HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-03-12
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
MARCH 12, 1996
The regular meeting of the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission was called to
order by Chairman protem Tim Hepper at 7:30 P.M.:
MEMBERS PRESENT: Jim Shearer, Greg Oslund, Malcolm MacCoy:
OTHERS PRESENT: Will Berg, Wayne Crookston, Gary Smith, Shari Stiles, Wayne
Forrey, William Humphrey, Susan Kelly, Jim Ballantyne, Lawrence Rackham, Brian
Hoff, Dave Roylance, Guy Valentine, Brad Miller, Bill Tokin, Dale Fletcher, Oren
Mayes, Pat Nations, Lyle Bear, Crystal Martinez, Shirley Marino, Charles Haacke, Rory
Lowe, Robert Polk, K. Lawrence, Helen Sharp, Dale Sharp, Cale and Janette Fletcher,
Jack Green, Dixie Lee Roberts, Ed Doherty:
MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING HELD FEBRUARY 13, 1996:
Hepper: You have all read the minutes are there any corrections, additions or
deletions? I will entertain a motion.
Shearer: I move we accept the minutes as written.
MacCoy: Second
Hepper: Motion made and seconded we approve the minutes of previous meeting, all
those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #1: APA: PRESENTATION OF 2015 TRANSPORTATION PLAN:
Olen: Thank you and good evening, my name is Erv Olen of the Ada Planning
Association. Our agency is responsible for developing long range transportation plans
in Ada County. The City of Meridian has been a member of Ada Planning Association
for a good number of years and your Mayor and one Councilman is a member of the
Association Board. Our 2015 Transportation Plan was recently adopted by the APA
Board in fact they acted on it on the 26th of February and will be coming to the City of
Meridian for your consideration as far as the Comprehensive Plan. What I would like to
do is give you a little overview, ten or fifteen minute overview of what is in that
document and then some of the specifics for the City of Meridian and then I would be
happy to answer any questions you might have or respond to any comments. If I might I
would like to use the overhead projector and go ahead (inaudible). The transportation
plan is intended to address a number of issues that affect us. When I go to meetings
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 12, 1996
Page 2
like this almost (inaudible) becoming more and more significant (inaudible). The plan is
attempting to address that. (Inaudible) We are looking at the issue of congestion and
delay and of course (inaudible) and I can tell you (inaudible) We are looking very
closely at the corridor preservation, we have not done a very good job in the County I
don’t think in preserving our opportunities for future roadways or protecting the capacity
of existing roadways. So there is quite an emphasis on the need to do that. Of
course the (inaudible) but work trip is the one that we generally plan for (inaudible) An
awful lot of emphasis is being placed on (inaudible) more and more established
neighborhood groups and they are getting more and more interested in (inaudible).Of
course we have to address that quality (inaudible) for carbon monoxide (inaudible) and
that ties directly to the transportation plan. We always have to be concerned about
money and how we are going to pay for it. I will address that a little bit later. We
typically do try to look at (inaudible) less and less of a federal mandate. We do look at
the overall travel and (inaudible). Finally and really not (inaudible) probably
(inaudible) the public is getting more interested in participating in the process and
feeling like they have a voice in the final outcome of our future transportation system.
That kind of leads me into my next one (inaudible) I just briefly want to go through the
process (inaudible) this 2015 plan. What this identifies basically are three tracks that
we follow. Normally we would take this middle track, the public input and educational
track, your typical public meetings (inaudible) and that sort of thing. That is typical of
most planning processes, we all do that all of the time. But in addition to that we also
developed two other parallel processes to involve the public. The one policy (inaudible)
community team that is composed of about 100 members (inaudible) and that a
community team actually developed the plan. They started with developing the
(inaudible) which I will cover a little bit later and (inaudible) they then met and put
together the transportation plan itself. (Inaudible) good mix of representatives, we had
neighborhood groups there, we had highway user types, we had elected policy officials,
many staff and so on involved in that process. Finally the third track that we followed
we called random input. This was a rather novel approach something we have not done
before. We actually took advantage of the public surveys, several of them to get a
sense of what the rank and file feels about future transportation issues. We did those
surveys before we developed the vision plan, we had a series of focus groups which is
designed to bring a smaller group of random citizens together and let them discuss
among themselves what the transportation issues are and out that you do get a pretty
good consensus. Finally we did what I would call a post public survey again random
that asked the public to tell us what they thought about our recommended
transportation plan and I hope to summarize that a little later on. So that is the
approach we took, the normal input educational that you almost always do, but in
addition the policy (inaudible) it was a very interesting process. The outcome of the
plan, basically what is in the plan is a number of different policies. We addressed
growth projections, the growth projections that were used were actually developed as
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 12, 1996
Page 3
the City of Meridian was developing their comprehensive plan. I know Mr. Forrey sat on
the committee and (inaudible) reflects the demographic projections that were used. In
addition a major study was going on called the Bench Valley study in western Boise
that also massaged some of the growth estimates for some amendments that the City of
Boise was considering those were taken into account as well. We looked at policies
on travel forecasting though (inaudible) what kind of levels of service we were willing to
accept and that kind of thing. We identified what we classified as functional
classification but maybe it would be better describing it as a collector and arterial
system. We need to look ahead and identify those roads that are intended to carry thru
trips versus those roads like the local subdivision streets that are intended to simply
serve the local developments. We need to look at our capital needs, both quantifying
the cost of things and what the kinds of improvements to the system need to be made
over the next 20 years to accommodate our projected traffic demands. There is a
commitment in this planned and regional transit, I think the next line addresses that.
