 2, for Scottsdale Subdivision by Landmark Engineering and Planning, Incorporated, south of west Franklin Road and east of South Linder Road, to include all staff comments of their memo for the hearing date April 1st, 2004, received by the City Clerk March 26, 2004. Rohm: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 6: Public Hearing: PFP 04-003 Request for Preliminary Final Plat approval of 1 condominium plat on 1.24 acres in a L-O zone for Riverbirch Courtyard Condominiums by N.M. Enterprises – south of East Overland Road and east of Celebration Avenue: Item 7: Public Hearing: CUP 04-007 Request for a detailed Conditional Use Permit for Riverbirch Courtyard Condominiums as required by the Development Agreement for Resolution Business Park for a medical / dental office use in an L-O zone by N. M. Enterprises – south of East Overland Road and east of Celebration Avenue: Borup: Okay. Our next item is Public Hearing PFP 04-003, request for preliminary/final plat for one condominium plat on 1.24 acres in an L-O zone for Riverbirch Courtyard Condominiums by N.M. Enterprises. This is south of East Overland Road and east of Celebration. And, then, accompanying that is CUP 04-007, request for detailed Conditional Use Permit for the same project. I'd like to open both hearings at this time and start with our staff report. Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The site is located near the southeast corner of Overland Road and Celebration Avenue. This is Eagle Road Meridian Planning & Zoning April 1, 2004 Page 6 of 89 here. The high school is right here. Mountain View High School is right here. It's currently zoned L-O, Limited Office, and designated as commercial on the 2002 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. The other surrounding properties to the north of the site is currently vacant. As you can see here, there is a lot of vacant land around this site right now. Same with the east. There is just to the other side of this -- the subject site is, actually, half of what is blocked here. There is a building for a pediatrics facility in this location here and some other dental offices and medical type office uses have been also approved in this general vicinity. The applicant has applied for a preliminary/final plat and detailed Conditional Use Permit approval for a new 12,010 square foot medical/dental office on 1.24 acres. The site is commonly known as Lot 2, Block 1, in Gala Park Subdivision, which was recorded recently. The applicant is proposing to divide the plat and proposed building into 289 condominium units. You can see the proposed building here and the rough outline of the condominium. The purpose of the subject preliminary/final plat application is to divide the proposed 12,000 square foot building into 289 condominium units. These units have been designed by the applicant to provide flexibility for space planning by future owners of the condominium spaces. The process for recording a condominium plat is real similar to the platting of ground. Idaho Code requires a landowner to record a -- the landowner of record to submit a plat or a survey map of the surface of the ground included with the project and floor plans of the building or buildings built in sufficient detail to identify each unit. The submitted preliminary final condominium plat appears to meet these requirements. In addition to the preliminary/final plat for the condominium, the applicant is also requesting Conditional Use Permit approval, because the original Resolution Subdivision required all future uses within that development to obtain CUP approval from the city, so that is what the applicant has submitted. I did just want to briefly touch on what is going on here with access. Again, this building here, the pediatrics building, is -- currently exists on the other side of the lot. This is the subject lot and the lot line would be in this general location. This parking lot is here. The applicant is proposing to take out some of the existing barrier that would be between the two lots and connect these two drive aisles and add this additional parking, as well as another access out to - - I believe this is Gala Street here. So, staff is requiring applicant to gain approval from this lot owner to go across their property to use that driveway and has access to the public roadway system and also grant this lot owner an easement across their property to use this as access as well. This application is pretty clean. Staff is recommending approval with the conditions in the staff report submitted for this hearing. And if you have any questions I will answer them. Borup: Questions from any of the Commissioners? Zaremba: I do have one process question. On their affidavit of posting, I guess you would call it. They supply a picture. The sign does not appear to be of the size that we had been requiring. Does that have any affect on the actual posting? Borup: I think the size is for five acres and larger, so -- a lot of the applicants have chosen to go the larger size. Isn't that correct? Meridian Planning & Zoning April 1, 2004 Page 7 of 89 Hood: Yeah. I don't have that part of the ordinance in front of me. Yeah, it's five acres or less -- or five acres or more you have to do the four-by-four. Zaremba: Yeah. Hood: If it's less than that and they are just doing a plat, you can do 11-by-17. Zaremba: Okay. Hood: So, yeah, that is sufficient. Borup: I think a lot have gone with the larger, even they weren't required. Zaremba: Okay. Satisfies me. Borup: Any other questions, Commissioners? Is there anything that the applicant would like to add? Is the applicant here? Guho: Good evening. Mark Guho with N.M Enterprises. If you have any questions for me, I would be glad to -- Borup: I assume you're in agreement with all staff comments and conditions? Guho: Yes. We also were the ones that built the Treasure Valley pediatric complex next door. Borup: Okay. Guho: And we already approved -- or have their approval for the cross-access agreement for parking. Borup: I think that's probably the main question we have, if you're in agreement with all the staff comments and if there is any other questions from -- Moe: Now, Mr. Chairman, actually, in our packet there is a letter from them stating they took no opposition to the comments. Borup: Okay. Guho: We also have here Roylance Engineers and ZGA's representative as well, if you have any questions on the building or the engineering. Zaremba: My only comment is that we constantly ask for innovative and creative ideas and this appears to be one. I commend you for coming up with it. Let me just ask in your process or whoever is going to be selling the condominium spaces, am I Meridian Planning & Zoning April 1, 2004 Page 8 of 89 interpreting correctly that somebody who wants to buy would come in and buy ten of these units or 40 of them, depending the floor space they needed? Guho: Yeah. If you could maybe put back the -- Zaremba: The one that has the grid on it. Yeah. Guho: Currently on the -- it would be the right side we have the two large portions already accounted for and it looks like the front one we might have accounted for and, then, the back units are cut up so we can basically divide that space into two different spaces and utilize those units for selling different increments, so it seems to work pretty good. Zaremba: It sounds like a creative idea to me. Borup: Thank you. Do we have anyone else here that would like to testify on this application? Seeing none -- Moe: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Commissioner Moe. Moe: Yes. I move that we close the Public Hearing on PFP 04-003 and CUP 04-007. Zaremba: Second. Borup: Motion and second to close both public hearings. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Moe: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Commissioner Moe. Moe: I move that we forward on to City Council approval of PFP 04-003 and CUP 04- 007. And city -- or excuse me. And staff comments to that hearing date -- Borup: Why don't we go ahead and take each one separately. Moe: Okay. All right. Make sure I have got the right one here. Borup: So, I think you already mentioned 003, so let's just vote on that one. Moe: Okay. On 04-003, the hearing date of April 1st, 2004, and received by the City Clerk's office March 26, 2004. Meridian Planning & Zoning April 1, 2004 Page 9 of 89 Rohm: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Borup: And we have got the other one. Moe: I'm working on that. Borup: Okay. Moe: Mr. Chairman, I move that we recommend approval on to City Council of CUP 04- 007, with a hearing date of April 1st, 2004, and the City Clerk's receipt notice of March 26, 2004. Zaremba: You're referring to the staff memo? Moe: I'm sorry. The staff memo. That's correct. Zaremba: I'll second it. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 8: Public Hearing: PFP 04-002 Request for Preliminary / Final Plat approval for the re-subdivision of Lot 3, Block 10, of Bridgetower Crossing Subdivision No. 2 into 3 building lots on 2.63 acres in an R-4 zone for Bridgetower Crossing/Gallery Subdivision by Primeland Development, LLP – northeast corner of West Belltower Drive and North Ten Mile Road: Borup: Next item is Item No.8, PFP 04-002, request for a preliminary/final plat approval for a re-subdivision of Lot 3, Block 10, of Bridgetower Crossing Subdivision No. 2 into three building lots at the Bridgetower Crossing/Gallery Subdivision by Primeland Development. Again, we'd like to open this hearing and begin with the staff report. Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. This subject site is located on the east side of Ten Mile Road just north of Belltower Drive. This is Belltower here. Approximately a third of a mile south of McMillan Road in an R-4 zone. This property is currently designated office on the 2002 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. Just a brief overview of the existing surrounding land uses. There have been some plats of Bridgetower that have gone since these aerials were taken, but the properties to the north are still vacant at this time. I would like to point out that a city well is planned for this location right here. This is where the -- one of the waterfalls are in Bridgetower, in this general location here, and that will be a future plat of Bridgetower as well. To the Meridian Planning & Zoning April 1, 2004 Page 10 of 89 south of the site there were recently approval for some assisted living on those office lots. These will also be office lots along the frontage of Ten Mile. Across the street to the west Drawbridge Subdivision, let's see, is in this -- I believe it's this location here. Single -- and there is some other single family homes on some large lots right now in the county. The subject property is known as Lot 3, Block 10, Bridgetower Crossing Subdivision No. 2. The applicant is proposing to re-subdivide Lot 3 and create three new lots for Gallery Subdivision. I apologize for the quality of this preliminary plat, but, basically, the plat goes around that well site and comes down like this with build-able lots in there. There is probably a better site plan preliminary plat in your packet, but there is not really a lot to see with this one. As part of the previous approval for the office uses on this site, all the building setbacks are subject to the L-O zone setbacks, even though the site is currently zoned R-4. It was approved as a use exception with Bridgetower Crossing. The applicant is not requesting any modifications to the setbacks or dimensional standards of the city. The applicant is proposing to provide access via an existing cross-access easement that is 25 feet wide and lines up across Belltower Drive with the cross-access drive to the south to those other office lots. Further, internally, is an easement for these future lots when they develop. The applicant is also proposing a cross-access parking agreement across all of those build- able lots. Other than that shared access point to Belltower, the applicant is not proposing any access to Ten Mile Road or Belltower Drive. Staff is recommending approval of the subject applications with the conditions included in the report and I will stand for any questions you may have. Borup: Questions from any of the Commissioners? Zaremba: Yes. Thank you. If the city needed access to the well site, they use the existing easement through the driveway that's being proposed by this project; is that correct? Hood: Yeah. The existing 25-foot wide that was platted with -- in Bridgetower 2, yes. Zaremba: Okay. That's it. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Is there anything the applicant would like to add? McKay: Becky McKay, Engineering Solutions,150 East Aikens, Suite B, Eagle. We are in agreement with the conditions that staff has recommended. I guess I'd stand for any questions. As Craig indicated, this is a re-subdivision of a lot that was designated for office use, residential compatible office, and I do have a site plan if you'd like to see how the buildings will be configured on this particular piece of property. Newton-Huckabay: I would like to see that. McKay: As Craig indicated, this is Belltower Drive. Ten Mile Road. This is the main entrance off of Ten Mile to the subdivision. This is a large waterfall feature that's one of the amenities in the Bridgetower project. We have an existing 25-foot drive here and Meridian Planning & Zoning April 1, 2004 Page 11 of 89 the lot in question is shaped kind of like that, kind of like a big fat L. It will be coming in off of this existing drive and, then, we have got these three single story buildings that will be placed on each lot. Their parking lots are inter-connected, their access is inter- connected. The Meridian City well is located on this Lot 1, Block 10. They will take access off of this 25 foot drive. We have also provided an easement for their water main to come out and intersect with the 12-inch water main that's in Ten Mile Road. So, when that well comes on line it will be able to loop into the existing system. Do you have any other questions? Borup: Okay. Does staff have a copy of that in their file? They shortly will? McKay: They sure will now. Borup: Okay. Zaremba: I would say I like that there are not flat building sites towards Ten Mile, that the visual variety that people will get going up Ten Mile is very nice. McKay: Yeah. There is going to be a lot of oscillation. The elevations provided by Glance and Associates for our review looked awesome, really nice looking buildings. Zaremba: I would also mention if there is anybody who has not driven out and looked at the waterfall, they should. It's a beautiful amenity. McKay: Thank you. Zaremba: Nice plus. McKay: Thank you. Borup: Thank you. Do we have anyone else here to testify on this application? Seeing none -- Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move the hearing on PFP 04-002 be closed. Rohm: Second. Borup: Motion and second to close the Public Hearing. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to the City Council recommending approval of PFP 04-002, request for preliminary/final plat approval for the re-subdivision of Lot 3, Block 10 of Bridgetower Crossing Subdivision No. 2 into three building lots on 2.63 acres in an R-4 zone for Bridgetower Crossing/Gallery Subdivision by Primeland Development, LLP, northeast corner of West Belltower Drive and North Ten Mile Road, Meridian Planning & Zoning April 1, 2004 Page 12 of 89 to include all staff comments of their memo for the hearing date of April 1st, 2004, received by the city clerk March 26, 2004. Rohm: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 9: Public Hearing: RZ 04-001 Request for a Rezone of .353 acres from R-4 to O-T zones for NIDAYS Addition by Merlyn and Brandon Schmeckpeper – 230 West Pine Avenue: Borup: Thank you. Okay. Our next two items are related -- I mean they are on the same property. Because of the nature of the request on each of them, I'm going to open them separately, so we'd like to first proceed with Item No. 9, which is a Public Hearing RZ 04-001. This is strictly a request for a rezone of the property from R-4 to OT zones for a lot in NINDAYS Addition. After that hearing I think we will go ahead and -- and, then, the next one will be for the CUP, will be a request for a Conditional Use Permit for an accounting and dispatch office. But, first of all, we will address just the rezone application. So, we'd like to open Public Hearing RZ 04-001, request for the rezone and start with the staff report. Kirkpatrick: Chairman, Members of the Commission -- and thank you for that note. We are, this evening, separating out these two applications, the rezone from the Conditional Use Permit, and I wanted to make sure that you all are addressing them separately, they have separate issues involved. Borup: So, that's what you wanted to me to do anyway, it sounds like. Okay. Kirkpatrick: That's right. That's perfect. So, this application for the rezone is for a piece of property that's .35 acres in size. It's located at 230 West Pine Street, so it is just to the south of Meridian Elementary School. The applicant's requesting a rezone from R-4 residential zoning to OT, Old Town. The Comprehensive Plan designation for this property is Old Town, so the applicant's request does meet that condition; that currently there is a 1,450 square foot single-family dwelling and a detached garage on the property. The applicant was approved for a home occupation in March of 2004 for a bookkeeping business and use is currently going on, on the property. The property is immediately surrounded by single-family residential, but because this is the Old Town area, there are a number of new and changing uses in the vicinity. To the northeast of the subject property there has recently been a rezone to Old Town that was approved and there is going to be some multi-family housing. There are also a number of commercial uses. There is a beauty salon, a chiropractor's office -- there is a number of changing uses and uses that fit the definition of the Old Town zone in the vicinity, but not immediately surrounding this property. Staff supports this request for the rezone. We feel that the rezone to Old Town is appropriate for the location. It's located on Pine Meridian Planning & Zoning April 1, 2004 Page 13 of 89 Street, which has been classified as a collector. So, it's appropriate for the location and also it meets the Comprehensive Plan and this designation for Old Town. We do -- I do want to go ahead and make one side note and show you the site plan and I want to acknowledge that there has been an ongoing property line dispute between the property owner and the neighbor immediately to the north over where the property line on the north side of the property sits. So, rather than requiring -- and we think it would be difficult to actually require the applicant to come up with a remedy to this problem on the property line dispute, we are asking that the property owner -- and they have, actually, agreed to create a buffer between their property and the property owner to the north. This is actually a requirement of the -- not of the rezone, but if they were to come in with a Conditional Use Permit, they would be required to provide a buffer between the commercial use and the existing residential uses. We are asking for the applicant to put a cedar fence ten feet away from the disputed property line, so that there will be screening between what potentially could be a commercial use and the existing residential use and we are asking them to -- kind of as an acknowledgment of the property line, to demarcate the property line with curbing and the Schmeckpepers, the owners of the subject property, would, then, maintain this area between the fence and the curb, which would be a landscaped area. So, that is something unusual that we are doing -- or are requesting with this rezone and I believe that's the last condition there in the staff report. So, are there any questions of staff? Rohm: Yes. I have a couple questions. Kirkpatrick: Okay. Rohm: To start off with, why is the north line of this parcel in question? Why is the property line in dispute, just out of curiosity? Kirkpatrick: And I don't have the entire history on this. I believe that the Schmeckpepers -- that the property line is where they are saying it's located, it's really about a foot from the home of the property owner to the north. There is -- and it's been surveyed. The survey actually shows that the property line is really about a foot from the home of the property owner to the north. And the property owner to the north is saying that the property line is actually -- I think it's six feet south of where the Schmeckpepers are disputing. Rohm: So, does there need to be a separate survey? Kirkpatrick; No. And, actually, I talked to Bill Nichols, our legal counsel, about that and if we, actually, had a second survey done, according to Bill Nichols -- and we may have Chris step in here -- it doesn't actually accomplish anything. In order to solve a boundary dispute, as I understand it, both property owners have to come to a resolution and it's -- basically, it's a civil issue. But the property owners have to come to a resolution together. A second survey would not solve that dispute. Meridian Planning & Zoning April 1, 2004 Page 14 of 89 Rohm: It may be a civil issue, but every time this piece of property comes before the Commission we have got this problem and at some point in time it has to be resolved and it just seems this would be a great time to get it resolved and so maybe the solution that the planning staff has come up with will address that issue and I'm sure we will hear testimony later that will either support or refute that. My second thing that I'd like to ask of you, Wendy, is could you give us examples of what would be normally accepted as conditional use permits within the Old Town development, because I think that seems to be an issue. Borup: Yeah. I think that's a good question and that will be the next item on the agenda would be the conditional use. This is strictly the rezone that we are discussing now. Or was that related to -- Rohm: Well -- and I think that that's -- Borup: You're talking about uses in an OT zone? Rohm: Well, right, but before we recommend that we move to that zoning, I think it would be nice to have some understanding of what potential uses are within that zone before we make the recommendation, just for the public's interest. Borup: Okay. Good question. Kirkpatrick: Okay. I'm going to go through some uses -- basically, every use that I'm going to list here is a conditional use, aside from single family residential. So, these uses they can come and apply for conditional uses. The first one is apartment house. Childcare center. Conditional use. Actually, a library is principally permitted in Old Town. And, again, accounting office is a conditional use. Administrative services is a conditional use. Automobile service stations is a conditional use. Let's see. Bar, alcoholic -- actually, I'm just going to go ahead read the entire list, so I'm not editing anything. Bakery would be a conditional use. Banks and other financial establishments, conditional use. Bars, alcohol establishments, conditional use. Borup: It might be easier just to read the permitted uses, because everything else would be conditional or not allowed at all. Kirkpatrick: Okay. A church will be principally permitted. Again, a library or a museum would be principally permitted. A public parking lot would be principally permitted and that's the end of the principally permitted uses. I'll give you examples of some uses, which they would not be allowed to come and apply for. That would be a wholesale facility. A veterinary clinic. Truck stop. Storage facilities. A sales lot. That would -- again, they could not even come in and request that as a conditional use. Nursing home. Actually, they could not come in and apply for a conditional use. A laundry would not be allowed, even as a conditional use. Neither would a greenhouse or nursery. An outdoor entertainment center would not allowed as a conditional use. Nor would a dry cleaner. Or an automobile washing facility. Meridian Planning & Zoning April 1, 2004 Page 15 of 89 Rohm: Thank you, Wendy. I just wanted to get a clearer feel for what the Old Town really was trying to designate and I think that it might help down the road. So, thanks very much. Borup: Any intensive use is not allowed and would not be allowed in the Old Town. Rohm: Right. Basically, it's a commercial nature or something along that line is through conditional use permit. Borup: And looking over -- looking over the list I see, it's just -- it's almost like they went through and listed everything that's currently in Old Town and put that on as a conditional use. Kirkpatrick: I think they did. Borup: It's mainly businesses that are already in Old Town now. Rohm: Yes. Okay. Thank you, Wendy. I appreciate that. Borup: Okay. Any other -- someone else had questions? Zaremba: I would ask one question. If -- and I read some of the notes on the dispute, but if it's five feet along the property line or six feet along the property line that is being in dispute, why did we choose ten? That would seem to give the neighbor to the north effective use of even more property than is in dispute. I agree with the principle, but I would have put it where the old fence was. Kirkpatrick: Well -- and part of that is also to create a buffer. They are -- actually, the applicant is asking for alternative compliance on landscaping. Typically, it would require a 20-foot buffer, so I guess the compromise is the ten-foot buffer with screening. And we just wanted to make sure that that went in, that's why we attached that to the rezone. Zaremba: And where are you starting to measure the ten-foot from? Kirkpatrick: Let's see. I actually have the description of the conditions. It's from -- from the south face of the home. Zaremba: Okay. Kirkpatrick: Or, actually, from the surveyed property line. Borup: Okay. Which would be a little bit more than that, I think. A foot or so, it sounded like. Meridian Planning & Zoning April 1, 2004 Page 16 of 89 Zaremba: It's, essentially, four feet south of where the old fence was, really. Kirkpatrick: So, actually, if it is approved, we will need to go in and change that condition. Currently it states it's from the south face of the home, so we'll want to go in and change that. Zaremba: Yeah. Borup: Any other questions? Okay. Does the applicant have a presentation they'd like to make? And, again, this would be pertaining to the rezone. Schmeckpeper: Correct. Thank you. Chairman and Commissioners, my name is Merlyn Schmeckpeper and I am one of the property owners of this parcel. I'll