There is a lot of interest in looking at regional transit for the public, when we say
regional we don’t stop at an arbitrary line, this actually does include parts of Treasure
Valley. There is is some (inaudible) provision for pathway for any street improvements
not just selected corridors. Funding strategies were addressed in the plan, how we are
going to pay for all of this. It is going to require some additional funds. (Inaudible)
how do we soften the impact of future transportation on (inaudible). The starting point
for our plan is what we described as the vision statement and there were six visions
that were developed. That basically (inaudible) the first of those said that the
transportation plan is (inaudible) not the other way around. We look at the growth plans
of the various entities and then we develop the transportation plan system to support
that growth. Describe the need to look at regional (inaudible) it does address of
course the (inaudible) So the first vision really ties in with the comprehensive plan
(inaudible). The second one is really a combination of what started out as two vision
statements but it acknowledges that the general public in Ada County Idaho want to
(inaudible) that is what the people are telling us that is what they want to do in this
County. However, there is a long term goal for alternative transportation of 25%. In the
1990 census the estimate was about 17% the latest measure we had was about 19%.
So it is an increase and (inaudible) but it still means that 3/4 of the trips are going to
be people who drive and the plan seeks to accommodate those. It also talks about
practical services offered in private sector involvement and helping to develop our
transportation system (inaudible) they have agreed to pick up half the cost of that about
(inaudible). It talks about, the vision talks about financing, basically it says that there
is support more using user fees for transportation and to not take existing funding
sources and apply them to transportation but rather to identify those sources of funds
that would (inaudible). The plan (inaudible) smoothly and safely but we do need to
protect neighborhoods by ensuring that future improvements are compatible with
adopted plans etc. There are an occasional arterial that does have that is oriented to
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 12, 1996
Page 4
residential use that we simply are going to have to bite the bullet and make the
decision to get on with developing those arterials. But in almost every case we can
protect the integrity of those neighborhoods that are not on the major arterials and the
plan seems to address that. We tried to strike a balance. Long term transportation
options for preserving future right of way is (inaudible) and really a strong theme in the
transportation plan. This is a kind of beyond 20 year vision. This says that over the next
50, 60 years whatever we need to think ahead and protect the future corridor needs
that we are going to have. If we do it now we are going to save an awful lot of time and
effort and trouble some time in the future. Finally there is a provision in the vision
statement to look at mitigation when we talk about mitigation it is really more
landscaping, buffering, softening the impact of the developing new or expanding
transportation corridors. This is a schematic that identifies the provisions in the plan to
look at regional public transportation service. Basically the plan identifies urban transit
type services in the Boise Garden City area in the City of Meridian and the Nampa
Caldwell area. The other communities served by the system Eagle, Middleton, Kuna
basically would probably be more oriented to very limited bus, probably van pool
service initially and maybe some commuter bus service during the (inaudible). The plan
envisions 140 to 150 buses to serve that eventually. It would provide !/2 bus service in
most of the urbanized areas of the two county area. It would require some additional
funding. What the plan recommends in order to do that additional funding is to follow
the examples of Portland, Oregon, or Reno, Nevada, Spokane, Washington, Denver,
Colorado and many others to identify either a sales tax or an employee tax increase.
We have estimated that in order to provide the type of system envisioned in this plan it
would require less than 1/2% sales tax to accommodate that. It would also require that
a regional transit authority be developed to provide that service. Now I think that those
kinds of visions or provisions in the plan are probably a little longer term. The public is
not read to support that (inaudible). I think that is what we ought to be looking at in the
future and start planning now for a regional focus for public transportation. We have
been working with Nampa, Caldwell and Middleton and the rural highway districts in
Canyon County and they have also been looking at this kind of a future transit system.
So it is time to look regionally and time to envision an expanded transit system
(inaudible). Of course the plan also looks at the traditional road system basically it
identifies future existing and proposed arterial (inaudible) again it really doesn’t stop at
the County line (inaudible) the need to maintain continuity between Canyon and Ada
County with an arterial system. It would make no sense at all for Ada County to identify
an arterial that stops at the County line and have Canyon County maybe pick one up
maybe a mile or two off set. So we have been working again with the folks in Canyon
County to see if we have agreement on where these interconnections need to occur to
ensure that there is continuity. The arterials that are designated in the plan are
intended to first of all preserve the corridors that are identified for future expansion and
to eventually expand the arterial system to handle future travel demand. So that is
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 12, 1996
Page 5
kind of the schematic. (Inaudible) the plan addresses some additional corridors that
need to be studied. One of those corridors is the Pine Street corridor that eventually
will connect to Emerald Street in Boise, that is provided for in the plan. Another corridor
is what is commonly called the south interstate bypass and that would take off
somewhere around that new (inaudible) and there are two thoughts about that. One
would be a short bypass and would tie back in somewhere between Meridian and
Nampa. And the long bypass might go all the way south of Nampa Caldwell and tie
back into the Interstate west of Caldwell. That is provided for in the plan as well. We
will have to look at that. In addition to the arterial connections I did want to talk about
some of the specific projects that are identified in the project for the City of Meridian
particularly the roadway projects. We started with a list and I think you each received
this list that identifies projects that are currently in the six year budget either at the
State or the Ada County Highway District. We consider those committed projects.
There are five of them listed there with a total estimated cost of about almost $13
million. Those are intended to be developed (inaudible) over the next five or six years.
The second list is a list of four projects that are identified that are recommended for
construction within the next 20 years. They are currently not in existing budgets, they
have an estimated cost of almost $28 million. Those build projects are what the plan
envisions as needed improvements and capacity expansion if you will to
accommodate future travel demands in and through the City of Meridian. Then the
final list is identified for basically preservation only. Those projects would be evaluated
every three years we have to update our plan, federal mandate. So each of those are
listed there in the preservation category will be reevaluated at least once every three
years to see if their status needs to be moved up. We did estimate the cost of those
projects, there are quite a few listed there, about almost well $57. So for the city of
Meridian we are identifying almost $100 million worth of road improvements that will be
needed sometime in the future. That is the essence for the plan in the City of Meridian.
With that I would like to stop and see if you have any questions or comments about this
plan. You will be receiving it the next few weeks and that is incorporated into your
comprehensive plan. This is a chance to give you an opportunity to find out a bit more
about it. If you have any questions I would be happy to answer them.
Hepper: Any questions?
MacCoy: I think he has answered one already about the fact that it is reevaluated every
3 years. I see some of these that are down for 20 years away, after living in this area I
think they (inaudible) personally or collectively (inaudible) I think what we ought to do, I
would like to meet with you and go through some of these in detail.
Olen: Certainly, I would be happy to. Our crystal ball is like everybody else we look at
growth and where we are expecting it to occur. I think this opportunity to review this at
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 12, 1996
Page 6
least eery 3 years allows us a chance to regroup and see where the group really has
occur ed and revise this when and if necessary. If something really came up it could
be done sooner, there is not prohibition there. Thank you, any other questions?
Hepper: I had a question, you talked about preserving corridors for future widening of
projects, how do you go about preserving those corridors?
Olen: Well, there are a number of options, we talked with with State Highway District a
bit about that. One might be to develop a fund, that allows for first right of refusal when
a development comes in. That is basically the opportunity to acquire the right of way
before a property develops. Other ways of doing that would be through the review and
development process as developers come in that if they are adjacent to the roadway
the negotiation process for that could include acquiring the right of way or preserving
the right of way making sure they don’t put in any major improvements in what would be
the future right of way. The Highway District’s impact fee program there are
opportunities to negotiate that, they actually have been doing that. With few exceptions
I think we are beginning to catch the needs as developments come in rather than after
the fact. Those are basically the two ways. There will either be an early acquisition
there is a lot of public support for actually putting some budget funds aside to acquire
future rights of way when the opportunity is there, you actually save money in the long
run.