try to keep this as short as I can and to the point. As an overview of the property, it is located on a collector street on the corner of Pine and West 3rd, allowing for two approved accesses to and from the site, one off of 3rd Street and one off of Pine. The location is close to the downtown district. Other business properties already exist in the immediate area, and I will show you the attached map, if I can get Wendy to, please, put it up there. Borup: And I think we have that in our packets also. Schmeckpeper: Do you? The one with the flags on it? That shows where the -- Borup: Wendy, he was -- wanted to get the -- there we go. Schmeckpeper: There we go. You can see the various uses. We have got a beauty salon, offices back towards Meridian Street, offices just north of the salon. We have a four-plex right next to us across the alley. We have a new four-plex being built by J.T. Schroeder, which was rezoned Old Town. We have a chiropractor across the street from us and kind of catty-corner about three lots down. Duplexes, triplexes, six-plexes to the south on R-8. So, there is an abundance of varied use there. On our property we have provided for off-street parking. We are meeting the setback requirements. The property -- and I think this is important -- Pine Street is -- no longer can be considered a residential friendly street. It is a collector street and it has quite a bit of traffic and noise. This property has become very difficult to rent as a residence and I want to make that known, because the property is very difficult to rent as a residence. The property location is 230 Pine, which you already know. Description was given by Wendy. Access we have talked about. Ingress, egress, we have two approved accesses. Parking, we are asking for 11 spaces off the street, which we can accommodate. The existing stop in this area -- there are several existing offices and businesses and multi-family dwellings, two to six unit apartment, already in the immediate vicinity. These are good locations for such use, since West Pine is now a major collector street with substantial traffic and associated noise. West Pine Avenue is no longer residential friendly, as I mentioned. However, because it is a major collector street, it is ideally suitable for office and small business use. Exiting the property is Meridian Planning & Zoning April 1, 2004 Page 17 of 89 along -- existing property is along Pine -- West Pine that can accommodate small offices and businesses should and are already being encouraged to do so. The residential use of the properties along West Pine is not desirable at best. Many of the houses are among the older within our city, consequently, many of these properties are forced to survive as rentals. As owners of the 230 West Pine property, we can tell you the difficulties in renting to a residential sector. Few families want to live on such a busy noisy street and renting it has become a major problem. Therefore, the investment to sustain and to maintain these properties as a viable asset to the community is no longer practical or achievable. Further property deterioration is inevitable. Small offices and small businesses. By converting to office and small businesses and by utilizing the existing structures as often as possible, the area still retains its residential appearance and feeling. In fact, by converting to an office and small businesses -- business use, the impact of traffic and traffic noise often will decrease. The survivability and functionality of small offices and small businesses are vital to our community's well being. This type of usage fills a gap between the large scale commercial and developments and meets many business's needs at an affordable price. Do you folks have a copy of the comprehensive zoning area? It, basically, comes over -- can you put that one up for me, Anna, please? Powell: Mr. Schmeckpeper, if you want to use the colored one that's right down there; that might be better. And I will put it up on the -- for you. Schmeckpeper: Oh, over here? I just want them to see that we are properly positioned in Old Town. If I can orient myself. Borup: You need to go ahead and grab that microphone there. Schmeckpeper: Okay. Where am I thinking? You don't see this? Where my finger is pointing is where the subject property is and there is the school. So, the brown you can see we are well within the Old Town comprehensive plan, which is what the city fathers say we want, so -- along with some more thoughts on the Comprehensive Plan, I have pulled a few excerpts from the plan itself and I will try to quickly quote them. Chapter 5, Goal 2, Objective A, quote: Support redevelopment of Old Town. Action number two, subparagraph under the Chapter 5. Adopt policies. This is a quotation. That will promote the downtown district as a prime location for mixed residential and commercial opportunities. Action number 12 under the same chapter, quote: Develop special plans for the redevelopment and revitalization of Old Town that will enhance the area and prevent future deterioration. Chapter 7, Goal 4, Objective B, quote: Plan for a variety of commercial and retail opportunities. Action five under Chapter 7, quote: Locate new community and commercial areas on arterials or collectors or near residential areas. Chapter 7, Goal 4, quote: Encourage compatible use to minimize conflicts and maximize use of land. Objective B under Chapter 7, quote: Bill services to areas of opportunity and promote future development of commercial, industrial, retail and service. Action 2, quote: Provide incentives to attract low impact commercial, industrial, et cetera, businesses. Now, the Planning and Zoning staff has recommended approval of this. We are asking you folks this evening to approve it also. I think it's probably Meridian Planning & Zoning April 1, 2004 Page 18 of 89 important that I comment a little bit on this property line thing that seems to be so prevalent. As property owners we don't have a property line dispute. We paid to have the property surveyed, we know where the pins are, and in this area of town -- and if you want documentation, I can provide it -- there are numerous zero setbacks. There are numerous encroachments. Now -- and I'm talking about the immediate vicinity and two blocks to the south, as far as the proof that I would have with me this evening. For example, the two blocks to the south of us, we kind of -- I think there is 15 zero setbacks and that's just the ones that we counted. There are others. And I think there were three encroachments that we counted and there are others. This is Old Town Meridian. People didn't pay a lot of attention to what they were doing, obviously. But as far as property owners, we do not have a property line dispute. We are in accord with the staff recommendations to set off of the existing property line ten feet, build the fence, put the landscaping on the neighbor's side, so to speak, and we are in concurrence with that. And we feel like this is a good solution and will let the world go on. So, we ask for your approval tonight and I would make one assumption, however, in regards to that property line. If, for some reason, we, as owners, came up with some answer that was more restrictive than what we have presented tonight, I'm assuming that we would be allowed to do the more restrictive one, whatever that might be. So, with that -- Borup: You're saying like you could increase the setback distance if you wanted? Schmeckpeper: Well, that becomes very difficult and I don't -- Borup: I'm not saying that's what -- I'm just trying to -- Schmeckpeper: Mr. Chairman that would definitely be an example. I don't even have a real life example, I'm just saying if something should be worked out that's more restrictive, I don't want to waste you folks' time to come back in and say, hey, guess what, we have done that's more restrictive, would you pass it, and I'm assuming that staff can do that. Borup: That normally would be the situation. Schmeckpeper: I thought that it probably was. Thank you. Borup: The only question I had on that, when you mentioned the existing property pins, were those the old original ones or did the surveyor put -- Schmeckpeper: These are brand new pins that the surveyor put in. We paid for the survey and I'm going to say it's about a year ago now, just prior to when we came in with the day care center, as some of you probably would remember. It was about that time when we paid to have it resurveyed and he's registered and he's a local surveyor and he's done these things in his sleep, I guess. Hopefully he didn't do this one in his sleep. Meridian Planning & Zoning April 1, 2004 Page 19 of 89 Borup: Bad term there. Schmeckpeper: I'm sorry. Borup: Okay. Thank you very much. Any other questions for Mr. Schmeckpeper? Schmeckpeper: Thank you. Borup: Thank you. Do we have anyone else that would like to testify on the rezone? If so, now is the time to come forward. Rokovitz: My name is Darin Rokovitz. My address is 918 West 3rd. I live in the residence directly north. This might be a little chopped up, because I wasn't sure if you were going to combine the two issues, so it kind of flows together a little bit here. Borup: Yeah. We are not combining them. Rokovitz: Right. Right. So, I'm going to try to keep it separated. I just kind of wanted to point out a few facts about kind of where this -- the Old Town is going and what's been happening in this neighborhood. I don't believe that the intent of the Old Town was to just come in, switch things over, and totally disrupt where people currently live, the environment, hinder, or cause a negative effect for the area. I believe its intent is to take an older neighborhood and, eventually, try to improve it to keep it from downgrading itself. Ever since these -- the rezoning has been approached and there is further documents and I think some of it will come into play in the other issue as well, there has been considerable disruption to our neighborhoods. Part of it is the property line dispute. I went to great lengths to talk to somebody about this and they said that back in 1903, correct, they did not keep very accurate records and it's all based upon landmarks. He used a slightly different phrase for it. Monuments, I believe it was. And that there is no guarantee that any of those are one hundred percent accurate. The surveyor did do the best he could based upon the current facts he has and the current marks, but that is not to say that those did not get shifted or altered over the last -- well, basically hundred years at this point since this was originally surveyed. Borup: Have you ever had your property surveyed? Rokovitz: I have? Borup: Yes. Rokovitz: No, I have not. Borup: Okay. Rokovitz: Except for back when it was originally built. The builder remembers setting the offset. They had the home farm where she got the loan from and they had to Meridian Planning & Zoning April 1, 2004 Page 20 of 89 approve of it. They made sure that it met all the building codes, the surveys, and everything that was appropriate to build that house. Part of it was very adamantly known that they had to have a five-foot easement between the property line and the house. The house dimensions were literally built inside of the dimensions of the property boundaries. Borup: So, you're saying there was a survey at that time? Rokovitz: To my knowledge. Borup: That should be -- that should be recorded, then. Rokovitz: We have been trying to track down records from that far back and we have not been able to find -- Borup: So, it sounds like it wasn't, then. Rokovitz: So -- but I do not know. We also have other -- well, state laws and that. We do have laws backing the boundary and things of that issue, it's called property by agreement. There are precedences built upon that. Mr. Schmeckpeper is aware of this. He has been -- that has been addressed to him. Rohm: My question is the proposed solution that's been brought before us by the staff, is that something that you're in agreement with or are you not? Rokovitz: If I understand that correctly, the proposed solution is, first of all, to put a cement curb where the current pins are; is that correct? Okay. That will literally put the curb right -- well, technically, it wouldn't even be right against the house, it would be inside -- a couple inches inside my garage wall. The pins don't have a foot buffer, they literally -- where they currently stand, are literally right up against my driveway and run right down the edge of my house. The eaves of the garage would overhang the boundary the way it sits right now. Borup: I thought you said they would be inside your garage? Rokovitz: Well, if you put up a cement curb, sure. Moe: Well, the curb would, obviously, have to -- Rohm: It would be south of -- Borup: It sounds like you'd just as soon not have the curb. Rokovitz: No. And, then, that is no solution and I'm sure -- I mean I'm not the property owner. I'm sure that would be not agreed upon, because that property line is in dispute. We do have laws that back on that dispute, the six foot. We would have been more Meridian Planning & Zoning April 1, 2004 Page 21 of 89 than willing to have said, you know what, this is my grandmother's property, given to her -- bought to her in good faith by the original owner. If they would have just deeded over our property and not tried to steal it or try to use it as leverage to keep us from talking at these hearings, we would have been more than happy to have just -- you know what, put a buffer, try to keep the quiet down, we don't want to lose our property boundary. Borup: Well, no, but the process to deed something over would be to have a survey done. Rokovitz: Well, they have got five foot in their description is what it was. Borup: Okay. Rokovitz: I mean I don't know how all that works, but they basically said they would quick deed it over, but they weren't willing to even -- they said, well, we'll go ahead and give you a couple feet, maybe, and then -- it was a -- Borup: But you like the idea of the fence? Rokovitz: Pardon? Borup: You like the idea of the fence? Rokovitz: Not ten feet. Borup: You want it closer to your house? Rokovitz: No. That only -- our property line was six feet from the garage, which means if you go six feet, that means there is only a four foot buffer -- four foot buffer from the business that potentially they are going to want to put in there to where I live. Right now I have already had my sleep disrupted. Borup: So, you're saying the garage is over the property -- over the existing -- Rokovitz: From what their current survey is showing. Borup: Is four feet over? Rokovitz: No. The eaves would overlap the property line from what they are showing. Borup: You just said a ten-foot offset would only give you how many feet? Six feet or four? Rokovitz: The property line is disputed. They are claiming that. I'm sorry, but that property for 26 plus years, before they even looked at that, was my grandmother's property. The fence has been there for 26 plus years. Meridian Planning & Zoning April 1, 2004 Page 22 of 89 Borup: Okay. Rokovitz: They come in, they tore the fence down, then, surveyed after the fact, and, then, all of a sudden it's become a property dispute. So, by putting the fence there, that's putting a ten-foot from garage, we are not giving in to the fact that that six foot is their property. That is disputed. Rohm: So, then, basically, what you are saying is move the property line to where you want, even though they have got a survey that says that it's someplace adjacent to your property -- to your home and, then, take the setback from where you say the property line is and so, basically, that would move the setback 15 feet from -- or so from your -- from your structure. And that seems -- and I don't mean to be disrespectful here, but that seems to be all one way. And the rest of it seems like there is a compromise and it's working with your benefit moving and having some setback from the property line and giving you some -- a buffer and -- Rokovitz: The compromise would be us just flat out saying, you know what, that six foot that was my grandma's for 26 plus years, it's now become theirs no matter what, even thought they are going to put up the fence, it will still be construed as their -- that -- Borup: Could you maybe answer why if this has been such a controversy you haven't had it surveyed? Rokovitz: Because my grandmother bought the land, you know, at this point 30 years ago. Borup: Oh, I understand. You said that. But is there a reason you haven't had it surveyed? Rokovitz: I don't own the land. I rent it. So, I don't have a need to have had it surveyed. Borup: Well, it isn't your property that you're all -- Rokovitz: I'm renting. I'm the renter. Borup: Okay. Rokovitz: Correct. Rohm: But it has been surveyed and the survey indicates that the line's north of where you thought it was. Rokovitz: And there are laws that back up as well. It's called property by agreement. There are laws also to back our claim to that land. Meridian Planning & Zoning April 1, 2004 Page 23 of 89 Rohm: Well, it doesn't sound like there is agreement. Zaremba: I would have to ask our attorney, generally, the agreement thing means that both parties know that they are making the agreement -- not locally, but in California generally if a new property owner discovers that the line is wrong, they are able to reclaim their property. If a -- Rokovitz: And this was said if it -- if a fence is put up and not disputed within five years, it goes to them and any heirs and passing on, basically, they are agreeing to that as well. Zaremba: Five years from when -- Rokovitz: From when the fence was put up. Zaremba: From when the property owner learns that it was wrong. Rokovitz: From the time the fence was put up is the way it reads and it says basically consecutively down there, so even if it passed on to family members or they sell it, that property line has been established. Gabbert: Chairman, Members of the Commission, I realize that the property dispute is - - the property line dispute is a major hold up to this application. Obviously, there is a lot of -- there is a lot of legal background to it. I mean, obviously, in Idaho you have adverse possession. If you put up a fence for five years or whatnot or whatever the statute of limitations is on that case and it's open and notorious, you know, you can establish -- you can change property lines. It doesn't sound like necessarily in this case -- and I haven't reviewed the entire background of this, nor have we been asked to make any kind of legal -- legal ruling on this. It doesn't sound like an agreement has been reached and the Commission, you know, in its rule appears to look at this application. I feel like these are collateral issues that necessarily detract the Commission from its decision, at least on the rezone tonight. I think that this is an issue that the applicant and his neighbors and their attorneys are probably going to have to come to an agreement on and I would ask the speaker, you know, if he's not in agreement with what the staff conditions are with the ten foot buffer zone, to consider that. But, otherwise, this -- you know, whether the property line is established or not or who surveyed it when -- that gets into a whole myriad of factual issues that I'm not prepared to say where that property line is. Borup: I think that's good advice to maybe help us continue on. Anything else you'd like to add? Rokovitz: Yeah. I'll just get off that subject. So, basically, as far as the rezoning, the whole intent is just really not to disrupt the neighborhood. You know, it's been stated that that's not desirable for residential things and of this nature, that's why they want it Meridian Planning & Zoning April 1, 2004 Page 24 of 89 rezoned. I kind of -- of course, they have a different map up now, but even though there are businesses on that map that they had up there that was showing all the triplexes, duplexes, four-plexes, those are still residential, those are where people actually live. It's not an actual place where they are conducting a business to where people are coming to do the business and going home at night. You have very few in there. This is still a prominent residential area. It's nice, it's quiet, it's been a great place to raise families. As of late it's been very disruptive for families, for my children. The increase of traffic, they mentioned -- you know, turn it to Old Town will help quiet it down, less traffic, less noise. How do you go from renting a house that might have say a two car garage to operating a business that I have already shown proof that they have operated up to 14 cars out of that place. That doesn't seem like a decrease in noise pollution and traffic to me. That's an increase. This is a very heavy thoroughfare along Pine Street for children walking to and from school, a hundred plus children every day coming to and from. By putting -- rezoning this and throwing a business in there -- we are only three blocks from the school, you're now adding a big danger factor in there that the kids are going to have to have an increased traffic coming and going right out of that specific area. There was just a lot of reasons why even the rezoning is not a good beneficial for this specific area. I'm a single dad raising two kids. My concern is my family life, my children's lives, and I certainly care about all the other children in that area, as well as my peace and quiet where I live and so far this has been anything but that. Basically, I recommend denial of even the rezone, as you will end up -- it's been totally disruptive ever since this whole issue has come up and most of the businesses they can put in there -- I'm not saying that eventually it won't happen, we understand that, but currently right now this is predominately residential and a business is being very disruptive, so the rezoning is going to open the door to put some -- you know, shoehorn something in there and, then, we are going to have even a bigger mess. That's pretty much all I have to say about the rezone. Borup: Thank you. Rokovitz: It's hard to separate them. Borup: All right. Thank you. Rokovitz: Anything else? Borup: Questions from the Commission? All right. Thank you, sir. Rokovitz: Thank you. Borup: Do we have anyone else? C.Rokovitz: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, my name is Charlene Rokovitz and I own the property at 918 West 3rd and I have come in opposition of the rezone. Last year it was stated that Old Town is in a transition zone and that this was the Comprehensive Plan for Meridian. Mr. Centers said -- and I quote: The Comprehensive Plan is not a Meridian Planning & Zoning April 1, 2004 Page 25 of 89 law. It is a guide for us. It is totally not a law. In another part of his conversation he stated: The only reason they are going OT is because it is not approved in an R-4 zone, which it's presently zoned as. It's not predominate in the neighborhood. The neighbors don't want it. We can't dictate by a comprehensive plan that we want that to go to OT and have businesses in the neighborhood. And the same thing is happening right now with this new rezone. I realize that Mr. Centers is no longer with us, but I highly respected him. He really listened to the people. Rezoning makes no sense at this time. It's just opening a back door for the neighbor -- for more neighborhood problems. When it comes to -- maybe I can clear a little bit up. When it comes to having a different survey, when we talked to the lawyer, he said it is not necessary, because you have the property by agreement. The property by agreement would take effect for the simple fact that there was no problem with that fence and our property line until they decided to put in a business, which he had had the property for five years or so before that. And because he had never cared about it up until he wanted some -- to move things, then, there was a problem. You asked about the ten-foot thing. I believe in the laws -- in the policies that -- your city policies, it's a 20 foot buffer. I didn't have time to hurry and hunt it up, but it says that there should be a 20-foot buffer. Borup: Between which zone and which zone? C.Rokovitz: The 20 foot buffer for -- I'd have to go back and look it up, but it's supposed to be a 20-foot buffer. We had the same thing last year. In fact, if I can find it here real quick. Okay. Mr. Centers said at that time a comment to the -- and this was for the CUP, but he said a comment to the applicant CUP, you apply for the permit and you want a lot of exceptions, a 20 foot buffer, you want five, you ask for large concessions, when you're asking for a conditional permit, the city has certain ordinances and they like them followed and, then, to ask for the exceptions sometimes doesn't get it. I mean he said right there that it's a 20 foot buffer. And, like I said, I would have to go back and check the thing of what -- Borup: That was talking about a separate application from this; is that correct? C.Rokovitz: Last -- Borup: That's pertaining to a separate CUP. C.Rokovitz: Right. This was last year's, but I don't think you have changed the 20-foot buffer since, then, have you? Kirkpatrick: Chairman, Members of the Commission -- Borup: Yes. Kirkpatrick: Just to clarify, the 20 foot buffer is required not between zones, but between uses, when there is a commercial use that's bordering a residential use, that Meridian Planning & Zoning April 1, 2004 Page 26 of 89 the standard is a 20 foot buffer and they are asking -- in this case they are asking for alternative compliance for the ten foot buffer. Borup: Okay. And at this point the rezone doesn't even address buffers, because there is nothing to buffer. C.Rokovitz: Well, there was -- in Wendy's statement she did have a sentence or a paragraph or something in there about having the ten foot buffer in it, because I couldn't figure out why it would be in the rezone, instead of, you know, in with the business, but there was a sentence in there addressing that. Kirkpatrick: Chairman, Members of the Commission, that's on page four, condition of approval number seven. And, actually, we want to do -- if we approve this is do a little bit of word-smithing here, but, basically, if the subject property is used for a conditional use the development agreement shall be required and that's where we would establish the ten foot buffer. Borup: But the buffer is with -- again, that's another way of saying the buffer goes with the CUP or a commercial use. So, the buffer was not part of the rezoning, though it made reference to it, because there was a separate application. C.Rokovitz: I understood that the buffer would automatically go in if the rezone went through. Kirkpatrick: Chairman, Members