Hepper: Anything else? Thank you
ITEM #2: TABLED FEBRUARY 13, 1996: ANNEXATION AND ZONING REQUEST
FOR PACKARD NO. 2 BY PNE/EDMONDS CONSTRUCTION:
Hepper: We have actually received a letter from them requesting that be tabled until
June. So I guess we need a motion.
Shearer: Mr. Chairman I move that we table that until the regular June meeting, the
11th.
MacCoy: Second
Hepper: Okay, we have a motion by Commissioner Shearer, seconded by
Commissioner MacCoy to table until June 11th, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #3: TABLED FEBRUARY 13, 1996: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR PACKARD
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 12, 1996
Page 7
SUBDIVISION NO. 2 BY PNE/EDMONDS CONSTRUCTION:
Shearer: I so move
MacCoy: Second
Hepper: Okay, we have a motion by Commissioner Shearer, second by Commissioner
MacCoy to table the preliminary plat also until June 11th, all those in favor?
Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #4: TABLED FEBRUARY 13, 1996; REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT
FOR THE RANCH SUBDIVISION BY WESTPARK COMPANY.
Hepper: Do we have a representative of the applicant?
Forrey: Thank you Mr. Chairman, my name is Wayne Forrey and Greg Johnson the
owner of Westpark Company couldn’t be here tonight and he asked me to hand deliver
a letter to the Commission. It is a short letter, I would like to read it into the record. I
have a copy for every commission member would that be alright? Thank you. I will
read fast Mr. Chairman, it is addressed to the Meridian Planning and Zoning
Commission. “Dear Commissioners, during the last 17 months we have been working
very hard on the Ranch formerly known as Highlands Ranch Subdivision. This is a
planned development community for the City of Meridian. Due to the many
requirements by various government agencies a large portion of this project is no
longer feasible to develop. The Westpark Company hereby withdraws the property east
of the Ridenbaugh Canal to Eagle Road from the Ranch Subdivision annexation and
platting request. We have decided to continue platting the Ranch Subdivision as a
planned development community for only the property which is west of the Ridenbaugh
Canal to Locust Grove Road. This request will follow all planned development
requirements and will follow the preliminary plat drawings you have already reviewed
with very few minor changes. The minor changes include increasing lot sizes,
eliminating the attached town homes and securing a second road access to Victory
Road. 10% of the property will be in usable open space included as part of our
planned development as required. We request that you table action on the Ranch
Subdivision to your April 9, 1996 Planning and Zoning meeting so we can sit down with
your staff some time during next week and review our plat drawing to make sure we
have met all staff and City requirements. We ask that we be placed on your April 9,
1996 agenda for approval of our preliminary plat. By withdrawing property from our
annexation and platting request we have been assured taking this action does not
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 12, 1996
Page 8
constitute submitting new applications to the City of Meridian. We plan to continue with
our current applications with the provisions and understanding that we are withdrawing
property from the total project. We look forward to working with you and your staff in
the coming days. We also look forward to a recommendation for approval from the
Planning and Zoning Commission at your April 9, 1996 Commission meeting. Thank
you, Greg Johnson, Managing partner, Westpark.” I would be happy to answer any
questions that I can Commissioners. I hope this letter explains and you can understand
east and west of the Ridenbaugh Canal.
Hepper: Any questions?
Crookston: Do you know how this changes the proposed plat for the property that is
west of the Ridenbaugh?
Forrey: I do, I don’t have a copy with me. I saw it this afternoon and I think it is
generally, you would agree it is an improvement. It is closer to the findings of fact and
conclusions of law that were prepared at the annexation stage in that there are larger
lots, no attached residential. We don’t have the benefit of Gary Smith’s input, Shari
Stiles’ input so we thought the best thing to do was to table it and sit down with staff
and let everyone have a good look at that prior to your next meeting. I have a copy in
my office but it is not yet finished from the engineering firm. I know there are still things
that need to be placed on that plat.
Crookston: It may require an additional public hearing on that.
Forrey: I understand, we were hoping it wouldn’t constitute a totally new application and
a new fee that we could continue the same file so to speak.
Crookston: I suppose until we see it the Commission won’t know.
Forrey: I understand, thank you.
Hepper: This is not a public hearing so I will entertain a motion.
Oslund: Mr. Chairman I move we table this item until the next regular meeting in April
which would be April 9.
MacCoy: Second
Hepper: Okay we have a motion by Commissioner Oslund to table to April 9, second by
Commissioner MacCoy, all those in favor? Opposed?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 12, 1996
Page 9
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #5: TABLED FEBRUARY 13, 1996: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT FOR THE RANCH SUBDIVISION BY WESTPARK COMPANY:
Hepper: I would assume that number 5 would be the same thing.
Oslund: I also make a motion for item #5 to table to the 9th of April.
Shearer: Second
Hepper: Okay we have a motion to table to the same date April 9th by Commissioner
Oslund and second by Commissioner Shearer, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #6: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR REQUEST FOR
A VACATION OF EASEMENT BY ROGER ANDERSON:
Hepper: We have the findings of fact are there any corrections, additions or
deletions?
MacCoy: I make a motion that the Meridian City Planning and Zoning Commission
hereby adopts and approves these findings.
Oslund: Second
Hepper: We have a motion by Commissioner MacCoy and seconded by Commissioner
Oslund to approve the findings of fact, roll call vote.
ROLL CALL VOTE: Oslund - Yea, Shearer - Yea, MacCoy - Yea
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Hepper: Do we have a decision or recommendation?
Oslund: Mr. Chairman I move that the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
hereby recommends to the City Council of the City of Meridian that they approve the
vacation of the sewer and water easement at 75 W. Taylor Street.
Shearer: Second
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 12, 1996
Page 10
Hepper: It has been moved by Commissioner Oslund, second by Commissioner
Shearer to approve the decision and recommendation, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #7: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR REQUEST FOR
A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A GROUP DAY CARE BY ANGELA MILLER:
Hepper: We have got the, was there a revised copy?
Crookston: There was, I made some minor changes, but the findings were totally
reproduced.
Hepper: I don’t believe I have a revised copy. Does anybody have any discussion,
corrections or additions or deletions? Entertain a motion.
Shearer: Mr. Chairman I move the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby approves
and adopts these findings of fact.
Oslund: Second
Hepper: We have a motion by Commissioner Shearer, second by Commissioner
Oslund to approve the findings of fact, roll call vote.
ROLL CALL VOTE: Oslund - Yea, Shearer - Yea, MacCoy - Yea
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Hepper: Decision or recommendation?
Shearer: Mr. Chairman I move the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby
recommend to the City Council the City of Meridian that they approve the conditional
use permit requested by the applicant for the property described in the application
with the conditions set forth in the findings of fact and conclusions of law or similar
conditions as found by the appropriate, justified and appropriate by the City Council
and that the property be required to meet the water and sewer requirements, fire and
life safety codes and other ordinances of the City of Meridian. The conditional use
should be subject to review upon notice to the applicant by the City.
Oslund: Second
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 12, 1996
Page 11
Hepper: We have a motion by Commissioner Shearer and seconded by Commissioner
Oslund for the decision and recommendation, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #8: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR REQUEST FOR
REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A GROUP DAY CARE BY
KATHLEEN LAWRENCE:
Hepper: Are there any corrections, additions or deletions? Counselor, on page 8, item
F, is that worded correctly that the conditional use should not be permitted or restricted,
it should be restricted? The item says that the conditional use should not be restricted
to operating only from 7 A.M. to 6 P.M.? It seems like the discussion at the time was
that it should be restricted.
Crookston: That “not” needs to be removed Mr. Chairman.
Hepper: Is there any other discussion?
Oslund: Mr. Chairman, I move that the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
hereby adopt and approve these findings of fact and conclusions.
Shearer: Second
Hepper: With the deletion of “not” on page 8?
Oslund: Yes
Hepper: It has been, a motion by Commissioner Oslund, second by Commissioner
Shearer to approve the findings of fact and conclusions of law with the exception on
page 8, roll call vote.
ROLL CALL VOTE: Oslund - Yea, Shearer -Yea, MacCoy - Yea
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Hepper: Decision or recommendation?
MacCoy: Mr. Chairman I would like to make the decision or recommendation that the
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council of
the City of Meridian that they approve the conditional use permit requested by the
applicant for the property described in the application with the conditions set forth in the
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 12, 1996
Page 12
findings of fact and conclusions of law or similar conditions as found justified
appropriate by the City Council. That the property be required to meet the requirements
stated in the conclusions of law, the water and sewer requirements, the fire and life
safety codes, uniform fire code and the ordinances of the City of Meridian. The
conditional use should be subject to review upon notice to the applicant by the City.
Oslund: Second
Hepper: Its has been moved by Commissioner MacCoy and second by Commissioner
Oslund to approve the decision and recommendation, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #9: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR A CONDITIONAL
US PERMIT FOR A CHEVRON C-STORE, FUEL ISLANDS, CAR WASH, AND DRIVE
THRU WINDOW BY AVEST:
Hepper: Are there any additions or deletions or corrections?