of the Commission, the buffer would be a part of the development agreement, which would be condition of the rezone. Borup: Okay. That's if the commercial use was -- Kirkpatrick: If there is a commercial or nonresidential use. Borup: Right. Kirkpatrick: If this continued as a residential property, they would not be required to put this buffer in. But we -- from what we understand, the applicant is planning to have this be a commercial use. Borup: And that's why that was mentioned. Does that make sense? Do you understand what she's saying there? C.Rokovitz: I understand what she's saying, but -- Borup: But what? Meridian Planning & Zoning April 1, 2004 Page 27 of 89 C.Rokovitz: Well, like he tried to tell you and, you know, it's -- we are not -- it's not that we are trying to be totally unreasonable, it's the fact that we have as much law on our side as he does. Borup: Well, that's not for us to determine, I don't believe. C.Rokovitz: Right. But by the same token, when you put in here ten feet from -- from basically the side of the house and six feet of it is already ours that leaves four foot for a buffer. I mean that's -- it just does. Thirty years having property -- and it's been 30 years. Borup: How long has Mr. Schmeckpeper owned that property? C.Rokovitz: I know of -- I know of one document that said '98, but I think I saw one that said earlier, but I'm not -- I'm not positive. But I know definitely today when I was looking through my stuff from last year I saw one that said '98. Borup: Okay. So, it hasn't been 30 years for him. C.Rokovitz: No. Borup: Anything else you'd like to add? C.Rokovitz: I'm not really sure. I've kind of lost my train of thought, because -- Borup: You will have another opportunity here on the next item. C.Rokovitz: Okay. Well, I just -- I am asking for denial of rezone. I am, because at this time there really is no need of having a rezone. You may or may not pass the business. I know it has been -- it has been recommended that you don't, but if it does not go through, there is no need for the rezone, it's just another way of having something else slip in the back door and there has been a lot of problems with that -- with that house this last year, a lot of problems with the activities that has gone on. So, we are asking that you don't open the door for more activities that should not be there that are not appropriate to be there. If you have read through your things you will understand the things from the police chief and everything, so I am asking that you deny the rezone. Borup: Okay. C.Rokovitz: Okay. Thank you. Borup: Questions from any of the Commissioners? Did we have anyone else? Seeing none, Commissioners? Unless, Mr. Schmeckpeper, do you have final concluding comments you wanted to make? Okay. He has none. Meridian Planning & Zoning April 1, 2004 Page 28 of 89 Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I move that we close the Public Hearing on Item No. 9, RZ 04- 001. Powell: Chairman Borup, before you close the Public Hearing, I'm sorry, I didn't jump in there fast enough. I just wanted to say a brief word on alternative compliance in Old Town. It is standard to see applicants request alternative compliance in Old Town, because they are smaller lots and it was always recognized -- in fact, I think that's one of the reasons the alternative compliance was put in there was to accommodate redevelopment of small properties in such areas as Old Town. So, it's not uncommon. And I just wanted to point out what was uncommon on this one was to have the buffer on the neighbor's side of the fence. That is usual for those of you who haven't been on the Planning and Zoning Commission for long. Usually, the buffer is on the commercial side, not on the residential side. And the fence is -- also it's not a requirement of the zone, so that's also part of the alternative compliance. Instead of additional area, you're providing a visual screen with the fence. So, that was part of the alternative compliance as well. So, I just wanted to point out those two things for those Commissioners that weren't familiar with the term and particularly the use in Old Town, so -- Borup: Okay. Thank you. Powell: I'm sorry, Commissioner Rohm. Borup: Your comments are always welcome. They could have come even after the motion. Newton-Huckabay: Can I just ask for a clarification? So we consider this independent of the property line dispute? Borup: Yes. Yes. Newton-Huckabay: We do not have to consider that in our -- Rohm: I wouldn't say so. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Thank you. Borup: Do we have a second? Zaremba: I'll second the motion. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Borup: Okay. We just closed the hearing is what we just did there. Are we ready for a motion or do we have some discussion first? Meridian Planning & Zoning April 1, 2004 Page 29 of 89 Rohm: Mr. Chairman, maybe a little bit of discussion here. The Pine Street, I believe, has become a collector street and I understand what the neighbors are saying and I can see where their concerns are, but the upshot from my perspective is with being border on a collector street, a commercial use seems to be in order. I don't know what use would be agreed to within the neighborhood, but by rezoning that doesn't necessarily grant the right to any specific development and so by at least getting past that point, then, we can move forward with a Conditional Use Permit that would address a specific development within that lot. That seems appropriate to me. Borup: I think that's one of the reasons for the conditional use stipulation is that's to be determined what would be appropriate and especially in Old Town every location is going to have different circumstances. Rohm: Exactly, but I believe that the applicant has made the right move by requesting the rezone here and, then, once the zoning is available, then, the specific Conditional Use Permit can be discussed openly and -- and move forward with it on its own agenda and that would be my thoughts on the rezone application. Borup: Okay. Anyone else have anything additional? Are we ready for a motion? Rohm: With that, Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward on to City Council approval of RZ 04-001, including all staff comments, dated April 1, received on March 29th, '04. I believe that's the end of the motion. Moe: Second. Zaremba: There is one line that needs to be changed in the staff comments on page five. Rohm: Okay. On page five, the second line, we will delete south side of the existing home located directly north and restate that to the north survey property line. That would be the only change to the staff comments. End of motion. Borup: We have a motion. Newton-Huckabay: And I will second. Borup: And a second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Borup: Okay. Thank you. We have one Commissioner that would like a short break at this time. I think we can do that. And then -- try to make that short and we will reconvene with Item No. 10. Meridian Planning & Zoning April 1, 2004 Page 30 of 89 (Recess.) Item 10: Public Hearing: CUP 04-005 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for an accounting and dispatch office in a proposed O-T zone for NIDAYS Addition by Seal Co. – 230 West Pine Avenue: Borup: Okay. I think we are ready. We'd like to go ahead and reconvene our meeting this evening. Next item, No. 10, is CUP 04-005, request for a Conditional Use Permit for an accounting and dispatch office in a proposed OT zone by Sealco at 2030 West Pine. We'd like to open the hearing at this time and start with the staff report. Kirkpatrick: Chairman, Members of the Commission, this application -- I'll go ahead and put it here. This application is a conditional -- a request for a Conditional Use Permit for an accounting and dispatch office. It's located at 230 West Pine Street. This is, actually, the property, of course, that we were just speaking about earlier. The property has an existing single-family dwelling and detached garage. I'm going to go through -- basically while -- this proposed office use is -- the applicant's permitted to come in and request that office use in the Old Town district. Staff found that we could not make all of the findings required to recommend approval on this application. So, I'm going to go through the findings where we found that we could not recommend approval and expound on those. The first of these findings, if you go to page three of your staff report, Finding C, the finding that we needed to make to recommend approval was that -- and I'll go ahead and quote this. That the design, construction, operation, and maintenance will be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood and with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and that such use will not adversely change the essential character of the same area. Staff found that we could not make this finding, because we thought that the design, construction, operation, and maintenance of the proposed use would not be compatible with the existing uses and had the potential to adversely affect the character of the neighborhood based on noise complaints that have been received from the neighbors associated with the home occupation. And I will go ahead and reiterate -- Sealco received permission to have a home occupation on this property March 4, 2004, and we have received a number of complaints from neighbors related to noise issues on the property since then. So, we found that we could not make this finding, Finding C. The next finding we were not -- we could not -- were not able to make is Finding D, which reads that the proposed use, if it complies with all conditions of the approval imposed, will not adversely affect other property in the vicinity. And we were not able to make this finding. It was based on the applicant's past history of not complying with conditions of approval and we are referring to the conditions of approval for the accessory use permit for the home occupation, which allowed Sealco's bookkeeper to operate out of that residence. And the last finding we are not able to make is on page four and it's Item G, which reads that the proposed use will not involve activities or processes, materials, equipment, and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property, or general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare, or odors. And staff found that this proposed Conditional Use Permit had the potential to be detrimental and this -- to surrounding properties and this was based on the Meridian Planning & Zoning April 1, 2004 Page 31 of 89 applicant's past history of noncompliance and noise complaints that we have received on the property. So, staff is recommending denial of the proposed Conditional Use Permit and, basically, this was based on the applicant who was requesting this Conditional Use Permit and their past history with the city. We have also attached to your staff report a copy of our code enforcement Officer Joe Venneman, he's made several visits to the property concerning and -- I can go through -- if need be, I can answer questions. And we also have the police chief here, who has -- if you need for him to answer any questions concerning this, but we felt that the applicant has basically not been in compliance with the accessory use permit and we don't expect for them to comply with the conditions of this Conditional Use Permit if it were approved. Are there any questions of staff? Zaremba: The description of what they are proposing sounds to me more like a contractor's yard than anything else. You previously read to us sections of the schedule of use control and I don't remember if you mentioned contractor's yard in the Old Town district. Kirkpatrick: I don't remember that being there. Zaremba: I thought you had it handy. Kirkpatrick: We were assuming this would be an office use. It's an office and dispatch office. Zaremba: But that's already been handled with the accessory use permit. I mean they are already allowed to have a bookkeeping office. What they are trying to add to it is a considerably different part of the business. Kirkpatrick: What -- there would be, I think, some materials and equipment stored on site and employees would be dispatched from this office, so I think it would be increasing the traffic at the site from what they were permitted with the -- Zaremba: I was looking up contractor's yard at the moment. Borup: My recollection -- and I'm not finding it right off -- there it is. No, that is not even permitted in Old Town, but I was thinking the definition of a contractor's yard is more outside equipment and storage, not in an enclosed building. Zaremba: It's very similar, though. People coming and going to pick up stuff and -- Borup: That's right. Powell: Chairman Borup, Councilmember or -- sorry. I elevated you there. Commissioner Zaremba. We have -- it is a tricky line, because in a sense they are contractors and they are using it as an area to store things. But, typically, on the -- on contractor's that aren't storing large pieces of equipment or large pieces of -- you know, Meridian Planning & Zoning April 1, 2004 Page 32 of 89 like vehicles and things like that or large pieces of lumber or spools of cable, things like that, for the electrical contractors and whatnot, we have just called them an office and a dispatch center, recognizing that there may be a limited quantity of materials they pick up and I do believe Sealco in this case just picks up relatively small cans. So, we have not termed them as a contractor's yard. Borup: And the definition of a contractor's yard is a parcel of land that's used for storage and it goes beyond that. You know, incidental to building and construction, but it's referred to as the land being used for storage, not an enclosed area. At least it doesn't mention that here. Okay. Did that -- any other questions? Zaremba: No. That's it. Thank you. Borup: Did that conclude everything you had, Wendy? Kirkpatrick: Correct. Are there any questions of staff? Rohm: Kind of thinking out loud here just a bit, Wendy. On this Condition C, that the design, construction, operation, maintenance will be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood and with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity. Okay. Taking that, you could almost say the only thing that would be compatible would be residential, if, in fact, you wanted to push the envelope that way, or you could go just the opposite and say that there is commercial development right across the street and, therefore, it is compatible. So, it seems to me that that specific finding is almost subject to personal interpretation. Kirkpatrick: It is. And that's why we have the Planning Commission. Rohm: Okay. And, thank you, that's -- thank you. Borup: And a lot of them are subject to personal interpretation, so -- okay. Would the applicant like to come forward? Devaney: Good evening, Commissioners. My name is Paula Devaney and I'm the president and owner of Sealco. Sealco is a caulking and waterproofing company. We have been established since 1987 and except for office work all of our work is done away from our office at various construction sites. We store a minimum amount of materials and equipment on site. Any large quantities of material that we have are usually delivered directly to job sites. We don't have the equipment to move large pallets of material or any of that, so those are always delivered directly to job sites. Our plan for 230 West Pine Street is to operate our office for administrative work, work crew meetings, such as work explanation, work assignments, and safety meetings. We have four full-time laborers, one estimator, who is also a co-owner of the company, and me. If the CUP is approved, we will have a full-time office administrator, Susan Rice, who currently holds the APU. She will continue to work for the other clients. She is established in her accounting business, as they are not in conflict with our business. In Meridian Planning & Zoning April 1, 2004 Page 33 of 89 the past I have occasionally hosted volunteer groups of various kinds, for meetings of these groups, including committees for the National Association of Women in Construction, the Guide Dog Puppy Club, and these meetings are generally small meetings and short in duration. We have a total of seven trucks. These trucks are driven by the employees at -- they drive them home at night, so they are not at our office during the day, on the weekends, or at night, except rarely if two of our guys car pool together to go to a job out of town, then, they may meet there, leave one truck and take another. With gas prices going up, we expect to see an increase of the meetings and trying to combine our efforts if we can. Rohm: Can you define what the truck is? Is it a half-ton truck or is it -- Devaney: They are Ford F-150. Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Devaney: All of our trucks are Ford F-150, not that I'm doing a commercial, but -- Rohm: Right. I just didn't know if it was a half ton or if it was ten ton, you know, 18 wheeler. Devaney: I appreciate that. No, they are just Ford F-150s. Our use is not incompatible and it's similar to the other businesses in the area. In fact, I think we are going to be less intrusive than most businesses. We won't have any signage. We won't have retail customers. We do not have a client base that comes and go on a regular basis. We will generate minimal traffic. We've ask the landlord specifically to put parking in the back, so that we are off-street parking and we are seldom there -- seldom, if ever, on weekends or in the evenings after 6:00 are we even there. The -- we were made aware of a noise complaint one morning and we specifically spoke to the employee involved and the other employees. It had to do with putting a ladder rack -- a metal ladder rack on -- a metal ladder on a metal ladder rack. It was, you know, some short-term noise in duration. We addressed it with our employees, we specifically told them that that would not be allowed and to be, you know, very careful with that. When we had to go back to the accessory use permit, I was completely removed. I removed all of my business away from there. Susan took over the office, the lease, and was doing her accounting business. I'm sure you remember the meeting, it wasn't that long ago, that we talked about that, they wanted the material taken out of there and no more material was to be brought in. The surveillance notes do show that people arrived and that they did continue to remove material from there. We strongly suggested and, you know, we stressed that they do it on a minimal basis, no more material was brought in, it was not brought in, and the only thing that I can see that they observed were taking things out of the garage and those were very minimal, because we don't keep anything -- anything there of any consequence. From the beginning we have tried -- we met with staff; we tried to respond to their concerns. I believe that we acted with integrity; we were up front. If we were -- we were in noncompliance or they talked to us, we did try to address it. We moved any excess vehicles totally off the site to a different storage Meridian Planning & Zoning April 1, 2004 Page 34 of 89 place, we moved all of the material offsite that we could to a different storage place; we did not bring any new material in. I moved my operation completely out of the office. I was not present on site, except on very rare occasions to sign checks and things like these applications. The problem as you see it now, with the exception of the fence and the landscaping, which I found rather generous, a ten feet setback and the landscaping on the neighbor's side, I understand the people doing the four-plex and are going to pave that alleyway. It's really what that property will continue to look like when we are there. We are not -- we don't plan on changing anything. Like I said, no signs. We will have very -- of all the businesses to go in there, I really think that we are probably one of the least intrusive. Our workers do not even come every single day. You know, they may at some times come in the day and sometimes they don't. So, If, indeed, really, the only complaint was the storage of material in the garage. I will have to say that we will store material in the garage. Not in huge amounts, because we never have, that's not our operation. All of our material is stored inside. We do not store material, we do not store equipment outside, so it in no way will resemble of contractor's yard. We also complied with OSHA and the fire department on the types of material that we store, as far as the construction chemicals, so we don't have gallons of material around. We are good members of this community. We are active in the community. We participate in many community endeavors, and we have really tried to mitigate the ongoing problem that you -- that has been going on there. We have counseled our employees strongly that when they come in to drop off time sheets, that they try to be considerate of the neighbors. We are aware of the school there. Personally, I think we are an added bonus to the school there, we are always there, our doors are open after school, if those children were in trouble, trust me, we would be a very safe harbor for them to come to. So, I believe that the neighbors would be fortunate to have us in the respect that we are going to be very intrusive, with no lighting, no signage. I just don't know how we would be much less intrusive than we are. And I would ask for your consideration in approving this. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Questions from the Commission? Zaremba: If I remember correctly, there was an earlier reference to eleven parking spaces; is that correct? Devaney: There is supposed to eight and that's considered as four paved ones that will be behind the garage -- is that right, Merlyn, just four back there? And, then, actually, a double car garage, which would put two cars in and two cars out. So, there would be the four in the back and the two outside and two inside, conceivably if we needed to park eight vehicles there. Borup: I think the site plan is showing nine, isn't it? Zaremba: Well, my question would be if you have things stored in the garage -- Devaney: Yeah, we wouldn't consider those parking spaces, because -- well, first off, we don't have that many vehicles we need to park there. Meridian Planning & Zoning April 1, 2004 Page 35 of 89 Zaremba: Can you give me an idea of what time of day -- what's the earliest that somebody might show up, if you're just using it for dispatch and office functions? Devaney: The earliest that our workers typically show up -- and in the summertime is -- because they try to start early, is that they will start -- they can start showing up around 6:00 in the morning meeting and, then, leaving. However, given this situation, we have had them make sure that they met the night before to get any material that they might need or the material is already at the job site and that their meeting in the morning is only to park cars and leave together. Moe: Out of the seven trucks, then, as far as coming in to pick up materials and whatnot, on an average, like on a per day basis, how many vehicle trips are we seeing in a -- going in and out? Devaney: I would say on any given day you're probably going to have half of them to the office, with the exception, probably, of Friday and, then, they all will come in, because that's when we have safety meetings. Rohm: So, that's seven? Half of seven on a daily basis and, then, all seven on Fridays? Devaney: Right. Moe: And most of those are coming in the afternoon to pick up supplies for the following day or -- Devaney: Yes. We try to limit it to that. Now, they were meeting on a regular basis in the morning, but we would try to eliminate that altogether and have them come in the afternoon instead. Zaremba: That's the number of trucks? That would be plus office staff coming and going; is that correct? Devaney: Right. And that's at the most. I mean we don't -- generally we don't -- like I said, the guys drive their trucks home at night. They only come to the office in the morning if they -- if they really have to and they, usually, do not have time. The times at the most is in the winter if the weather is bad and they are not sure where we are going to send them, they have to come in and pick up a different job assignment. But, typically, we try not to have them come into the office, we want them to go directly from home to the job site -- from their homes to the job sites. Borup: Any other questions? Were you familiar with the conditions on the -- a couple months ago on auxiliary use? Devaney: Yes, we were familiar with it. Meridian Planning & Zoning April 1, 2004 Page 36 of 89 Borup: And one of those conditions that the material would be removed from the garage storage. Devaney: Okay. Well, I wasn't here for that hearing, because that was what Susan -- but from what she told me was that no material could be brought in and that it would -- that the material would be removed. It was not my impression that it was supposed to be removed all at once, but I don't think there was much material there to remove. Borup: Then, it shouldn't take them very long, then. Devaney: Right. But I'm saying is there wasn't enough there to remove to constitute remove -- like I say, it sounds like double talk, but I mean I think when they -- on the one instance they cited, they showed up and it would appear to me that those are things they had not anticipated they were going to need and, then, ended up, you know, needing them. One was a small tool. Borup: Okay. But you had indicated you had another storage area and, if, indeed, that the material, as part of that condition, was to be removed, it shouldn't have taken two months to have that removed, if it's a small amount you're talking about. I think that's one of the conditions that staff was talking about and not complying with previous -- or one of the items of not complying with previous conditions. Okay. Any other questions from anyone? All right. Thank you. Okay. Do we have anyone else who would like to come forward? B.Schmeckpeper: My name is Brandon Schmeckpeper and I'm a part owner in that property and I just have a couple questions, so that I can be a little more clear in what was said earlier. Did I hear you correctly when you said that Sealco -- Borup: You need to go ahead and address the Commission. B.Schmeckpeper: Oh. Okay. So I can ask questions of staff through you? Borup: Yes. B.Schmeckpeper: Okay. Then, my question is did I understand staff to say that Sealco was the one that got the home occupation permit? Borup: They might have inadvertently said that, but that