(Inaudible)
Hepper: Apparently we have a revised page where the word maintain has been
changed to obtain on page 8, item 7, the last word. Do we have a recommendation on
the findings of fact?
MacCoy: Mr. Chairman, I recommend that the findings of fact and conclusions that the
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts and approves these findings
of fact and conclusions.
Shearer: Second
Hepper: It has been moved by Commissioner MacCoy and second by Commissioner
Shearer to approve the findings of fact, roll call vote.
ROLL CALL VOTE: Oslund - Yea, Shearer - Yea, MacCoy - Yea
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Hepper: Decision or recommendation?
MacCoy: Mr. Chairman, the decision or recommendation of the Meridian Planning and
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 12, 1996
Page 13
Zoning Commission hereby recommends to the Meridian City Council that they approve
the conditional use permit requested by the applicant for the property described in the
application with the conditions set forth in the findings of fact and conclusions of law.
Shearer: Second
Hepper: Motion by Commissioner MacCoy, second by Commissioner Shearer to
approve the decision and recommendation, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #10: PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED FROM FEBRUARY 13, 1996:
REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A SENIOR CITIZEN
BOARDING, LODGING COMPLEX BY WAYNE AND KAREN FORREY:
Hepper: Do we have a representative?
Wayne Forrey, 3045 Thayen Place, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Forrey: Mr. Chairman and members of the Commission I have some slides I would like
to show can I switch projectors here for just a minute? Thank you, Commission
members my wife and I are really excited about this project. We have applied for a
conditional use permit for an elderly planned development general residential project
here in meridian. It involves 114 units of elderly housing and a retirement style type
campus. It is located on East Pine Street in the area near Locust Grove but it is actually
about 1/4 mile West of the Locust Grove/Pine Street intersection, it is right up next to
Five Mile Creek. It is actually where you leave the platted portion of the edge of the City
and then it is into a grain field right now. There is a tremendous need we have
discovered in the City of Meridian. My grandparents live in Meridian and have many
family members over the years getting older and in the search several years ago for a
retirement center for both of my grandfathers it really became apparent to us that there
was a real good need in Meridian for a good elderly retirement center. In fact even
though we haven’t formerly introduced this to the public just the fact that it was noticed
in the newspaper has generated phone calls primarily from elderly ladies wanting to
be placed on the waiting list to live here. So we know there is just a really great need.
Our site plan includes extensive landscaping and I will show you some of that tonight.
We have extensive buffers and very sensitive to the neighbors. It is, my wife and I are
purchasing 12.75 acres, it goes from Pine street all the way south to the rail road
tracks. We are only proposing the front 5 acres to be used in this planned
development project right up next to Pine Street. We have addressed all of the City
and agency comments and I have a letter that I would like to give you tonight that
confirms how we address each of those items. We don’t have any negative impact on
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 12, 1996
Page 14
schools and I think that is important. Our budget for this project is $8.3 million and that
is the value that would be added to the communities tax roll so that is a positive impact
on the schools not negative. The employment that we are projecting is 10 to 12
professional paid staff. The planned development requirements in the City stipulates
10% open space but we are proposing 20% and that is based on research and
conversations with seniors that want more of a campus environment, a security feeling
and that required more setback and landscaping. We anticipate starting construction
in the winter of 1996 or early 1997 and opening in Fall of 1997 and let me just walk you
through a few slides to punctuate a few points. Then I will go through the staff comment
letter. This is actually the site plan showing the four buildings. Erv Olen was here
first on the agenda about transportation, even though we are not required to, this is
hard to see but on Pine Street right across the intersection of Stonehenge Way we are
planning a bus stop. We think someday there is going to be bus service or van/pool
service in Meridian. At our expense we have agreed to construct that bus stop. One of
the things that is really important to us is how Pine street looks and we envision a very
extensive setback and berming, intensely landscaped area long Pine. The City asked
us to reserve a 20 foot landscape strip we are proposing 35 feet, it is that important to
us. Five Mile Creek touches the northwest corner of this property and we are working
with Nampa Meridian Irrigation District on a second license agreement. We already
have one to use the easement but we want to really landscape and put a pathway
along Five Mile Creek on our side of the creek with benches, an overlook area and
hand rail. We are negotiating a license agreement with the irrigation district to do that.