was not correct, it was -- yeah, we realize that Sealco did not -- B.Schmeckpeper: That's right. I wanted to clarify that for the record. I would also -- if it wouldn't inconvenience the Commission too much, I'd like to have those findings read back one at a time. Borup: Which findings? Meridian Planning & Zoning April 1, 2004 Page 37 of 89 B.Schmeckpeper: The findings of why it was not -- it didn't work with the neighborhood. Borup: Oh. Sure. Okay. Yeah, we will go ahead and do -- any other questions? B.Schmeckpeper: I'd like to know if the staff is required to consult the Comprehensive Plan when they do their findings. Borup: Okay. As far as a conditional use? B.Schmeckpeper: Yeah. In any use. Conditional use specifically, because that's what's in front of the Commission right now. Borup: All right. B.Schmeckpeper: I don't know. That's why I asked the question. It didn't appear that it was taken into consideration for this CUP and I was just curious as to whether it's required to be. Borup: Well, we'll let staff answer, so I don't misquote that. Kirkpatrick: Chairman, Members of the Commission, actually, if you look on page three -- this is Finding B -- actually, this is a finding we did make. Borup: Right. Okay. It is. Kirkpatrick: It asks if the proposed use and development is harmonious with the Comprehensive Plan and I, actually, said, yes, it is. As noted earlier, the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map designates the property as Old Town and that the proposed use complies with the requested OT zoning designation. So, actually, I did make that finding. B.Schmeckpeper: Okay. And I appreciate that. I have not read that myself. What I heard is what I heard tonight. Borup: Right. And all the other findings -- there is items A through I. Or did I miss one here? B.Schmeckpeper: Okay. And I should get a copy of it and read it, so I'm not doing it on what I hear. Borup: Yeah. There is Findings A through I and out of that many there is only three that they said it did not comply. B.Schmeckpeper: Okay. Well, I guess that's a pretty good average. The ones that I did hear just kind of rang a bell in my head, because to say it's not compatible, I think I Meridian Planning & Zoning April 1, 2004 Page 38 of 89 agree with Commissioner Rohm, what is compatible. Are we going to move ahead with the Comprehensive Plan of Meridian or are we just going to be stagnant? You know, you know take it to either side that you want. My opinion is that if it's going to be residential, it's going to be residential. That doesn't work in that neighborhood and I guess that's -- my questions have been answered and that's the only comments I have. Thank you. Borup: Okay. Thank you. And as per your request -- and if you have other questions, I guess we could answer that, but the items that you had ask to review again was C, D, and G. First was about the design, construction, and operation and that's probably the key word there -- business would be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood. And the staff finding -- and I'm not going to read the whole thing, but I think the pertinent part here was that if such use will adversely change the essential character of the same area and that finding was -- this finding was based on the noise complaints the city has received from the neighbors of the subject property. The next item was D, that the proposed use, if it complies with all the conditions of the approval imposed, will not adversely affect other property in the vicinity. Staff finds the proposed use will adversely impact other property in the vicinity. Applicant has a past history of not complying with conditions of approval, as evidenced by a violation of the conditions of approval for the AUP for the bookkeeping business. And staff has concerns that applicant will not comply with the conditions of approval for the proposed CUP. And the last one was G. That the proposed use will not involve activities that will cause excessive traffic, noise, smoke, and other odors. But staff finds the proposed will involve activities or processes, materials, equipment, other conditions of the operation that will be detrimental to any person, property, or general welfare in the protection of traffic noise, smoke, fumes. The proposed use will be detrimental to neighboring properties due to the applicant's past history of noncompliance and with the resulting complaints the city has received from the neighbors regarding noise associated with the approved AUP at the subject property. So, they -- the response was essentially the same on all three and all three of those things -- there is probably some overlapping on the question, but -- B.Schmeckpeper: I appreciate you reading that back. It just seems to me that -- how can you have both things? Borup: How can you have what? B.Schmeckpeper: How can you -- and I'm not pointing fingers, I'm just saying in general how can you say we want to have light office, we want to have mixed use, but our findings -- and maybe their hands are tied in the way you have to find the findings, I do not know, but to say does it adversely affect the neighborhood -- Borup: Well, that's the question. Yeah. The question was will it and their termination was that -- yes. Meridian Planning & Zoning April 1, 2004 Page 39 of 89 B.Schmeckpeper: And there will be increased, maybe. Maybe with this use, maybe not. Maybe with the next use. The thing is -- is to me it sounds like it's contradictory in the terms of where we are going. You know, if we have a Comprehensive Plan that says we need to mix this neighborhood up, we need to revitalize this part of the city, but we have findings that say it is adverse to the neighborhood. Will there be more cars? Well, there is going to be more cars going down Pine whether we like it or not and I'm not trying to be aggressive here or argumentary, but it just seems that those don't always tie together. Borup: Well, Old Town is a large area and some areas it's going to affect it more than others and that is why a conditional use is required, so they can be looked at on a case- by-case basis. B.Schmeckpeper: That's a very good point and I won't take anymore of your time. Thanks. Borup: Thank you. Do we have anyone else who would like to testify? Rokovitz: My name is Darin Rokovitz, 918 West 3rd Street. So far as the Conditional Use Permit, I wanted to kind of clarify a few things. I was not available to be at the bookkeeping one and so, hopefully, I can clear things up on this one. There is a list of vehicles and just kind of a quick catch daily list of cars that have come and gone from that property. Borup: So this was submitted by you, then? Rokovitz: Correct. Borup: Okay. Because it didn't have any name or anything on it. Rokovitz: I apologize for that. Borup: It just was -- Rokovitz: It is not, by any means, all inclusive. It was just basically my noticing of vehicles as I come and went from work. So, we are talking about just maybe once or twice a day, sometimes a little more on my days off. All those vehicles -- it was once suggested that, well, some of those might belong to the construction that's going on to the northeast for the duplex. Every one of those vehicles I personally witnessed and the people getting in and out at times, they access the garage. Now, these also happened before that construction started going full bore to the northeast. These were ones that were directly linked to this property, the house, and the garage. People have accessed both. It's continued all the way up until roughly just about this last week that they have had vehicles still coming and going, they have accessed the garage, I sat and witnessed it is not just materials being taken out of that garage, they have personally taken material out of the back of the pickups and put back in the garage. I Meridian Planning & Zoning April 1, 2004 Page 40 of 89 believe that some of the findings possibly with the police report that I read and with Mr. Venneman, helped to verify some of this storing of the materials. The night that I finally -- it started -- I have been very patient with the noise, but when it started waking my kids up at 5:00 in the morning, I pretty much had had enough and that's when I started calling in. I finally was able to get an officer out there, unfortunately, the people accessing the garage had already left. He did do a quick little search, though, right off the bat that's how we found out Seal Company and we found out that potentially they are dealing tar of some nature, because there were buckets of tar -- maybe they were empty or not, but the fact of the matter is, you know, tar does not just come right of the buckets, it's still -- there is coatings inside of it. They were sitting outside. Very noticeable. So, all the materials -- and this has been consistent. They have always had buckets -- empty buckets or otherwise, but they still have that hazmat inside of them. They have been sitting outside of the back of that garage on a constant basis. Pretty much most of the things have been said. This has not been something that has not disturbed the neighborhood, even to the point of -- and, apparently, this is tied to the bookkeeping business, so I feel it at least should be important to put this on the record. That bookkeeping business is false. Ms. Rice, as I recall, is blond, she drives a BMW. I have got a very extensive list there of the vehicles that have come and gone. Not one night out of all that list has that BMW ever stayed the night there. It's always left. Now, once the bookkeeping business was disputed, they started having a little silver car showed up and that was a red headed lady, who most nights that silver car will be parked there, so I assume that she is actually inside the house. I do not sit and monitor her and I resent the fact she said that. However, I would be a little negligent, being a single dad raising kids, and being a good neighbor if I didn't keep an eye on my neighborhood when you have an unusual amount of activity, let alone an illegal business that's been run out of there since approximately October. Seal Company has been operating out of there out of compliance. We have made the different departments aware that that was happening and it's just taken time. So, basically, all the way from the bookkeeping business on down there has been false reports about the activities. I have given the proof that I could provide. Like I said, even the bookkeeper has stated -- well, she side-tracked the question do you live and eat there. Somebody always is at that house. She did not actually lie by saying that she does. She said somebody. Because she's never lived there. That is not her residence. And, yet, the condition for the bookkeeping alone was based upon her being a resident and living there running this business out of her residence. So, from that point forward this has all been kind of like smoke and mirrors, unfortunately. There have been multiple disruptions. Like I said, once it started interfering with my kids' sleep, that was enough, especially when it was at 5:00 in the morning. From 8:00 o'clock on for the last couple of weeks they have had some dog over there on most days of the week that barks for several hours. Now, granted, this is not necessarily tied directly to Sealco, I don't know who owns the dog. Kind of a little background information. I work nights. My sleep, I have to get it in the mornings, typically until about 10:00 o'clock in the morning, because I usually come home very late at night. The owner and everything -- everybody is aware of that, simply for the fact that we did have to fight this issue once before putting a day care in there. So, they are aware that I do sleep in the mornings and that's what I have to do to go to my job. Basically, what it comes down to -- you know, I have just Meridian Planning & Zoning April 1, 2004 Page 41 of 89 kept an eye on things, just because it is my neighborhood. There have been illegal activities and that's been proven. There are other reports, not just based upon mine. We have been accused of being spiteful just because we are fighting this. I don't know anybody up on that panel or anybody that lives in their own neighborhood that wouldn't enjoy coming in and shaking up their neighborhood, if they have children, seeing their children woke up and I know this seems a little bit minor, but it seems pretty petty to me that the current people that are even in that house, they do nothing but glare and, you know, just dirty looks at my children and my sitter. They have nothing to do with this. You know, I have a three-year-old daughter and she gets glared at and you know how that makes them feel, they are sitting there thinking what did I do wrong. And it's all over this whole dispute that's going on. This is not a peaceful business ongoing there that's compatible with our neighborhood. So, you know, I would hope that we can recommend, based upon all the evidence that's been provided about the noncompliance -- it's all well and good to sit there and say that, well, here is what we are going to do for the future, but look at the past history of what they have already proven that they were going to do. They have already -- they have already proven that, you know -- there is a statement there that even Mr. Venneman approached them and says you're not -- you know you're not supposed to be operating this. Yeah. We know. That seems a little disdainful towards the process and what's happening here. It's kind of like we are going to do whatever we please and whatever is necessary for us and I don't feel that's appropriate in our neighborhood. You know, maybe some day they will put a business in there that will be a good fit. I do not believe that this one will be, due to the nature of everything, the past, and currently what's going on. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Rokovitz: Any questions? Thank you. Borup: Do we have anyone else? C.Rokovitz: Charlene Rokovitz, property owner of 918 West 3rd. And you will be very happy to know I don't have much to say, because I said most of it last time. On March 4th you approved an accessory use permit for an in-home bookkeeping business in connection with the Sealco business. You have evidence from the code enforcement officer and the chief of police that that was, as the police chief stated, a fraud and they said he was here tonight, I really would like to hear him talk to you guys and give his opinions. In the report by Wendy it said it was recommended -- and I will quote: It's apparent that most likely a business is being run illegally out of this home. So, a condition of this home occupation should be that if there is actually an illegal business or an un-permitted business being run on the property, the home occupation permit should be revoked. It should be a condition of approval that no illegal uses are allowed on the property. If you want to go ahead and approve the bookkeeping business, be just very clear that Sealco cannot be run out of that garage in the meantime. As you have before you from the Joe Venneman's report and the police surveillance, it continued. They have slowed it down this last week to make it look like they are complying. The police chief stated in his report -- and I will quote again: The application Meridian Planning & Zoning April 1, 2004 Page 42 of 89 for a residential home business is not accurate and could be construed as being misleading. The new applications confirm intent to seek rezoning of a residential for commercial purposes and applied for in the CUP. However, it is my impression that if Susan Rice is affiliated with or contacted by Sealco, the application, as submitted, may be fraudulent in nature. You have been given numerous reports from on -- on the cars of the coming and going. The next-door neighbor Bob Chrispel, he sent in a log as to what was going on. He has called in this last time -- he has called in on the dog. There have been so much going on that -- basically, I guess if this -- if this does go through, where they have been running an illegal business and they knew they were running an illegal business all this time, they knew what was going on, they can't -- they can't claim that they didn't. There was enough people contacting them. They knew what was going on. You will basically be saying to others, you know, come to Meridian, you can break the law and we will give you a reward for it. We'll let you do what you please. Someplace along the line people that do things illegally have got to be said no to. There was supposed to have been citations given, there was supposed to have been a summons given, and it's just been -- they have been kind of putting it off waiting to see what happens here, because they don't want to spend the money if you guys don't pass the business. But there is a lot of people out there that know this is not a business that should be going in there, because of all their -- their noncompliance of what they have been doing. And just to clear up one thing, I know this was on the last subject, but when I get nervous I tend to forget things really easily. Mr. Borup, I believe you asked about had there ever been a survey on the house. Yes, there has. I talked to the contractor yesterday. He is in the process of trying to find the surveyor that did the survey at that time. He said that there had been numerous inspectors out there, there had been city, there had been government, there had been surveyors, because everything had to be just so. There is a good possibility that the way that they surveyed, they took it from the north corner instead of from the south and -- because when he was talking to us, he was talking to us about a certain spot on the north, which would throw everything off because of -- Borup: Was that survey recorded? C.Rokovitz: As near as we know it was. We have just got to figure out -- Borup: Well, then, if it was, it would be a simple matter to get a copy of it. C.Rokovitz: Well, we have been trying to find -- everybody that I call on these things, they say the house has been paid for we throw stuff away. We don't keep everything. Borup: Well, no, that's not true on a recorded survey. It would be public record. C.Rokovitz: Well, we are -- we are trying to find it. Borup: Okay. Meridian Planning & Zoning April 1, 2004 Page 43 of 89 C.Rokovitz: The contractor is in the process right now of doing some digging to help us out, because we keep running up against nothing but a simple plat and we know that this stuff was done. We know it had to be done -- Borup: Well, there is a difference between taking a tape out there and doing some measuring and an actual legal survey. C.Rokovitz: I realize that, but he said -- he told me that there was a survey done by a surveyor and it had to be done because of it being a Farm Home loan for the government. Not just a loan from the bank, it had to be done because it was a government loan is what I was told by him. Borup: Okay. That may be. Normally they just need a legal lot. C.Rokovitz: Yeah. Well -- Borup: Either way, that's not an issue that we are really going to be able to solve or deal with tonight. C.Rokovitz: No, but I just wanted to clear that up, so that you would understand. Borup: Thank you. C.Rokovitz: And I believe that's about all. I sincerely hope that you invoke this business, because it has been fraudulent from the very beginning. It has gone on illegally from the beginning, there is not too many people here that doesn't know it, whether they will admit it or not, I -- scuttlebutt is a wonderful thing and most of the time it's correct and there is a lot of people talking about this, because of the stuff that's been going on. Borup: But it appears he don't have any other neighbors here tonight; is that correct? C.Rokovitz: I don't -- I talked to Bob's sister earlier today and there was a problem and she said they had just taken off, because there had been a problem and he -- that they were going to try and be here. I don't know. Borup: Okay. C.Rokovitz: And I talked to Mr. Schroeder and he said he had meetings, so I mean it was -- Borup: Okay. Thank you. C.Rokovitz: And those are the immediate. Those are just the ones around the house. Meridian Planning & Zoning April 1, 2004 Page 44 of 89 Borup: Uh-huh. All right. Thank you. Do we have anyone else to testify on this? Okay. Paula, did you have -- did you have -- we are going to maybe ask some staff questions and, then, give you a chance to conclude, Mrs. Devaney. Newton-Huckabay: The only report I have is the one from Joe Venneman. I was just wondering if I might be missing the one from the police chief. I don't remember reading that one. Was it a written report in the packet? Kirkpatrick: It should have been an attachment and it was -- it's actually a duplicate of the report that was written for the AUP by Chief Musser. Borup: So, that was back in the first part of February, I believe. Was that -- I don't know that I saw that, because that really wasn't -- Zaremba: I didn't see it in this packet, but I do remember from that -- Newton-Huckabay: Yeah. I remember reading it for the -- Kirkpatrick: And, actually, I have a copy that I can run copies if you -- Borup: I think Wendy would like a copy. Kirkpatrick: You would like a copy? Newton-Huckabay: No, that's okay. I did read that one. I do remember reading it. I thought -- I didn't know if there was additional information. Borup: She thought there was maybe a new report. Kirkpatrick: No. There is a new report from the code enforcement officer, but I just attached the old copy from the -- Borup: Okay. Zaremba: Now, that one we do have. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Paula. Devaney: Gosh, all the surveillance and illegal business, I'd like to -- to clarify, I'm not a drug dealer and it's almost making me feel that way. When we first moved into the building and we got our first notice from the code enforcement violation, we met with Anna and we talked about what we could do and she said you cannot operate a business out of there, there is no way you can do it. The only thing that we possibly can do is to have an accessory use permit and someone would have to live in the house -- to actually be living there. When we start to get into hair color and stuff, I can just guarantee you right now -- I know the two girls that live there and their hair changes Meridian Planning & Zoning April 1, 2004 Page 45 of 89 color every week. That's what they do. So, we have some red heads -- you know, I mean it's silly, but they are living there. Susan has -- and I'm not going to go into it -- a very pressing and serious personal matter in her family and she has -- is oftentimes gone on personal business and I believe that is her personal business. The other girl that lives there, she lives there, she, again, has a personal -- a personal life. That's her personal life. I have read that one report with all of those cars listed, I cannot begin to tell you who all those cars belong to. I -- you know, we have been watched 24 hours a day, seven days a week. I really -- there were several cars in there that I absolutely have -- and I will swear to you under oath absolutely no idea who they belong to. Pine is a busy street, people park there. I cannot be responsible for all of those vehicles. They are ones that are specifically identified to us and, yes, we are responsible for them. After the chief's report and after the first initial ones, we moved all of our vehicles off site, except for the ones that are owned by Susan or PJ is the other girl that lives there and, you know, sometimes they come and go. They are single women. As for the traffic, I would like to note that ACHD has approved the traffic that we are within what they deem appropriate for that traffic area and as to the last, the comment when he spoke and said you're running an illegal business and the comment was, yes, we know, we were getting -- you know, Susan has asked us to move that time out, which was about two and a half weeks since that hearing. He said I promise you that we will -- there will be absolutely nothing else out after this week and there has not been since that date. Newton-Huckabay: And what date was that? Devaney: It was like the 26th of March. Newton-Huckabay: Of March. So, the last week. Devaney: Right. He gave that date, so -- because the hearing was the 4th and, then, they -- you know, they said, well, we will give you some time that -- they told Susan -- again, I wasn't at that hearing -- to get the stuff out, so it was like approximately two and a half to three weeks, but there was some minimal material taken out of the garage and, then, when it was finished up he called the code enforcement officer back and said by this date there absolutely will be no more and there was no more. The noise -- like I said, with the ten-foot fence, they would totally block the view of the neighbor behind us. You know, he shouldn't, I guess, be able -- his children should not be able to see into the yard of the business and the yard of the business should not be able to see to him, because it's a ten foot fence with landscaping. I would assume that would mitigate the noise and watching back and forth if that really does exist. Borup: And you mean a six-foot fence with ten foot of buffer? Devaney: Six-foot fence with ten foot of buffer. Borup: Questions -- any other questions from the Commission? Meridian Planning & Zoning April 1, 2004 Page 46 of 89 Newton-Huckabay: I'm not really clear on the time line here. The business has been there since October and they were told it was illegal in October? Devaney: No, it wasn't October. I don't have the exact dates of when it was -- when we were told that we needed to -- you know, we couldn't run the business and so that was when we went and started meeting with staff and it was over like Christmas and New Year's, so there was a lot of time that, you know, we weren't there and nothing was really going on, so by the time -- and, then, we had to move the business out -- the property was re-leased to Susan and she filed the AUP and, then, that hearing, you know, was -- but leading up to that hearing, we -- you know, tried as best we could to like remove all of our stuff and let her run just her bookkeeping out of there with -- you know, we were doing -- still doing some, because our guys dropped their time sheets off to her, because part of her -- she does our payroll. So, that's why the guys were really continuing to show up there. Borup: So, you're saying at this point all material is out of the garage, but in the future you had planned on still using that if this would be approved? Devaney: Yeah. If it were a principal business to store material there; but it is not huge quantities. Borup: So, where are you storing the rest of your material? Devaney: On job sites. You mean right this minute? Borup: Well, you had mentioned earlier you had another storage -- Devaney: Well, that's just because the landlord has let us use his temporarily. Borup: Okay. Devaney: We can't really operate this business and, then, have to go out and have a whole other place for our vehicles, a whole other place for our equipment -- or not equipment, but our material. You know, that wouldn't be -- certainly wouldn't be economical. Borup: It's just a temporary storage that you have now? Devaney: Yeah. We are just temporary right now, but there just isn't that involved in the material that we do have. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Okay. Commissioners? Any other comments from staff? Okay. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move the Public Hearing on CUP 04-005 be closed. Meridian Planning & Zoning April 1, 2004 Page 47 of 89 Rohm: I'll second that. Borup: Motion and second to close the Public Hearing. All in favor? Any opposed? Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Borup: Do we want a little bit of discussion here or is someone ready to make a motion? Zaremba: Well, I would chime in with my opinion, I think. Part of the reason that the Old Town requires businesses to come before us with a CUP is to have the opportunity to hear from the neighbors and determine whether it would be disturbing. Having a business in the Old Town is not automatic. We have denied many other attempts in other locations around Old Town to have businesses. I was comfortable voting for the accessory use permit for what I would consider to be a quiet business, the bookkeeping business. I -- it has been reiterated that it is not Sealco that has that permit; it is Susan Rice alone, who must be a resident there. So, there may be some question about whether that permit is even valid. If it is valid, I am comfortable with that happening. I am not comfortable with expanding that to a dispatch office that means a lot of traffic. And the question of whether this would be disturbing to the neighbors, the neighbors -- we don't have to imagine that, the neighbors have already told us that it's disturbing to them and would continue to be and their evidence is backed up by our code enforcement officer and our police officers. So, my feeling is that while a quiet office type thing would be appropriate here, a dispatch office or a thing that involves storage of what may or may not be hazardous materials and vehicles coming and going, is not appropriate in this location and I would not support it. I would support staff's request for denial. Borup: Anyone else? Rohm: Well, I'd like to expand on that just a little bit, Commissioner Zaremba. I think that the only way that this piece of property is ever going to be conditional use permitted is to establish some parameters which state you can't come in before 8:00 and you got to be done with your business by normal close of business and as the applicant had stated, I think that this business comes as close to that as you're going to get, short of leaving it residential. What may be the best alternative is to place limitations on what they can do from a coming and going, you can't come in and load trucks up at 5:00 o'clock in the morning, you have got to do it during -- like a normal business would run from 8:00 to 5:00, if you can -- if we can put limitations such as that, so that it doesn't provide -- or cause a disturbance, maybe that's the compromise that's needed. That's just food for thought. I don't know that I'm ready to formulate that in a motion or not, but what do you think about that, Dave? Zaremba: Well -- and, again, that's part of the CUP process, the conditional uses, and time restrictions are a legitimate condition and we have placed those on other Meridian Planning & Zoning April 1, 2004 Page 48 of 89 businesses that were near residences and my feeling on this one is the properties are too small and they are too close together to have as much traffic as a dispatch office is going to generate, even if we restricted the time, and I just -- I sympathize with the business, I want businesses to be successful, but I just feel this is the wrong location and, as the applicant stated, having part of their business one place and parts of their business someplace else is not conducive to economic operation and my feeling is that they should have all their business in one place and this is not it. Moe: Now may I chime in? Zaremba: Yes, please. Moe: Based upon Commissioner Rohm's points, I have a concern of putting time frames into a CUP such as this, based upon what we have seen in reports with the auxiliary use permit, as well as what the code enforcement has given us here, all we are doing is, in fact, we are putting time frames into the CUP, is, then, code enforcement is going to stay involved in this piece of property forever and I don't know that that's something that we want to see happen as well. I have a concern that, you know, with auxiliary use permit there were -- the decision was made to approve that as a bookkeeping business. We noted at that time that that's what that use was for, realizing, you know, there is a time frame involved, but my concern is that code enforcement -- there were violations beyond that point of our last hearing and I see, you know, concerns from the neighbor, I can understand why, and so I'm not sure that I can support this application either. Borup: Okay. And the only thought I just had while you are talking, if -- and maybe if this would have come before us before the business went in, it might have been a whole different -- a whole different attitude on the thing or outcome or, you know, maybe might be looking at it in a different light, but that's not the case, we need to look at it on what we know and what's happened and what's transpired today. Zaremba: At that time we would have had to have been guessing whether it would disturb the neighbors. Borup: Right. Zaremba: Now, we know. Borup: Yeah. It's already been demonstrated by doing it backwards. Okay. Are we ready for a motion, then? Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I'll make a motion. I move we forward to the City Council recommending denial of CUP 04-005 request for a Conditional Use Permit for an accounting and dispatch office in a proposed OT zone for NIDAYS Addition by Sealco, 230 West Pine Avenue. End of motion. Meridian Planning & Zoning April 1, 2004 Page 49 of 89 Newton-Huckabay: I'll second that motion. Borup: Motion and second. Powell: Chairman Borup? Borup: Yes. Powell: As with all finding for denial, the Planning Commission should give the applicant some idea as to how they might get approval at some later date. Borup: Okay. Zaremba: Propose a business with lower impact. An accounting business or something like that would be fine to me. Borup: Are you saying something without material storage and employees going there and accessing that -- is that the main thing that's -- Zaremba: To me that's the deal breaker, yes. I think it's the vision of Old Town that there should be businesses, it's a transition area that is going to change in character, but -- Borup: Well, it's got to start somewhere. Zaremba: -- you can't irritate the current residents and I -- in this location, in particular, I think it needs to be a low impact business. Accounting office, to me, suits that. There may be others that would suit that, but a dispatch office and contractor storage, doesn't. Even if it's indoors. Borup: Okay. Anything else anyone feels they'd like to add to reasons? Did you note in this case it still seems to be -- it doesn't really seem to be neighbors or neighborhood, it appears to be one neighbor? I don't think we've had any testimony from the neighborhood. Is that adequate? Anything else? Zaremba: But that neighbor has contacted police and contacted a code enforcement officer and verified the problem. Kirkpatrick: Chairman, Members of the Commission, I also had a suggestion from the police chief that in the future that the applicant makes sure that they are permitted of the use before they have the use take place on the property. Borup: Yes. Kirkpatrick: That they go through the proper channels to have the use permitted. Because that really is what -- the most significant concerning this application. Meridian Planning & Zoning April 1, 2004 Page 50 of 89 Borup: And that's what we were talking about earlier. It may have had a different result if it would have been handled properly. As the Commissioner mentioned, then, we would have been guessing, now we know. Zaremba: Now we know. Borup: Okay. Did you conclude your -- Zaremba: To be honest, the illegality doesn't really enter into my decisions -- my decision. I'm not thinking of the denial as punitive or -- what happens is we have experience with this project and the experience isn't good, so -- Newton-Huckabay: Well, I think it's important to point out that it was an illegal business operating out of -- I mean a business operating illegally out of the home and I think that, you know, that is important. Borup: I think it is. I don't know that that's all that unusual. There is probably businesses all over town and they just -- maybe a little -- a little more under the radar and nothing's been said. Powell: Chairman Borup, for the benefit of the record, since I had interrupted Commissioner Zaremba before, can you restate your motion and then -- thank you. Zaremba: I will restate the motion. Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to the City Council recommending denial of CUP 04-005, request for a Conditional Use Permit for an accounting and dispatch office in a proposed Old Town zone for NIDAYS Addition by Sealco, 230 West Pine Avenue. Borup: And, then, did you want to include -- Zaremba: That's the end of the motion. Borup: Well, previously you had added reasons for -- I mean the conditions that -- Zaremba: For the benefit of the applicant I did discuss reasons. I did not intend to include those in the motion. Borup: Okay. You included all staff comments in there, didn't you? From the staff report? That's assumed. Okay. We have a motion. Do we have a second? Newton-Huckabay: I second. Borup: And a second. All in favor? Any opposed? Three ayes. One nay. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE NAY. Meridian Planning & Zoning April 1, 2004 Page 51 of 89 Item 11: Public Hearing: RZ 04-003 Request for a Rezone for .17 acre from I-L to O-T zones for Brandon Wright by Brandon Wright – 631 West 1st Street: Borup: Thank you. That concludes this item. The next item is Public Hearing RZ 04- 003, request for a rezone of 1.7 acres from I-L to OT zones for Brandon Wright by Brandon Wright. This is at 631 West 1st Street. I'd like to open this hearing at this time and start with the staff report. Kirkpatrick: Chairman, Members of the Commission, this application is for a rezone of 0.17 acres. The property is currently zoned I-L, which is light industrial, and they are proposing a rezone Old Town. The property has an existing residence. The address of the residence is 631 West 1st Street. The property is -- property is surrounded by single-family residences. It's -- I believe it was, probably, originally zone I-L, which is light industrial zoning to its proximity to the railroad tracks. There is a small kind of pocket neighborhood where -- while there is light industrial zoning, it's remained a residential use. The area is zoned as Old Town in the Comprehensive Plan overlain map. The applicant's proposing the rezone not -- they don't want to change the property, but it's to make the property easier to sell. One of the complications of having this light industrial zoning on a residential use is essentially is makes it a nonconforming use, where if they had to rebuild the property because of a fire or natural disaster, they'd have to go through the CUP process, which would add probably four to six months onto the -- by the time they'd have to wait to get the building permits to rebuild. So, it will make the property easier for them to sell if they do have it rezoned to Old Town, where residential is a principally permitted use. Staff is recommending approval of this rezone. Are there any questions of staff? Borup: Questions? Okay. Is there anything the applicant would like to add? The staff has recommended approval. Wright: I'm Brandon Wright and I'll make this short and sweet. I'm trying to sell the house and I can't sell it unless it's zone to Old Town. Being light industrial you have to have a nonconforming loan, which means that you're going to have higher interest rates and that the mortgage company does not want to insure it, because if it does burn down, you cannot build it back. I am self-employed, so when I bought the house I had high interests and I did not know about the zoning and so now that I'm trying to sell the house, I cannot get anyone to buy it for that reason. I have tried to sell it as of a -- also as a commercial property and there just isn't any interest in that. So, this is my only option is to have it that way. And there is houses all the way around it and -- you know, and that's what -- I do have a renter there now, but it was vacant for somewhere between 12 and 14 months, so I have been trying to sell this for awhile. But that's all I got. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Any questions from any of the Commissioners? Do we have anyone else here to testify on this application? Okay. Seeing none, Commission? Meridian Planning & Zoning April 1, 2004 Page 52 of 89 Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move the hearing on RZ 04-003 be closed. Moe: Second. Borup: Motion and second to close the hearing. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: I'm prepared to make a motion, but I -- after the motion was over I would like to reserve the right to ask a procedural question before we begin Item 12. Borup: Okay. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward to the City Council recommending approval of RZ 04-003, request for a rezone of .17 acres from I-L to OT zone for Brandon Wright by Brandon Wright, 631 West 1st Street, to include all staff comments of their staff comments of their memo dated April 1st, 2004, received by the city clerk March 29th, 2004. Moe: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: My questions for discussion -- the Comprehensive Plan went through hearings and much discussion and was a long process of public involvement and approval and identified the area, which, over the period of time, would convert to Old Town zone. My question is do we need to wait for individual applicants -- I don't know whether this is a question for the director or for legal counsel -- for individual applicants and consider everyone of the rezones for each of these -- what must be hundreds of parcels or is there a way we could pass an ordinance that just says everything within a certain area as defined by the Comprehensive Plan is now changed to Old Town, it would go through a hearing process also -- is that a possibility, so that we are not hearing hundreds of these one at a time? Powell: Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission, it certainly is and we, actually, started that process -- actually, Steve and Brad did shortly before I came on board. There was a huge turnout, a huge turnout, and what they ended up telling people, though, is at the time that their question was, well, what can I do with the Old Town zoning and the answer well -- Zaremba: Same as you're doing now. Meridian Planning & Zoning April 1, 2004 Page 53 of 89 Powell: Well, you have to get a Conditional Use Permit for everything. So, a decision was kind of made after that to wait until we had a little better idea of what the downtown was going to be like as far as design guidelines, a little better idea on how the zoning ordinance would be changed to reflect some principal permitted uses, as well as conditional uses in the area, and, then, to revisit that and to come back to all those folks, but they mailed out invitations I believe to every affected property owner that would have been involved and Steve is obviously eager to put in some words on that matter, too, but we did work toward that and it is still something we intend to do, we just have not -- we are getting all the pieces together before we start that program again. Zaremba: Thank you. Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, just a quick follow up. We did hold a public meeting on that issue. We invited everyone within the boundaries of the proposed Old Town area as shown on the Comprehensive Plan. There were certainly two sides to the debate of whether it was good or bad. Most of the residences in this area were all for it. They saw themselves as residential, they currently had I-L zoning, a change to Old Town made residential uses principally permitted and allowed them to more easily transfer ownership of their properties as residential. So, there is an area right here along Broadway that would probably be in favor of it. Elsewhere, the controversy was over existing properties that were zoned commercial, have principally permitted commercial uses that would now be conditional uses if they ever wanted to expand. And, then, some of the areas that already are zoned either Old Town or residential -- not Old Town, but the residential ones saw the change to the Old Town zoning would allow more potential businesses within their really residential areas and had some concerns over that. So, the decision was made that we would move forward with the design standards process first, try and get some of those issues lined out ahead, of trying to rezone the entire property, but there is probably a nucleus of residential properties currently zoned I-L along Broadway that would like it to happen sooner, rather than later. Powell: And one additional quick follow up. Last summer and fall I received, I don't know, four or five of these requests for what could you do with a nonconforming use and we had a lot of requests for rebuilt letters, is what they are called, and I did make that offer at that time and it still stands open, is that if someone wanted to organize six or seven contiguous properties and bring them in for a rezone, that I would work with City Council to make sure that the fees were waived for that. Now, I don't think -- I don't know if this was one of those particular properties or not or if they just weren't able to gain support from the neighbors, but I have consistently said that in this area, you know, if you can get a group of people together, bring them in, we will process them as a group and I will talk to City Council about waiving the fees, so -- Borup: Okay. Thank you. Zaremba: Thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning April 1, 2004 Page 54 of 89 Borup: You need to come back up front again. Wright: That was stated -- Borup: State your name again, just -- Wright: I'm Brandon Wright. Borup: Okay. Wright: That was stated about if we get a group of people together, but the whole thing about it is is, you know, contacted -- spent a lot of time contacting people, but they couldn't afford to hire a surveyor and so I have had to hire a surveyor, so that is something that, you know, it was addressed, but I was the only one that could afford to have a surveyor. So, you know, that may be another issue that -- with this. I mean because it's cost me 800 bucks for this -- just to get this done through. Borup: But if that surveyor did four properties, you know, the price wouldn't be four times more, so there is an economy of scale there. Wright: Yeah. But there is a fee that would be by us. Borup: Yeah. Okay. Thank you. We already had a motion and that's the -- I guess all that testimony was in reference to your question. Zaremba: Yes. Borup: Not the Public Hearing. Zaremba: Yes. And I thank the staff for their always excellent answers. Item 12: Public Hearing: REVISED AZ 03-029 Request for annexation and zoning of 26.48 acres from RUT to R-8(PD) zones for proposed Sheridan Place Subdivision by CMD, Inc. – north of East McMillan Road and east of North Locust Grove Road: Item 13: Public Hearing: REVISED PP 03-035 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 50 building lots and 15 other lots on 15.34 acres in a proposed R-8 (PD) zone for Sheridan Place Subdivision by Doug Campbell – north of East McMillan Road and east of North Locust Grove Road: Item 14: Public Hearing: REVISED CUP 03-060 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for single-family residential use with reduced setbacks, lot frontages, house sizes, and increased block length for proposed Sheridan Place Subdivision by Doug Campbell – north of East McMillan Road and east of North Locust Grove Road: Meridian Planning & Zoning April 1, 2004 Page 55 of 89 Borup: Okay. We'd like to move on, then. Items 12, 13, and 14, Public Hearing AZ 03- 029, request for annexation and zoning of 26.48 acres from RUT to R-8, with a PD, for proposed Sheridan Place Subdivision by CMD, Incorporated. Also PP 03-035, request for preliminary plat approval of 50 building lots and 15 other lots and CUP 03-060, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a planned development, single family residential use. Again, I'd like to open all three of these hearings at this time and start with the staff report. Siddoway: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. This is a request for annexation and zoning, a preliminary plat, and a Conditional Use Permit for a planned development and I'll go over each of those. You may remember that Sheridan Place was on your December 18th hearing, but there was no formal presentation or discussion at that time, it was pulled from the agenda at the applicant's request, so they could make some modifications and return. That is what has happened, it's been resubmitted, the staff report you have for today's hearing date is based on that revised plan. I'm going to jump ahead in my presentation a little bit, just to show you the main difference of -- the main difference between what was submitted for the December hearing and this hearing is the addition of these four lots adjacent to Edinburgh. They take access not from the remainder of Sheridan place, but from within Edinburgh. There is currently an existing stub street, there are two non-buildable lots at the end of that stub street to allow for turn around and that street would now cul-de-sac at the four lots -- four new lots that are being proposed and making the two lots in Edinburgh buildable lots. The proposal, moving back, is to annex the property, including the Idaho Power substation and, then, moving north in this area is the area proposed to be platted and for the Conditional User Permit. This application was made before the Settlement Bridge project, which wraps around the substation down here, but before it was submitted and approved, it has its final hearing next week, and would also make this project contiguous, but the substation was used as the annexation path, contiguous with Havasu Creek in this location and, then, getting to the Sheridan Place project. This is a couple of site photos. This is one of the Idaho Power substations. Their entrance into the substation is here. You can see their deep setbacks. Locust Grove Road is running right along here and Sheridan Place project would be in the distance across McMillan Road. So, this photo is looking north and slightly east from along Locust Grove Road. The photo down here is the actual site of the proposed subdivision. A little difficult to see, but there is a lot of existing trees and shrubs and existing house behind them in this location and Vienna Woods is to the north and Edinburgh is to the right or the east. The proposed plat includes 50 single-family residential lots and 15 common lots. There is also a proposed CUP for a planned development on this lot that requested reduced setbacks, reduced lot frontages, reduced lot sizes, and minimum house square footages and a request to exceed the 1,000 foot block length. In return for their amenities they were proposing a tot lot and a gazebo, barbecue area centrally located in the project on this lot and the overall open space for the project is just over the five percent minimum, at 5.28 percent. Briefly going over the requested modifications to the -- to the ordinance as part of the planned development, these are delineated beginning on the bottom of page two of the staff report and continuing on Meridian Planning & Zoning April 1, 2004 Page 56 of 89 page three. The requested lot size of 7,000 square feet is actually larger than the minimum allowed outright for the zone, so there is no -- there is no reduction really necessary there. The proposed frontage, 65 foot is the minimum. They are requesting 60 and staff has no concerns with that. Regarding the setbacks, the items they were asking for have been -- are now currently ordinance, so there is actually no modifications necessary there either. And on house size, they are requesting a reduction from the 1,301 minimum to 1,200 square foot minimum, but they are requesting that specifically on the front lots off of McMillan Road and, in return, they are proposing to increase the minimum lot -- minimum house size on the northern lots to be 1,500 square foot minimum. So, staff is in support of that as well. There is a handful of things that need to be worked out today, but I think we are close to agreement on all of them. If you go to the annexation and zoning comments on page seven, number two, regarding the substation, the substation itself is currently developed with no sidewalks, et cetera, and Settlement Bridge, which has been approved and is awaiting findings at City Council, will be providing a multi-use pathway for a sidewalk on the north and, then, stubbing sidewalks to the south. Staff would just like to see the city get some sidewalks at some point to continue this to the corner. As currently written, we were recommending that it be made a condition of this application. We, in conversations, would be willing to modify that request to make it -- if we could at least get a development agreement that says that these sidewalks would be required upon any significant upgrade of the substation in the future, I think we could live with that and address the issues of the sidewalk location and things at that time. I do believe -- and the applicant can testify that the Idaho Power does intend to do some upgrades here in the near future and so by annexing the property tonight we would have -- they would be working with the city for those improvements and we could potentially get the sidewalks at that time. Specific questions on that? Rohm: Are you saying that if Idaho Power upgrades their substation, that they have to