We envision lots of outdoor garden areas, flower beds, raised with benches and hand
rails to enjoy the outdoors especially along the Five Mile Creek area. We are
anticipating that we would raise the floor elevation above existing grade probably 2 to
2.5 feet so on the patio areas you would have, they would be elevated above existing
grade and there would be berming and slope and hand rails (End of Tape) so it is a
terrace effect. That I think will make a very nice outdoor area. The entrance the
substantial monument entrance with good landscaping. This is an architectural concept
for the two main buildings on the campus buildings A and B. They are L shaped
building and that is building pad A and B. Parking is central, we envision an on site
maintenance, 24 hour shuttle van service, property management, contracting with
professional management company for the operation of the center and the campus and
the maintenance. We feel really good about this project and using the site wisely. The
City had several comments from staff and from the different agencies. I have addressed
each of those in a letter and I would like to hand it out to you. That is all the slides, you
can turn the lights back on. I am very flexible I can read each one or I could pick a few
key highlights. You will note in there where we were asked to do something we said we
would or we have indicated that we agreed with the comment. I would ask that you
incorporate this letter into your findings of fact and conclusions of law. We have also
asked for a development agreement and would like you to incorporate this letter. One
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 12, 1996
Page 15
of the things I indicated we would do for Builders Masonry they submitted a letter
indicating they were concerned about the compatibility of an elderly center in the
proximity to their business. We are about 1/5 mile away from Builders Masonry, a
little over 1100 feet away. Because of their concern and I understand their concern I
wrote a letter to Builders Masonry indicated that at our expense we would construct a
sound barrier wall on our south property line, our extreme south property line which is
right next to the railroad tracks. I have a copy of their letter, a copy of my response
and then a copy of their second response which indicates that we are moving in the
right direction and they feel that given some time we should be able to work this out as
long as we respect their business and we certainly do. We feel really good about this
project and hope that you approve it. It is a substantial project for our family and
substantial project for the City. We are ready to proceed if we get approval. I would
be happy to answer questions.
MacCoy: On your property you said (inaudible)
Forrey: No in fact that was another item Builders Masonry brought up. They were
worried that if we developed the front five acres that we would then move more
residential closer to the rail road tracks and closer to their business. I stated in writing
and I have it in here that we would not do that. In fact I would ask you in a development
agreement to put a restriction on us that this would be the end or limit to this use. The
rest of that would be business uses, office and business park on the balance of the
property between this and the rail road track.
Hepper: Where would the access to that office and business park come from?
Forrey: A continuation of Penrith Avenue and possibly the neighbor to the east is
developing a business park and we have talked about a possible stub street coming out
of that business park and linking up with Penrith Avenue.
Hepper: So Penrith would not be a private drive?
Forrey: No, public, it would be 58 feet right of way. That is something that the Highway
District asked we do and we agreed to that, all public.
Oslund: The whole site there then is one continuous site (inaudible) involved with this
one facility? You are going to have a public street that bisects that?
Forrey: Yes
Oslund: I appreciate the fact that you are working with Builders Masonry Products, if
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 12, 1996
Page 16
you intend to put in seven acres of what would most likely be a transitional use
between this and them I guess I fail to see what that wall is going to do? When you
come back some day in the future standing at this site you wont’ even see (inaudible).
Forrey: I have to answer this way, the conditional use process is a good process
because it allows people to raise a concern and it gives the applicant a chance to
address the concern. Builders Masonry raised a concern I think I have addressed. They
are concerned that sound will penetrate from their site into our site and so I have said I
am willing to build a sound barrier wall even though this is about 700 feet away from
the nearest living unit, 700 feet south it is a negotiation process. I think we ought to
look at. I firmly believe in good cooperation and balanced development so I am willing
to do that and I have stated it in writing. I know that someday it will lose its
effectiveness.
Oslund: An alternative would be to and having designed noise barriers before for
highway projects it seems to me, now I am getting involved in your project and I am just
telling you this to tell you what I think. A wall along this development closer to this
development would make more sense in terms of mitigating noise and it would also be
compatible with the future because it might be a good idea to have a wall between this
development and what ultimately will be a business use.
Forrey: I absolutely agree and would prefer to do that. My meetings with Builders
Masonry said they would prefer to have it closer to them right at the rail road tracks.
That was something that we agreed we would consider?
MacCoy: (Inaudible)
Forrey: Well right now the estimate that I have is $25,000 so I really would, I don’t
know. I don’t want to have to go put that in first before I build any buildings. I would like
to be able to build that with the first phase and not have to build it first and then get the
building permit. I would like to get it at the same time of the building permit for building
A is accomplished.
MacCoy: You don't’ know what it is made of?