make an application for a conditional use or some sort of application that would insure that sidewalks could be made a requirement of that application? Siddoway: Going the route of conditional use is one way to get them, but Idaho Power would be reluctant to require a conditional use on an upgrade. By a current ordinance a substation in that zone would be a permitted use and reviewed at staff level. So, if we had some way of assuring that the sidewalks would be built with that, then -- we could do it without requiring the conditional use if we could make it part of the development agreement for the annexation, and, then, just handle it at staff level, rather than a CUP. Rohm: So, then, it would be the developer that would be putting a sidewalk in; is that what you're saying? Siddoway: No. It would be Idaho Power. When the substation is improved. Borup: But you're saying by making that part of the development agreement, that insures that it will be done at that point. Meridian Planning & Zoning April 1, 2004 Page 57 of 89 Siddoway: Yes. Borup: I'm assuming that Idaho -- now, does Idaho Power need to be a party to that development agreement? Siddoway: They would be in that case. We can let the applicant address that. Borup: Okay. Siddoway: Item number five on page eight deals with the out parcel. Find which one is the easiest to see that on. Get my steady hand here. Okay. This -- these two parcels were at one time one parcel. There is what's been deemed an illegal lot split in the county that created the back parcel. That designation as an illegal lot split is currently in litigation in the county, but, nonetheless, the same owner owns all three of these and has the city's blessing -- or the city staff's blessing in adding it to their proposal, but we would -- we are asking that the applicant provide us a legal description for the out parcel, so that if the city deems it appropriate in the future that we can use that legal description to annex the property ourselves. They have attempted to get the owner of that out parcel to join in this application, but have been unsuccessful in doing so, but they have attempted. There is no timing for that mentioned in here. Our intent is not to hold up this application to receive that, we could make that a condition to be submitted with the final plat and that would be fine with staff. Moving on to the special considerations for the preliminary plat on page nine. The first one deals with the street buffer. As currently proposed, the street buffer on the west side of the entrance is 25 feet. We are requesting that that be increased to 35 feet in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. In the landscape ordinance I don't believe that's in any contention. Number two deals with an access easement that runs along the west side of the property in this location. It's 25 feet wide. It's in favor of Mr. Buckley, who owns the property to the west. We do have a copy of that recorded easement. They have been in negotiations to try and get it relinquished. If they are unable to secure that, we will need to have that easement shown on the plat and I'll let the applicant address any modifications to the plat that would also come as a result of that. On the issues of existing trees, this is quite simply -- it's too hard to see on here, but there is the sidewalk running along McMillan Road shows a couple of trees to be removed where the sidewalk is running through them. It appears that if the sidewalk were meandered around, then, they could be retained. I believe the applicant is willing to try to save those trees by moving that sidewalk. Item number four deals with the domestic water supply and as with Settlement Bridge, there is a water supply issue out here and the need for a new well. This issue will need to be resolved prior to final plat and the applicant has stated that they are aware of that and if you have specific questions about that, I would refer you to Bruce. The last couple are on the special considerations for the CUP on page 15. I have already gone over the reduced standards, so I won't repeat those. The amenities as mentioned were the tot lot and the barbecue gazebo. I did question the amount of 4,000 dollars for the tot lot being enough. I believe the applicant is willing to increase that and we have some samples and based on what I have seen, I think we can be in agreement that what they are showing tonight would Meridian Planning & Zoning April 1, 2004 Page 58 of 89 work for the project and could be made a condition as an amenity. The final item number three deals with -- this is on page 16, the police department's concerns. They are anticipating that homeowners from the cul-de-sac would come through this micro path and wanting to get up to this playground, would have to cross the street somewhere near this intersection. The main path of vehicular travel seems to be around this way and they are asking for a stamped concrete crosswalk at that location. I skipped over it somewhere, but I also remember there is an issue with us requesting -- oh, it's probably in the fire -- in the police or fire. Oh, yeah, the no parking and the parking plan. We have requested that a parking plan be submitted. The street coming in with the islands and such will have to be posted no parking, because there is only a 20 foot travel lane between the median and the curb, which is adequate for emergency service access, but not -- but not if there is on-street parking. We can do away with the requirement for an actual parking plan if we can get an agreement from applicant that each of these lots in the front area will have a driveway pad at least 20 by 22 or so that would handle at least two or three cars to park off street and, then, I think we can handle it that way. All of these are reiterated on the last page. Just to give you a quick look at the items needing resolution tonight, one through nine, this is page 18 of the report, and with that I'll stand for any questions. Borup: Questions from Commissioners? Is parking -- it looks like it appears to me maybe the parking problem is created by the islands in the middle of the entrance street; is that really why there is a parking problem? I mean the road is -- the road is wide enough otherwise. Siddoway: Otherwise, it would be more than wide enough, yeah. But we like the islands. We are not hoping they will remove the islands, we just need to make sure that there is adequate off-street parking, I think is the only point. Borup: Okay. Is the applicant ready for their presentation? McKay: Good evening. Becky McKay, Engineering Solutions,150 East Aikens, Suite B, Eagle. I'm representing the applicant on this application. As Steve indicated -- Steve, if you could put the map back up, the vicinity map. As Steve indicated, this property right here that is approximately 11.14 acres is owned by Idaho Power. We convinced Idaho Power to participate in this application for annexation, therefore, making us contiguous to the city limits, which existed at the time here at Havasu Creek. As Steve stated, since, then, the Settlement Bridge application has came through, so the city limits shortly, as soon as that ordinance amendment is passed, will be right here along our south boundary. So, the need for Idaho Power to participate is gone. Yet, the cities like to have these substations within their jurisdiction, one, in order to, obviously, be able to control what's done there and also just because they don't like these enclaves all over. And I have a project out off of Surprise Way in Boise and they were doing a mass annexation of all this Idaho Power land where the large transmission lines currently exist. So, I mean it's a plus to get that annexed. So, I guess one of the concerns that I had with staff's conditions was it is not customary to place conditions on an annexation, conditions such as improvements. Since the substation is existing, I am concerned if Meridian Planning & Zoning April 1, 2004 Page 59 of 89 staff is too stringent on what they want done with that property, that Idaho Power will say, forget it, we don't want to participate. And, then, we are going to have an enclave there with the city limits wrapping all the way around it and at some point in time that situation would have to be solved. So, I do believe it's in the best interest of the city that this Idaho Power property be annexed and go into the city. I have talked to them and they stated we have plans in the future to do a major upgrade of that facility. At that time we would, obviously, consider putting in sidewalks and making those connections to the sidewalks that Settlement Bridge is putting in, but at this time any improvements to the site as far as sidewalks are concerned are not in our budget and we would be against that. Borup: At this point would they be willing to be a party to the development agreement, as was discussed earlier? McKay: We have been dealing with Layne Dodson and he said it would have to go to his supervisors. So, I guess it would all depend upon the language in which the Commission places within that development agreement or recommends within that development agreement if that would be palatable to Idaho Power. They are always a little, you know, reluctant to make commitments when, like they told me, you know, they are still working on their upgrade plans and they are still trying to budget for that upgrade. Borup: But the only thing we are talking about is sidewalks -- McKay: Right. Borup: And you had made a statement that maybe have some concern, maybe. You said they would consider -- McKay: They would consider it, yes. Yes. Borup: It would be nice to have something a little stronger than that. McKay: And I guess it depends on -- like the new ordinance, if it's a conditional use or a principal permitted use. Most jurisdictions, the substations are coming in as a conditional use and in Meridian it is a principal permitted use. So, they just go through the staff. That's the current ordinance. Moving on. As you can well see, the property that the development is proposed on is next to Vienna Woods and Edinburgh Place. If we look at a larger vicinity map you can see this property is kind of what we call an in-fill parcel. It's not a large parcel, it's only approximately 15.34 acres in size, with major developments all the way around it. In working on our design, one of the things that I, obviously, took into consideration was the lot sizes that adjoin us up here and Vienna Woods. These lots here are 100 feet deep by 80 feet wide. The corner lot I think is about 96, so they are ranging from about eight to nine thousand square feet. We have got an existing stub street here that we were required to connect to. Another existing stub street on our eastern boundary, which connects us to Edinburgh Place and, then, Meridian Planning & Zoning April 1, 2004 Page 60 of 89 we were required to do a stub street to the west for future development of the properties westerly and to make that intersection. Along -- from this point on where we are adjoining the larger residential lots, we have got eight, nine, ten thousand square foot lots. I made them deeper. They may be a little bit narrower, they are in the 70s, but I went 120 versus like 100 or 110, which is what the lots that adjoin us are. It gives a little more distance between the dwellings. Down here in the neck portion of this subdivision we have got smaller lots. They are 60 feet wide, but they are very deep, they are about -- some of them are 130, 136 feet deep, just based on the configuration of the parcel. There is only relatively one way to develop this property is bring in, obviously, the center roadway and, then, do this loop when you have to make these connections to the stub streets. Powell: Chairman Borup, since Mrs. McKay is talking about changes that the public may be interested in, it would really help if you used that one. McKay: So, even though these lots down here in this portion are 60 feet wide, they are deep, and they are ranging from like 7,250 on up to 7,500 square feet. We have got one existing single-family dwelling located here, that's where you see this larger lot, and one of the things that we looked at was dressing this up. It's always difficult on these smaller parcels to create something that has kind of a warm feeling, because you're so limited on what you can do financially and just logistically based on the shape and characteristics of the property. So, we came in with detached sidewalks, so we'd have five foot landscaping at the back of curb, a four foot sidewalk and, then, all of the sidewalks within the development would be detached with trees and turf planted between that -- in that five feet, giving that nice canopy, that warmer feel. We came in with this island -- the islands here at this entrance, that was also to give it a more warmer, more up scale feel, and the islands have kind of got us into a little bit of a pickle as far as the parking is concerned and, for the record, we do islands quite often in projects and we have got 21 from back to back -- from back of curb to back of curb, 17 feet from face to face. If you parked a car there and say you allocated nine feet, which is the width of a parking stall, you would still have a 12 foot travel way getting through there and that's with a 12 foot island. Now, we can come in and reduce that island width to eight feet, if the Commission thinks that they need those travel widths a little wider. The no parking -- we have tried that on projects in Boise and two things happen. One, they come in and when the people buy this they ignore the signs or, two, they take them down. I had one subdivision, it was a cul-de-sac with a narrower street section and they just -- the signs disappeared as soon as the residents moved in. So, we don't have a solid island running down there, these are intermittent islands and they are short in nature with large spaces in between. So, I guess my -- I don't feel that we have a situation where emergency vehicles could not pass through there if you had a parked car. For our amenity, up here we have got our tot lot with a playground facility, a barbecue area, a gazebo. It's about a third of an acre, a little over a third of an acre, centrally located, and, then, we have got this pedestrian access coming here, hooking into this Redwick and the change in this application, as Steve indicated, was the inclusion of these four lots. There is a temporary turn around here in Edinburgh Place that would be able to be eliminated once a permanent turn around was established. Meridian Planning & Zoning April 1, 2004 Page 61 of 89 And these four lots are very large in size; they are around 11 and 14 thousand square feet. One of the other things we looked at was square footage of the structures. We have asked for and we specifically stated that these lots here would be approximately 1,200 feet minimum and all the remaining lots would be a 1,500 square foot minimum. Obviously, making sure that we are, you know, compatible, we can co-exist with the adjoining residences. As far as exterior fencing, I think in the staff report they asked me to address that. The applicant has indicated that they will match whatever existing fencing is along that perimeter, because we do have some existing fence. The 25 foot easement -- there was 25 feet to the west, 25 feet on the east side of this line. I was told at one time when it was established years ago, it was to access this back portion. We did meet Mr. Buckley out at the site, we talked about the irrigation, we talked about that easement, we -- my client did make an offer -- a financial offer to Mr. Buckley for him to relinquish the 25 feet on this side. We thought we had an agreement and Mr. Buckley changed his mind and wanted additional funds. So, we had only opportunity -- or the only option we had was, therefore, to leave the 25 feet. My recommendation would be to include that 25 feet in the lots, show it on the plat, the fence would be placed at the 25 foot easement line, I'll probably slide this over a little bit to give us additional depth and, then, in my conversations with Steve the rear setback would be from the fence, 15 feet from the fence, not from -- because Steve was concerned that someone may place a home say five feet from that fence, because its setback would be from the west property line. So, I think we can work with that. My hope is that Mr. Buckley would change his mind and come to the table and we could relinquish it, because when his property develops in the future, that 25 feet is going to become an issue for him or the future owner of that property. Do you have any questions? Borup: Questions from any of the Commissioners? Rohm: Just a comment. I like the idea of the reduced size of your islands to the eight foot. I thought that was a good input. Zaremba: I think it is nice to have the islands there, it's a good touch, but I agree, if it would solve the parking and safety access issue, reducing the width of the islands a little bit would be preferable. Moe: The one comment you made, though, to the lots on the west side is that you would want to go ahead and move that forward towards the east, those lots, to get a little bit more depth in that property where the easement is going to be, those properties? McKay: Yes. Right here? Moe: Yes. McKay: Yes, the street would shift over probably about ten, 15 feet, I think we estimated and just give them additional depth. And these are already very deep there. Meridian Planning & Zoning April 1, 2004 Page 62 of 89 Moe: Okay. But our street would stay the same and we are going -- McKay: The width of the street would remain identical, yes, sir. Yes, sir. It would not change that and the approach would stay the same. Everything would stay the same, just that mid section would kind of edge over. Moe: Got you. Okay. Thank you. Zaremba: Then, I have a -- kind of a compound question, I guess, for you and staff. Did I hear you say that your detached sidewalks would be four feet wide? McKay: Yes. Detached sidewalks you may go four feet wide, with a five foot landscaped area. If they are attached we have to do five feet. Zaremba: Okay. I thought they had to be five feet either way, but I'm sure you're right. McKay: That's in the landscape ordinance. Steve can address that. Siddoway: Yes. Mr. Chairman, the -- one of the -- we are trying to encourage detached sidewalks when we wrote that part of the landscape ordinance and as -- since it requires some additional forming, which is an added expense than they would have if they were butting it up against a curb. We agreed to allow the sidewalk to be reduced to four feet. Plus, in an attached sidewalk usually the mailboxes are right in the sidewalk, effectively reducing the walk-able area in most places to be about three feet. By detaching the sidewalk, the mailboxes generally go in the landscaped area, giving a full four feet of walking space. So, that would be correct. If I could interject one question; the current width of the parking islands, what is it? Borup: Twelve. Twelve feet. Siddoway: It's 12? So, by reducing it to eight, we gain an additional two feet on each side, which isn't enough to allow on-street parking. McKay: It would give us -- from back of curb to back of curb we would have, what, 25 feet? Siddoway: Yeah. What would it be from the face of the curb? You would have to have at least 20 feet. McKay: Twenty-one. It would be 21 from face to face. Siddoway: Yeah. The emergency services are going to want 20 feet free and clear for their path of travel between the island and any parked cars and so they want to have at least seven or eight feet for the parked car and, then, 20 feet separate from that. So, I'm not sure it gains us anything to reduce the width of those -- gaining an additional two feet doesn't allows us to park a car, so -- Meridian Planning & Zoning April 1, 2004 Page 63 of 89 Borup: Now, presently we have -- I mean 37 feet on a standard street? McKay: Thirty-six. Borup: Thirty-six? McKay: Thirty-six back to back. Borup: That's back to back. McKay: And you can park on both sides. Siddoway: So, if you had eight feet for the parked car on each side. Borup: You say we have what back to back? McKay: With the reduced island it would be 20 -- what did I say, 20 -- 25. Borup: Okay. That's what I thought you said. Zaremba: Well, the next suggestion probably would be to shift the islands off center and have no parking on one side. McKay: Or either have no parking where -- just where the island is. Because, see, you're going to have a wider street section in between the islands. Zaremba: True. McKay: Those islands are just -- they are real short. Freckleton: Mr. Chair, another possible solution is to bulb out the right of way around the islands -- McKay: Yes. Freckleton: -- to gain the area. McKay: Yes. Freckleton: It also gives you a little bit of street -- a little character to your streets, too. Zaremba: Is that doable? Borup: There is enough lot depth there, but if you were giving up because of that right of way, you don't have as much as you originally did. But that is a good idea. Meridian Planning & Zoning April 1, 2004 Page 64 of 89 McKay: And that's been done before, I think -- I think I have seen a project that had that. I guess that would be an option. Or eliminate the islands altogether and go back to a standard section, but you don't get as nice a feel. Zaremba: It would be nice to preserve them. McKay: It would. You know, they are kind of spendy, but they are a very nice esthetic feature. They make a sub look nice. Zaremba: Well -- and they are traffic calming features, so people aren't racing through this entry. McKay: You're absolutely correct. People go slower. Rohm: So, you're agreeable to the bulb as well? McKay: Yeah. I guess -- I guess if we had the option of either losing the islands or trying to bulb out around them, then, that would be preferable. Borup: So, what are we talking about, three feet? Is that about -- that would be the difference between this road width and standard? That's what I came up with, if you take 20 -- 25, nine for parking, that leaves you 15. The other way 36 and 18 for parking, that leaves 18, so -- McKay: Right. Borup: -- that's three feet difference. Siddoway: I think if we are gaining two feet on each side, that we would need an additional six. Let me back up one step, though. We are -- I just want to go on record as saying staff is fine with the current design, as long as we are -- have the ability to provide enough off-street parking. We are not trying to suggest that they have to widen it out, but if they wanted to bulb out to provide on-street parking, we can work with that, too. Borup: Well, I would have to agree with the applicant, that -- I mean just the way it is, I agree, it looks nice, but people are going to ignore those signs. That's just human nature. Maybe not everybody, but -- Zaremba: Well -- and the residents wouldn't, but if they throw a party and have guests, there is going to be parking in the street, whether there is no parking signs or not. Siddoway: Currently, the space between the -- she said back of curb to back of curb -- is 21 feet. Meridian Planning & Zoning April 1, 2004 Page 65 of 89 Borup: No, she said 25. Siddoway: Currently. Currently 21. Borup: Oh, currently. Yes. Siddoway: Currently 21. Back of curb to back of curb, if you figure the paved area was 17? McKay: From face to face is 17. Siddoway: Yeah, but those are rolled curbs. McKay: Those are -- yeah. They would be roll curb. Siddoway: From the vertical portions -- there is basically 20 feet of free and clear travel space there. Yes? McKay: Yes. Existing. Twenty-one. Siddoway: Existing -- well, 20 to the face, 21 to the back. We would need to get in the neighborhood of 27 or 28, so if we gained two, we would need to add at least an additional five or six in the bulb out area to accommodate on-street parking and appease emergency services. Rohm: Just for the length of the island. Siddoway: Just for the length of the island itself. Borup: So, you're saying on those points you need about 27 back of curb to back of curb? Okay. Well, it looks like there is a couple different options there. Maybe rather than discussing that now, we can talk about that at the conclusion a little more. McKay: That's right. Yeah. Doug's right. With a 36-foot section and you take parking on both sides; they don't have the 20 foot travel way. You have got 18. Siddoway: With 36 you have eight and eight, that's 16, and, then, you have 20. Borup: Oh, you're figuring eight. Okay. McKay: We figured nine. I just figured nine. Siddoway: Oh, yeah. McKay: Just to give -- like a parking slot, you know, is nine. Meridian Planning & Zoning April 1, 2004 Page 66 of 89 Siddoway: I think eight -- eight's all that emergency services would require. Borup: Okay. So, that's 20. So, that does the same thing on the other that bumps it up to 17, so it's still only three feet difference. McKay: I think we can make this work and I could get with emergency services and make sure that they were satisfied with what we were going to design, if that would make the Commission feel more comfortable. Borup: Okay. McKay: Thank you. Borup: Did that -- did you conclude? McKay: Yes, sir. Borup: Is there -- now, staff had a list of conditions right at the end of their recommendation. McKay: Did you receive my written response to the questions? Borup: Yeah. So, I think everything really got answered, didn't it? Okay. Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, there was one clarification that we didn't go over in the response, just for the record. It's on item -- on Becky's response, page three, number eight. They talk about offering to eliminate Lot 9, Block 4, and merging into Lot 10, Block 4, but, in actuality, we are requesting that they eliminate a portion of Lot 9, Block 4, and merging into Lot 8, Block 4, and I think we are in agreement that can work, but just to clarify. McKay: Yes. Yes. We are in agreement that that will work. Borup: Okay. Anything else? Thank you. McKay: Thank you. Borup: Do we have anyone else that would like to testify on this application? Now is the time to come forward. Wenske: Thank you. Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, my name is Jack Wenske and I reside at -- Borup: You might need to pull your mike up a little higher there. Wenske: A little taller. Meridian Planning & Zoning April 1, 2004 Page 67 of 89 Borup: Yes. Wenske: And my name is Jake Wenske and I reside at 2019 East Redwick, which is right -- right when you come in from that side where they are going to do the four lots site and the lots -- the lots she's making reference to at the turn around is right across from me. I'm also the president of Edinburgh Homeowners Association and most of our concerns have been addressed since the last meeting and -- but there are -- the concerns that I see still are the small lot size up front and in talking about the small lot size and the size of the houses proposed with 1,200 square feet, most of them on our side and Vienna Woods are quite a bit bigger than that and mine, for instance, is almost 2,000 square feet. The other thing is that for some reason -- and I don't quite understand why, this is proposed as an R-8 and our subdivision and Vienna Woods are both R-4s and as I understand it, R-8s is a little -- quite a bit less restrictive than what you can put in it than the R-4s. I think I'm correct on that. Borup: No, not necessarily. Wenske: Well, they can have day cares and so on and so forth. Borup: Oh, by that. Okay. I thought you were talking about lot sizes. Wenske: No, not lot sizes. The other thing that in talking -- in listening to her comments and the planners, if the -- for some reason they have to -- and they aren't able to get the easement question resolved and they have to move those lots over and also take out the sections that go around those center sections, that's going to even reduce those lot sizes even farther, so I'm just concerned in whether it's going to all work out for us. Other than that, I think we are okay. Thank you. Borup: Thank you. Anyone else? Brinegar: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I'm Bud Brinegar and I live at 5190 North Locust Grove and my property adjoins this on the west side. I have -- I have the property at -- there and the one right below it. Those two right there. And I heard some discussion, something about fencing, and my concern is that I have an open ditch on the east side of this and I burn that ditch regularly and I -- she said -- or they said something about they are going to put back the same type of fence. Well, it's just a barbed wire fence and I would request that you give some consideration to some sort of a -- same way of I can keep that ditch burned and the weeds burned in that ditch. My other question is -- Borup: Did -- excuse me, sir. Does your ditch go right up to the property line? Brinegar: Right. Borup: Okay. Meridian Planning & Zoning April 1, 2004 Page 68 of 89 Brinegar: Yeah. We discussed that at the last meeting, where the property line was, and I think -- I guess I'm willing to accept what the -- apparently the engineer has made an error in one of their surveys out there and they were over 17 feet, but that apparently -- Borup: That's got clarified now. Brinegar: Yeah. Apparently that's been satisfied now and I have no problem with that. My concern is where the ditch joins up to the present ditch, our -- who has got the light that's shown there, so -- Borup: There should be one right there on your podium. Brinegar: Right -- let me see now. Our live water comes out of -- right at a point right there and goes down along side of there like that. And there is a divide right there and I hope the developers understand that we need to have that so that it divides to go to this property and to -- on down to serve this property, as well as go north here. Borup: Yes. They are very aware of that. That's by law. Brinegar: Well, they said something about crossing the road here to get into this when they put these other -- these other two lots here. I heard something said about what kind of a bridge or what are you going to put in here that -- Borup: That will all be piped. It will all be underground. And that's by city ordinance that it has to be. Brinegar: I think my questions have been answered. Thank you. Borup: Thank you. Any questions from any of the Commissioners? Okay. What type of fence would you like to see there, sir? Other than noncombustible, I assume. Brinegar: Yeah. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? Beaumont: Hello, my name is Rex Beaumont and I live at 1839 East Comisky and where my house is, is there. Zaremba: Can you speak a little closer to the microphone, please. Beaumont: Sure. Zaremba: And you can pull it up. Meridian Planning & Zoning April 1, 2004 Page 69 of 89 Beaumont: Do you need my name again or -- Zaremba: He got it. Beaumont: Okay. So, one of the questions that I had is the same as the gentleman from Edinburgh is I was wondering why this is being zoned for R-8 versus R-4 that Edinburgh, Vienna Woods, Austin Creek, all the other subdivisions around there is R-4 and there are restrictions from an R-4, what I understand differences as day cares, nursing homes, whatever they want to do in an R-8, and so that was a concern that I have is why an R-8 and why not an R-4 like everybody else. Across the street this Settlement Bridge Subdivision is also R-4. So, that was a concern that I have and -- Borup: I might answer some of that right now. The applicant said some of those entrance lots they had a little small, even through they are large lots, most of those on this are 7,800 up to over 8,000 and in an R-4 zone the lots do need to be 8,000, but they also need to be 80 feet. So, they are real close on the total square footage, but because of the configuration of the land, they felt that they weren't able to get as much frontage as -- to comply with the R-4. So, that's their reasoning for doing the R-8 is not to allow other zoning uses, but to -- because of the extra depth of those lots, they felt they needed to narrow them up a little bit. That's my understanding from -- Beaumont: And I guess that would be the other reason is why not stay to the minimum square footage that Vienna Woods has of 1,600 square feet, instead of the 1,200. I just think that that's just going to change the whole neighborhood atmosphere that the people are going to be in there and the subdivision that I live in. Borup: Well, but they don't, it does not access -- well, it does in the back. You're right. Beaumont: And, then, also they mentioned that the beginning was only 1,200 square feet, but just for my -- is it on concrete that it's just, in a manner of speaking, that it's 1,200 like in this particular case here? There is another slide that you had that showed the -- Borup: We were just looking at one that shows the adjoining subdivision, I think. Is that good enough? The shows -- Siddoway: Are you looking for this one? Beaumont: That's the one. Right. And so -- now what my question was is it in concrete that it's only the homes down here that are 1,200? Could a builder go and put in a 1,200 square foot home right there -- Borup: No. No. Meridian Planning & Zoning April 1, 2004 Page 70 of 89 Beaumont: -- and, then, that would create a huge area right behind my house here and the concerns I also have is other things that they could do in an R-8, could they put cars back there, could they work on cars, could they do other things like that. Borup: Yeah. That doesn't make any difference what zone you're in, if someone wants to work on a car. Beaumont: Or put a whole bunch of cars back there. Borup: Well, that's not a factor either way. The R -- my understanding the smaller homes would be just in this front section. All this in the back was the higher square footages. Beaumont: Right, but I'm just -- Borup: So, no, a builder could not put a 1,200 foot back to the back where you pointed out. Beaumont: Okay. Borup: That would not be allowed in their proposed covenants. Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, I would just point out that the condition as written in the report does specify those specific lots out front as the only ones that would have the 1,200 square foot minimum and, then, it also states that all other lots would have a 1,500 square foot minimum. So, that lot that you're talking about would actually have a 1,500 square foot minimum, which is actually larger than the R-4 minimum, which is 1,400. So, you're gaining something there next to you. Beaumont: Okay. So, I guess that was my main concern is why -- you know, why R-8, instead of R-4, especially with the day care situation and nursing homes can go in there. I'm just concerned that that area could change so much that if I were to sell my house and I had a big day care behind me, then, it would make it very difficult, so -- Borup: And those uses that are different from the R-8 all would need to go in with a conditional use. It's not a permitted use anymore than in the R-4. Like a childcare does require a conditional use in the R-8, so it's not outright permitted. Beaumont: Thank you very much. Borup: Okay. Zaremba: And that would include neighborhood notice. If somebody applied, people within 300 feet of it would be noticed. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Who's next? Meridian Planning & Zoning April 1, 2004 Page 71 of 89 Cundick: Good evening. My name is Lynn Cundick. I live at 1930 East Mozart Street. In December we sent a letter expressing some concerns on behalf of the Vienna Woods Homeowners Association. I'd like to just refer back to that letter. First of all, we talked about -- we had a concern with harmony of appearance, that there didn't appear to be anything in any of the CC&Rs or any of the information that we had seen, that would assure that the homes in this area were compatible with the Edinburgh, Vienna Woods area. In subsequent discussions with the developer we have been assured that the CC&Rs and the requirements will be compatible. I just want to go on record before this Commission we have had this discussion and that, in essence, that's our agreement and our view that the homes are going to be compatible with Vienna Woods and I tend at this point to completely trust and believe that that is going to happen, but that was a concern that we had. In looking at some of the information that's shared with us, such as the requirements for the type of building materials, the roof pitch, et cetera, we feel comfortable that they are. We also understand that the homes in this area where they are going to smaller homes will be a higher quality and will be desirable and will be very attractive. So, again, we are counting on that. Some of the other issues that we have that we address in our letter, such as the lot sizes and et cetera have been covered. So, at this point I guess it's just a matter of reiterating that based on assurances we have it appears that this will be an area that's commensurate with Vienna Woods and Edinburgh. Thank you. Borup: Thank you, sir. Do we have anyone else? Okay. Any final comments? McKay: I'd just like to address a couple of the comments that were made. The one thing to keep in mind, your Comprehensive Plan designates this property as medium density residential, that's three to eight dwelling units per acre and our gross density is 3.26 and our net is 4.34, so, obviously, we are at that lower spectrum. A lot of times on a project where we are only dealing with about 15 acres, you find that a developer is squeezing in every lot they can and a lot of developers would go in and just try to get 60 footers all through the whole thing. We didn't do that, we were sensitive to adjoining properties, their sizes, their values, their depths, their widths, and by having the larger square footage, the larger lots up there that abuts those properties, where we have the smaller lots, they don't abut Edinburgh, they don't abut Vienna Woods, but yet the lots are still going to have to be compatible with what is constructed to the north and so that's why I think when the gentleman commented that those are going to be higher end homes, but on smaller lots, that's going to have to be the case in order for the lots to be marketed to the north. On Mr. Brinegar, the fencing, I guess there is two options. Noncombustible fencing doesn't give a lot of privacy to a homeowner, so a lot people of dislike them. The other option would be to work with Mr. Brinegar to possibly pipe that ditch at our expense, so that he didn't have to burn it. I'm not sure how his property irrigates and how that would impact him, but that I guess was an option that we'd like to explore. As you can see, these homes here, they are very attractive. They are two-car garage. The larger lots in the rear, obviously, would be able to accommodate three car garages, but those are the types of homes that would -- that they want to put in this development. We have a good project here. We can only do so much with what we Meridian Planning & Zoning April 1, 2004 Page 72 of 89 have to work with. I don't feel that we are pushing the envelope. We are trying to make this, obviously, a profitable project, but yet provide a community that will be beneficial to the City of Meridian and I believe that's what we have here. Do you have any questions? Thank you. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Any final comments from staff? Are there any issues that you don't feel have been addressed? Siddoway: No. I think the only thing we need to clarify in any motion is how we are going to handle the development agreement, because I think that does need some modification from what is written here and the parking plan and how we are going to deal with either the bulb outs or whatever that ends up being. Finally, given the need to show the easement and the potential shift in the street to make the lots deeper and such, we will -- we should get a revised plat depicting such at least a week prior to City Council. I think that's it. Borup: It would be on file at the city, so it would be available to -- Zaremba: The question from the audience was whether or not that would be available to the public. Siddoway: The answer would it's definitely available to the public. It would not be mailed out to all the home-owners, we would state that it would be available at the city clerk's office here in this building prior to the hearing. Borup: And the revision he's talking about is just moving that entrance street slightly to the east to allow the lot depth, because of the existing -- because of that easement. Siddoway: The only reason I'm talking about it is right now this road shifts slightly west and, then, down and if were trying to make these lots a little deeper to accommodate that Easement, it would likely go more straight down. A slight shift in the road. Borup: Okay. Zaremba: Let me review with staff what would specifically need to be modified. Let's try page seven under annexation and zoning comments, paragraph two. The first paragraph of paragraph two is the one that we would modify to say the application and Idaho Power would participate in the development agreement, that if at sometime Idaho Power upgrades, they will include in that upgrade the sidewalks. Is that where it would go and how you want it? Siddoway: Yes. It can probably -- I mean that would probably replace pretty much all of number two, unless you have specific thoughts about the landscaping, which is what it goes into next. But in that whole discussion staff states that we would forego the additional landscape improvements to get the sidewalks, so I think we just need to clarify what improvements we are expecting at the substation and at what time. Just to Meridian Planning & Zoning April 1, 2004 Page 73 of 89 point out, number three would also really be part of that same issues with multi-use pathway. We would -- we would allow the multi-use pathway to be built in place of the sidewalk along McMillan, but -- and Settlement Bridge did that as well. Zaremba: Well, okay, so if we deleted the current paragraph two entirely -- and I mean all paragraphs of paragraph two -- Siddoway: Okay. Zaremba: -- and, then, looked at page eight, paragraph four, where it specifically references a development agreement, the last sentence, it should also require sidewalks and multi-use pathway adjacent to the existing Idaho Power substation, at such time as Idaho Power upgrades their facility. Siddoway: That would work. Zaremba: Can we do that? Siddoway: I think that would work. Borup: Well -- and, then, in the first sentence would Idaho Power want to be added in there? Siddoway: Yes. Zaremba: Between the City of Meridian and the applicant and Idaho Power. Yeah. Siddoway: In that case, you could really delete numbers two and three. Zaremba: Okay. Borup: And would want to leave the description of the out parcel? Siddoway: Yes, but just clarify the timing to be with the final plat. Zaremba: That's paragraph five? Siddoway: Yes. Zaremba: Okay. Before signing on the final plat; is that what you said? Siddoway: I'd have them submit it with the final plat application. Borup: There is not that much more to survey for that. Siddoway: No. Meridian Planning & Zoning April 1, 2004 Page 74 of 89 Borup: They have already got two sides done. Zaremba: Okay. Then, turning to page 18, it's actually the police department's comment. I'm sorry. It begins on page 17. I would leave the police department's paragraph three in place as it is, but add an additional sentence that, alternately, the applicant could narrow the islands and provide bulb outs and not have no parking requirement. Is that acceptable to attach it to the police department statement? Siddoway: Oh, yeah. That's where the condition shows up. Zaremba: Okay. I would leave the current condition in there and express the choice. Siddoway: And, then, we can work with that in the -- under the guise of the parking plan that it asks for -- to either be the pads or these bulb outs. Zaremba: One or the other. Siddoway: Sure. Or both. Zaremba: Okay. Run down items one through nine under the recommendations that need to be resolved, we are pretty much done, aren't we? Just glance at your list there. I think we have got them all. Rohm: I missed the proposed amenities. Siddoway: Oh, yes. We didn't really detail that. If I may -- in discussions right prior to the hearing Becky had said that the applicant would agree to increasing their proposed minimum of 4,000 dollars to a minimum of 10,000 dollars for the tot lot. They did provide an example of what one could look like within that price range and this is one that would -- this is one that would fit that price range as a price for that structure. In fact, that one is less than 10,000, so we are comfortable with that and -- Zaremba: So, specifically on page 16, under site specific conditions, paragraph three, do we want to add that monetary amount? Siddoway: Yes. I'm in agreement for the applicant, so I think, yes. We can add the -- they were proposing a monetary amount for the gazebo and barbecue of 5,000 and, then, if we just added 10,000 for the playground equipment, I think that would be fine. And, then, we can just verify that when the final plat comes through with its amenities. Zaremba: Amenities will include a tot lot to cost no more than 10,000 dollars. No less than 10,000 dollars? Siddoway: No less than. Meridian Planning & Zoning April 1, 2004 Page 75 of 89 Borup: I thought you said this one was a little bit less. Siddoway: This one is. Borup: That looks pretty nice. Siddoway: They are committing to be at least ten. Borup: Okay. Zaremba: That's very generous. Very good. Borup: Yeah. I feel so, too. I mean the amenities in this case -- I mean the subdivision is not -- you know, of the 50 lots we only have 12 that are under 8,000 feet, so it's -- as was mentioned, they are not pushing the envelope here as far as lot sizes and all. Okay. Rohm: Good. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move that we close the Public Hearing on these three items, AZ 03-029, PP 03-035, and CUP 03-060. Powell: Mr. Chair? Oh, I'm sorry. Go ahead. Zaremba: We haven't voted on it yet. Borup: Well, we can still get staff comments. Go ahead. Zaremba: Okay. Rohm: Second. Borup: Motion and second to close the hearings. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Borup: Yes. Powell: Mr. Chair, Commissioners, I have expressed concern about putting monetary values on these things. I would prefer -- and the applicant has indicated that she's okay with it, that it would be -- you could just reference what she has provided tonight. It's the same that's on the wall there, that it's similar or better than what they have shown to you tonight. Borup: And I think that's what we were trying to bring out earlier, because I think the Commission felt the same way. Meridian Planning & Zoning April 1, 2004 Page 76 of 89 Powell: Then, that way we don't have to check all their numbers and I just feel very uncomfortable having a monetary value stated in a condition of approval. If the price went drastically up or down on these things due to some unforeseen act of God, there would be no reason for you not to approve it as it is. Zaremba: Review page 16 with me, then, for a minute. Paragraph three under site- specific conditions, how about if we make the change this way: That the first sentence is the same, the following amenities are required for the project, colon: Playground equipment and gazebo with barbecue, comma, and tot lot. Period. And the second sentence already says they will be installed as described during the Public Hearing. The playground equipment is the tot lot? Oh. Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, based on that I'd say no modification is needed. We can just base it on what was presented tonight. Borup: And that diagram is part of the staff file now, too. Zaremba: It's already covered. So, it's part of the record. All right. One less change. Thank you. Borup: Okay. Moe: Go right ahead. Borup: Yeah. You got the most notes, I think. And if anybody's got anything that needs to be added as he's formulating. Zaremba: Everybody chime in. Okay. Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward to the City Council recommending approval of Item 12 on our agenda AZ 03-029, request for annexation and zoning of 26.48 acres from RUT to R-8 PD zones for proposed Sheridan Place Subdivision by CMD, Inc., north of East McMillan Road and east of North Locust Grove Road, to include all staff comments of their memo for the hearing date of April 1, 2004, received by the City Clerk March 25, 2004, with the following changes: On page seven, under annexation and zoning comments, the entirety of paragraph two, title substation, may be deleted. The entirety of -- this is now on page eight. The entirety of paragraph three, entitled multi-use pathway, may be deleted. Paragraph four will be slightly modified as follows: A development agreement, parenthesis, D.A., closed parenthesis, shall be entered into between the City of Meridian and the applicants and -- add the words and Idaho Power as part of the annexation application. The next sentence remains the same. The third and final sentence in that paragraph is changed to read: It should also require sidewalks and a multi-use pathway adjacent to the existing Idaho Power substation at the time that Idaho Power upgrades its facility and reference -- the rest of the sentence continues as is. Paragraph five, still on page eight, add a sentence that says: This will be required with the final plat application. Is that the right wording? Okay. That's the change there. Meridian Planning & Zoning April 1, 2004 Page 77 of 89 End of -- now, do we -- just to clarify, when I reference the police comments, do I want to put that on the plat or the annexation? As a plat issue, then? Borup: Because it's a street design. Siddoway: I have them right at the end of the CUP comments, but each reference one another, so plat or CUP. Zaremba: Then, I am finished with the annexation motion. Rohm: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: Okay. Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward to the City Council recommending approval of Item 13 on our agenda, CUP 03-035, request for preliminary plat approval of 50 building lots and 15 other lots and 15.34 acres in a proposed R-8 PD zone for Sheridan Place Subdivision by Doug Campbell, north of East McMillan Road and east of North Locust Grove Road, to include all staff comments of their memo for the hearing date of April 1, 2004, received by the City Clerk March 25th, 2004, with the following changes: The only change I would make is that I would reference on page 18, we will add to a paragraph that begins on page 17, but the addition is page 18, that alternate compliance may be made by narrowing the islands and providing bulb outs, so that the roadway width around the islands is wide enough for emergency traffic. End of preliminary plat motion. Newton-Huckabay: I think we need to add a comment on the fence with the neighbor to the west and the ditch -- piping the ditch. Zaremba: That's a good point. Okay. So, let's do that. We will add this on page 12, we will add a paragraph 14 -- I'm sorry, a paragraph 15 that says applicant will work with the neighbor to the west for a satisfactory conclusion to fencing and ditch issues. Borup: And his preference -- I think that the applicant talked about either a noncombustible fence or work with the neighbor on piping the ditch. I think that was Mr. Brinegar, the neighbor. Zaremba: Do we want to add that? Borup: Yeah. I think so. Maybe shorter than what I just said. Zaremba: Okay. I will add to the sentence -- this is paragraph 15. Let's do it again. Applicant will work with the neighbor to the west for a satisfactory conclusion to the fence and the ditch, which may include a noncombustible fence and/or piping the ditch. Meridian Planning & Zoning April 1, 2004 Page 78 of 89 Moe: Second. Borup: Okay. Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward to the City Council recommending approval of Item 14 on our agenda, CUP 03-060, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a planned development for single family residential use with reduced setbacks, lot frontages, house sizes, and increased block length for proposed Sheridan Place Subdivision by Doug Campbell, north of East McMillan Road and east of North Locust Grove Road, to include all staff comments of their memo for the hearing date of April 1, 2004, received by your city clerk March 25, 2004, with no changes, other than to reference, again, the change that we previously made on the police department conditions that on paragraph 18 we have added an additional sentence, alternate compliance, may be made with narrower islands and street bulb outs. End of motion. Rohm: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Borup: Thank you. That does conclude that item. I would like to take another short break, if anyone else is of the same mind. Okay. We will take a short break at this time. (Recess.) Item 15: Public Hearing: CPA 04-001 Request for Comprehensive Plan Amendment to add a Land Use Consistency Matrix to Meridian’s Comprehensive Plan by The City of Meridian Planning and Zoning Department: Borup: Okay. We are ready to reconvene, if we can get the audience to quiet down. Next item is CPA 04-001, Public Hearing request for a Comprehensive Plan amendment to add Land Use Consistency Matrix to Meridian's Comprehensive Plan. I think we have all got a copy of that. We'd like to go ahead and turn that over for staff report. Kirkpatrick: All right. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I know you all have seen this already twice before and you have the most up-to-date copy of the matrix that are in your packets. Basically, this would be modification of the Comprehensive Plan by adding a land use matrix. I wanted to point out and, actually, add a note to the matrix if we end up approving this, that this doesn't allow any changes -- any zone changes Meridian Planning & Zoning April 1, 2004 Page 79 of 89 outright, rather the applicant would be required to submit a rezone application to come in and for these -- for these zone changes. So, it would function kind of the way when you ask for a step up in density on the Comprehensive Plan, with the designation of low density residential you can come in and ask with your rezone for a step up to medium density residential. This would be similar that none of these uses that were not already allowed outright on the land use map in the Comprehensive Plan would be -- I'm really tired here -- would be allowed -- the applicant would be allowed to apply through a rezone application for these. The most significant change here was probably the most impact from -- the most impact on applications coming through would be in residential areas located on major arterials or in section line roads, they could request to have light office zoning is probably going to be the most significant change here. And I do want to -- if you do end up approving this, we want to add a note to the matrix, because it's -- the staff report would not actually become a part of the Comprehensive Plan, it would just be this matrix, so we need to add a note stating that all rezone requests not complying with Comprehensive Land Use Map will require a rezone application, so we can wordsmith that a little bit. We want to make sure that that note is actually on the matrix. Or, actually, we could just have language any zone change requires a rezone application. That's simpler. Any questions of staff? No? Borup: None at all? Zaremba: This is the second time in a month I have had no questions. Kirkpatrick: Okay. Rohm: You did a good job. Zaremba: Yes. Thank you. Outstanding. Do we need to hear from -- Borup: Well, I guess -- Zaremba: The other people out in the -- Borup: This is a hearing for the public and we have -- Zaremba: Shall I go out in the street and see if I can recruit somebody to come in? Borup: That discussion was because there is no one -- we do not any public remaining at this point, so -- Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move that the Public Hearing on CPA 04-001 be closed. Moe: Second. Borup: Motion and second to close the hearing. All in favor? Any opposed? Meridian Planning & Zoning April 1, 2004 Page 80 of 89 MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward to the City Council recommending approval of CPA 04-001, request for Comprehensive Plan Amendment to add a land use consistency matrix to Meridian's Comprehensive Plan by the City of Meridian Planning and Zoning Department, to include all staff comments of their memo of April 1, 2004, received by the city clerk March 29th, 2004. Moe: And her note; correct? Don't we want to add one note to the bottom of that? Kirkpatrick: It would become number six on the consistency matrix. Zaremba: I missed that. Tell me again -- we are adding number six? Kirkpatrick: That would be a rezone application is required for all zone changes. So there is no misinterpretation that these zones were allowed outright. Zaremba: Adding onto the page that actually shows the matrix -- Kirkpatrick: Correct. Zaremba: -- a footnote, paragraph six, just what Wendy said. Kirkpatrick: Okay. Rohm: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 16: Additional Discussion. Borup: Okay. Item No. 16. Powell: Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission, there was two items that at the beginning of the night I remembered I wanted to talk to you about. I can't remember what the second one is any longer. Maybe somebody will help me out. But the first one was regarding the draft zoning ordinance. Yes, it's real and, actually, Mr. Zaremba has a copy with him, if you're interested. I have asked Dave -- well, let's see. Some of you may be familiar with the mayor's process improvement group. This group existed I think a couple years ago and has since disbanded for awhile, but the mayor pulled it back together again and conversations with her last week -- so this was a very quick turn around -- we decided that a good project for the process improvement group would be to review the draft ordinance and I just had recently gotten a copy of that in my hand. So, three days later we had a meeting with the process improvement group, so just I Meridian Planning & Zoning April 1, 2004 Page 81 of 89 handed them a real rough draft of the new zoning ordinance and we -- on that group we had representatives from the Building Contractors Association -- we are coercing a member of the AIA to join as well. We have got representatives from some of the engineering companies. Ms. Bowcutt is on it. Mr. Dave Bailey, who is a civil engineer. We have also got Bruce Freckleton from city staff and probably alternating Brad and Steve from my staff, Mayor, Brad Miller from Ron Van Auker's office, Dave Turnbull from Brighton Corp, a man named Steve Forsythe, who is a local business owner and was on the economic development transition team. I think that's most everybody. And I asked Dave to join us, too, and the ideas for this group to get together and kind of hash out some of the standards prior to having a public working draft. So, this is just a first kind of cut at it. Now, I wasn't sure and hadn't had a chance to ask you yet, because it all happened so fast, what you want your involvement to be. When I have done this before I went through word for word with the Planning and Zoning Commission prior to a Public Hearing draft and it took -- well, we are hoping the process improvement group was hoping to get through it in eight meetings. That's a very optimistic time line, that's eight meetings at two hours each. So, that's the kind of time commitment at a minimum you're probably looking at for the Planning and Zoning Commission to review it as well. So, I guess what I'm getting to is Dave is on it, do you want him to represent you as a group or do you also want to set up hearings after they get through their draft to go through before we create a public draft and to sit down and have work sessions with you and do another draft, which is certainly within your responsibilities and rights and if that's what you want to do. My initial kind of feeling was that some of you may feel awfully new and not feel real comfortable with that and others may -- may not relish the additional time commitment. So, I just need feedback from you on what you want to do. Borup: I know what my opinion would be, so I think we are -- I'll express it and, then, let anybody else step in, too. I would -- I don't know that I would like to go through a word- for-word review. I have got a lot of confidence in Dave and what he's going to be doing on that, but I would think a workshop would be appropriate. Powell: Definitely. At least one would be appropriate. Borup: Yeah. And have us have an opportunity to review that before the workshop and, then, at that probably review the highlights and especially any changes, things that are new, but, you know, go through and do a summary and hit the important parts and whatever Public Hearing -- you know, the regular Public Hearing would need to be, I guess spend whatever time is necessary on that. Powell: Okay. So, at least one prior to the public draft going out? One workshop? Borup: I would think so. Comments from other Commissioners? Moe: I guess I would say that I'd agree entirely with Keith and, quite frankly, not just David, but quite a few of the other people, you know, that are in this group are very talented and I can guarantee they'll do an excellent job. Meridian Planning & Zoning April 1, 2004 Page 82 of 89 Newton-Huckabay: But you outshine the rest. Zaremba: Oh, thank you. Well, I would agree that I -- even though I plan to participate fully in this, I would like this group, this Commission, to at least have one workshop on it and have had -- it's quite a thick document at the moment and not even all the pieces are in there, so I would say you should have it in your possession at least a week, maybe ten days before the workshop. Borup: At least. Yeah. Powell: Yeah. Probably a couple weeks. Zaremba: Our time line is that we hope to have finished our discussion about eight weeks from now, so we are still talking about two months away before -- Newton-Huckabay: So, June, first of June? We are April, May -- Zaremba: That's about where we are. Borup: And we may get into it and decide one workshop is not enough, you know, it could take two, but I think we maybe wait until that time to decide that. Zaremba: Well -- and that's why I think you all need to have at least a first look at it and if you look at it and say, gee, this is great, then, we are done, but if you have things that you want to discuss, then, we will take the time to do it. Anna didn't mention it, but her timeline is to have the ordinance in effect by the first of January next year, so if this Commission is looking at it in June, we still have time to pass it along to the City Council and public hearings and all that sort of stuff. Borup: So, is that addressing -- and we haven't had any for awhile, but for a long time we had the one building per lot regulation was causing a lot of problems on a lot of commercial developments, because they all had to go PUD and they were just trying to do a normal -- normal commercial development. Okay. Powell: I sort of remember what the second issue was, I think, and it was the timing of the issues that we discussed Tuesday night with the City Council. I will try and get those changes done and, Wendy, I'll try and get those changes to you, sorry about not forewarning you all. There is definitely -- I forget to communicate with you guys -- I assume that clerk is communicating and clearly there was a lack of communication that went on there, so I will take responsibility for that. Borup: You mean on the -- on the -- Powell: On the City Council joint meeting. Borup: Yeah. Meridian Planning & Zoning April 1, 2004 Page 83 of 89 Powell: And I apologize for that and I will work at -- I think I'm going to work at just scheduling regular little discussion items at the end of the agenda, so that we -- rather than a miscellaneous item, I will just try and come up with specific discussion topics and at least these things will maybe pop into my head while we are talking about them. But regarding those materials, I will try and get those ready to use by the end of the next week and if the clerk -- particularly on the abbreviated hearing format, if the clerk starts sending that information out with the new projects, we will just keep track of when they start sending it out with their 300 foot notices and, then, when that hearing comes up, I think that that would be the appropriate time to start using that. Now, some of the other things that we talked about you could start sooner and -- like the timing, I notice was going on a lot more today than sometimes we have seen and so whenever you want to implement before that is fine. It's just that abbreviated hearing process, I want to make sure we get the information out before we start using it so that -- Borup: And I might explain that to the other two Commissioners. That's probably a new term. Talking about having a new category or new item or whatever -- what's the proper term, but an abbreviated agenda, much like the Consent Agenda, and it would be for uncontested projects where there was no public objection. Powell: Something like Mr. Wright's today. Brandon Wright's would have been a perfect one for -- Borup: And his -- when we got to him I realized he should have been moved up with the other two, but -- we should have done that. Zaremba: Well -- and that's the piece that isn't being said at the moment, but the point is to go through the agenda, ask if there is going to be any discussion, and move those items forward, so -- Borup: This would be two things, no public objections and the applicant is in a hundred agreement with the staff report. So, if it meets those two criteria, they could -- those as a group could be on the agenda and all approved -- Powell: In block. Zaremba: And the benefits are -- you know, not only does it help the audience -- you know, applicants who only have a two minute project, they don't have to wait to be Item 16, but the other benefit is that once it gets around the development committee -- development community that there is such a process, that you can get your hearing over with within the first few minutes of the Commission meeting, that gives them much greater incentive, one, to have a neighborhood meeting and get it over with and get all the problems resolved and to resolve any issues that the Planning and Zoning staff -- I mean I think we will see a greater number of them come to us without issues. Meridian Planning & Zoning April 1, 2004 Page 84 of 89 Borup: So we -- are you anticipating we could have full subdivisions that would be on that agenda? Is that conceivable? Powell: Conceivably. I mean I can't imagine they would be very big. Borup: No, it would have to be the smaller ones. Powell: Yeah. Borup: But we have had some with no public objections and a hundred percent agreement with the staff, so it is possible. Newton-Huckabay: That Bridgetower thing was that way tonight. Borup: Yeah. Well, it was kind of different. Newton-Huckabay: Well, yeah, but I mean it was -- that would be an example. Would it be an example? Powell: Uh-huh. As would the -- well, the vacations weren't a hearing, so that wouldn't have been -- Borup: Yeah. But the other kind of an I-L zone and -- yeah. That's what it was. Okay. Any other thing on that subject? Powell: I think that was it. You and I were the ones talking about it, Keith. Did I miss something? Borup: No. That -- I just -- the other little thing that I had brought up before. Is that going to be addressed at all in the new ordinance? It probably isn't, is it? Powell: The one building per lot? Borup: No. No. The -- I was just glancing at the one we got coming up in May or sometime and -- and we just had a lot of R-8s that want reduced -- reduced lot frontages, reduced lot sizes, reduced -- you know, everything all the way down and I -- I have been kind of getting tired of those a little bit. You know, the one tonight asked for that, but that's a whole different category. I mean all the lots are -- almost all the lots are over 8,000 feet, so it was in substantial compliance the R-4, really. But we are getting those that want to get down to the real -- I was wondering if we either need another zoning category or if they should just go straight to an R-15 and not have to worry about all those reduced standards. Powell: And, Chairman Borup, what I proposed in the zoning ordinance thus far is I did -- as I mentioned, I cut back some of the frontage requirements -- not square footage, just the frontage requirements on those, because that seems to be the big thing. And I Meridian Planning & Zoning April 1, 2004 Page 85 of 89 think what we have talked about so far on the PD and whether it goes forward is completely up to my little PIP group, process improvement. It would be that -- I think that that PD should only be available to commercial developments and to multi-family developments, that -- to take away that PD process for -- for straight residential subs, because what's the value? All they are doing is asking for reduced frontage and sizes and it just really -- you're not getting that much out of it, you're not getting a planned development, you're just getting a subdivision with reduced sizes the way it's written right now, so -- Borup: Well, I was almost thinking the opposite, because what -- I have never understood the sense of having a PD for commercial development. Powell: In what -- Borup: I mean as far as the amenities. Powell: Exactly. Borup: I mean you are not going to put a playground in a commercial development, you know, and a lot of the other normal amenities, so what do you put in? Picnic tables and walking path, I guess. Powell: Right. And I guess that's what I was struggling with is we have got two things that the PD is being used for. One is reduced sizes and, two, it's the only way to get all these commercial projects done. And there is hugely conflicting needs for both of them and I saw -- if we get those lot frontages down to something the development community can just work with and live with, then, the need for the PD there isn't as great and, then, to revamp that PD process, so that we can make it work for commercial properties, because it's not working right now. I think we can all agree to that. It's just the commercial processes of having to come in over and over and over again is just not working for any of us. So, to really try and take that PD process and make it work for the commercial and, then, just set standards for residential development and we will have two different options, we will have a standard R-4 and R-8 and, then, kind of a traditional neighborhood R-4 and R-8 and what that would allow you to do is around those neighborhood centers and probably along transit corridors, is to have -- allow for a different kind of subdivision type -- it would be alley loaded for the shared drives or the parking courts or whatever you want to do there, but kind of a -- you will have two different options, but rather than having, okay, here is your standard option and you can ask for anything with the PD, it's like here is your two options, pick one of them and just go with it. Borup: Okay. Any other comments on that? Zaremba: Well, I think one of the reasons they ask for all of the reductions is we have consistently approved them. If we end up with a couple of clear standards, then -- and make it very difficult to deviate from that, I think part of the process improvement is to Meridian Planning & Zoning April 1, 2004 Page 86 of 89 have a set of standards that can race through the system very easily and very quickly and, yes, you can do something different if you want to, but that's a little more difficult, it's going to have hearings, it's going to have discussion, and it may still be denied, all of which puts pressure on them to conform. Powell: I could update you on one more thing. I don't know if you remember Chesterfield Subdivision, but it's the one down south by the railroad tracks with the shared drives. That did go up to City Council. They have remanded it back to you with some pretty specific instructions on what they'd like -- how they'd like to see the developer amend it. But they didn't deny it outright. That was a good sign. It was just they were a little overwhelmed by the uniformity of the -- most of the lots and wanted to see a little more variety. So, I think you will see that coming back. They didn't have a problem with the lots on the common drives, they actually kind of liked that part as just being a little different from the rest of it and it was just kind of the size and the relationship of the open spaces to the 6,500 square foot lots. So, that will be coming back to you. Zaremba: When that happens, do we get a new staff report about -- Powell: Oh, yeah. Zaremba: -- the required changes and stuff? Powell: Yeah. Gabbert: Anna, on that one, I -- if I remember right, where they were concerned with was the -- the open spaces weren't exactly in -- you know, the amenities weren't in the nature of helping the subdivision as much as they felt it should be and it wasn't creative enough. Powell: Yeah. Gabbert: They just had, essentially, a block here and a block there, and, then, they had all the houses spread out through everything. I think they wanted to see it more, you know, spread out and more beneficial. Powell: And they were clear with design issues and the differences that we have seen recently with the City Council and the Planning and Zoning Commission have all kind of boiled down to design, in the design of the units and, then, the design of the open space. So, I think they are -- well, I feel as staff -- that it's come up enough times now recently that it -- I'm going to encourage staff to take a little more critical note of design issues and when they propose building elevations, to take a little more critical look at the building elevations as well. So, you may see this -- the tone of the staff reports change a little bit to at least discuss those issues. Now, there is no specific standards related to those, so we can't make -- we could never make, as staff, recommending that Meridian Planning & Zoning April 1, 2004 Page 87 of 89 you all deny it based just on esthetics, but that's not our position. That's why we have you. So -- but you may see some more discussion -- Zaremba: Well, I keep asking why not. Shouldn't we have some esthetic design review as a requirement, so that we do have a hammer if necessary? Powell: Well, I think you will in the Old Town first and we will see how that goes, but I -- from what I have heard of -- I have heard that please don't adopt design reviews, so -- and I haven't heard any members of the City Council saying that is something they would like to see. So, I don't think you're going to see anything codified to the extent that we'd need to have a design review committee, but -- Borup: That's been the discussion in the past, that -- at least for the time being a place for design review should be this Commission and we can have input on that. I think we should. Zaremba: Most of the time we don't see designs, though. Borup: Well, are you talking residential or commercial? I guess I'm referring to commercial. Zaremba: I'm thinking commercial. Borup: Okay. Zaremba: And the impetus for me is I travel around the country on business and I'm looking at other city's downtowns, in mostly larger cities than ours, but you look at some of their -- some of the downtowns that have pretty -- a variety of buildings and you say how did they make that happen and how do we plan for 50 years from now to have that happening here. Borup: And I think that was a good point that Anna said is that so much multi-family was kind of in that same category. I think most of the single family residential, the developers watch that pretty close and, you know, builders, too, if you got a bunch of ugly houses, they don't sell, so there is more incentive to do that. But in a multi-family there maybe isn't, if the rent's going to be less, it's going to still rent anyway. So, that probably is a good area where it would be good to spend a little bit more time on. Powell: And you will be seeing design guidelines coming forward pretty soon. Steve has them done, so he just needs to get them in the queue up to you. But we are going to bring those forward to you as an amendment to the comp plan, so we are going to adopt those design guidelines as guidelines, not as standards, and I'm pretty encouraged by them. I have seen design guidelines work in other communities, versus a strict adherence to ordinance standards that if you provide that look, that vision, that feel that you're looking for, you know, you do have people step up to the plate and meet that and, then, it kind of catches on without having to make it real strict. Now, you might Meridian Planning & Zoning April 1, 2004 Page 88 of 89 get a bright pink building, but, you know, I always feel like it's America, one bright pink building just shows that we have a choice, you know. Borup: That's part of what Dave was saying, have some variety, so everything doesn't look the same. Zaremba: Maybe poka dots. Borup: You can have real nice designs, but if they are all exactly the same, that gets boring, too. Powell: The other thing that you will see come forward is an annexation for Vienna Woods and -- Borup: Oh, I meant to ask that and I even wrote it down. Powell: Well, I'm glad you didn't ask it in the middle of the hearing, but -- Borup: You say you're glad I didn't? Powell: Yeah. Borup: Well, I'll do it at the end. So, I'm assuming that we will be seeing Edinburgh and Vienna Wood right soon? Powell: Yeah. Very soon. And Craig and I will go out and do our dog and pony show explaining to people that, you know, their deed says that they will be annexed and we are here to talk to them about it, but, you know, it's already kind of a pre-ordained occurrence and -- Borup: Well, yeah, I mean those people that live there I have talked to, you know, that was understood and they -- Powell: That's good. Borup: But that's maybe not that many people. Hopefully the word was well established. Powell: Hopefully. Zaremba: The one thing -- and you probably need to research this and not just take my word for it, but the biggest objection that most people have to being annexed is that they think the city taxes are higher than the county taxes. Powell: They are. Meridian Planning & Zoning April 1, 2004 Page 89 of 89 Zaremba: Well, someone the other day said that with the cap that we have on ours, sometime within the next year or so that's going to reverse, that our taxes on residential properties are less than the county taxes, so -- I could be proved wrong, I just overheard that, but I would check that and be able to use that, if that's true, or if they are so close that it really doesn't make any difference, I certainly would mention that, because I know the big fear is city taxes are a hundred times more than the county taxes and I'm not sure that's true. Powell: And that will be good information to take to those homeowners. I will work with the county assessor to see if they can give us a typical change, you know, how the annexation would affect them. That was all I had. And Dean's sighing back here. Zaremba: We are trying to keep him at least until midnight. I'm trying to think of something else to talk about. Newton-Huckabay: Just sing. Zaremba: Yeah. There you go. For my next song -- Borup: So, are we ready, then? Does that conclude? Is there anything else? Okay. One more motion. Rohm: I move we adjourn. Zaremba: Second. Borup: Motion and second to adjourn. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Borup: Meeting adjourned at 11:42. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 11:42 A.M. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.) APPROVED ______________________________ _____|_____|_____ KEITH BORUP - CHAIRMAN DATE APPROVED ATTEST: _____________________________________ WILLIAM G. BERG, JR, CITY CLERK