Forrey: It says in the letter that we are looking at four different materials and we have
had an engineer look at it for us a double pane wood insulated wood, insulated
fiberglass, insulated metal or cinder block. Those are the four options that we are
looking at.
MacCoy: (Inaudible) following Greg’s
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 12, 1996
Page 17
Forrey: And visual as well, sound and visual.
MacCoy: Following Greg’s viewpoint which I agree with, would you consider on you
south edge of doing more in the way even though you have the barrier wall at the rail
road tracks the separation between this and the rest of our property there would you
consider more trees, more shrubs or mounding which would give you another a
secondary barrier if you please?
Forrey: Yes we certainly will, I would prefer to move that sound wall right up to the
south edge if Builders Masonry could live with that I would like to do that.
MacCoy: (Inaudible)
Forrey: If you read your letter
MacCoy: We haven’t had a chance to so far.
Oslund: I don’t know maybe I am missing something but we are approving the project
and the Council is approving the project what is their connection. If we approve
something different than what they like is that a problem for you?
Forrey: No it is just that they are a neighbor and I want to get along with them.
Oslund: I really, in terms of, if the idea is to mitigate the noise for the folks that are
going to live there I don’t really feel sorry for the people over at Masonry, noise is a way
of life that is not what we are interested in. If the object is to reduce their noise
exposure then to me either a berm or a wall needs to be as close as we can get it to
them the receptor to be most effective.
Forrey: That is my preference too.
MacCoy: (Inaudible)
Shearer: Heavy trees back by that rail road track would probably help kill an awful lot of
sound.
Forrey: We have irrigation there as well, we have an irrigation line back there. So that
entire south has the Grouper lateral, so it is possible.
Hepper: Wayne, what is one the east and west of your project?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 12, 1996
Page 18
Forrey: That is tilted, looking up is also looking to the east. So right up next to Pine
Street where you see the dimension 110.70 and 64.30 that is a single family home
owned by Mr. and Mrs. Collins, it is that nice single level brick home that you see on
Pine. On the north side is Maws Addition Subdivision and Danbury Fair Subdivision.
On the west side are existing homes, some of them are on one acre lots and some are
on two and three acre parcels. It is residential on the west side. Then, behind the
Collins home along our east boundary is property owned by Yanke Company and they
are proposing a business park in that area.
Hepper: What is the zoning on that?
Forrey: Light Industrial.
Hepper: Do you see any way that your project could cause an impact on their, cause
them to do additional things to their property so their industrial zoning wouldn’t impact
yours?
Forrey: No and I have discussed that with Mike Ford and they shouldn’t be required to
do anything different than the ordinance allows. We should be buffering not them. We
agreed to that.
Hepper: I wanted to make sure that you are putting in sufficient buffering to buffer
yourself from an industrial zone that is next door not requiring them to do it when they
come in.
Forrey: No I understand you ask Gary Lee of JUB we have had that discussion, they
should just do everything they can to have a nice business park and not worry about
the back lot line we will take care of that. It is a little hard to see maybe on the copy
you have but some of that is the Snyder Drain easement and our license agreement we
already have permission to landscape that with grass and flowers but we want trees
along there so that is going to require a second license agreement which we are
working with Nampa Meridian so I can put that buffer in there and use that easement.
We will do that (inaudible).
Hepper: Is there some way of wording that in the findings or something that you would
(inaudible) give up the right to contest any noise that might be generated by a next
more industrial zone or you enter into this with full knowledge that there is an industrial
zone next door and you won’t complain about it.
Forrey: Absolutely, we intend to have an office and then business on the south part of
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 12, 1996
Page 19
our property that is compatible so yes we absolutely agree to that.
Hepper: Any other questions? Thank you Wayne, this is a public hearing is there
anyone else that would like to testify?
William Humphrey, 939 East Pine, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Humphrey: I have some concerns as far as the ditch, if I may use this graph over
here, you have an area there that is the creek enhancement area along Five Mile Drain
ditch there, my concerns are, I have been in contact with the ditch company, Nampa
Meridian irrigation and to my understanding there is a 50 foot easement there that the
ditch (inaudible) what your plans are. Are you going to use that easement or are you
going to stay outside that easement or and also to the back of the (inaudible) people
that are involved in the lodging there (inaudible) rise and fall according to the weather. I
do have some concerns about that as far as the people, elderly people accessing the
creek, it could be a safety hazard in that aspect. My other concerns are that the fact
that the Grouper Lateral that runs along the property line there also that is a 20 foot
easement or setback there and at this present time the ditch company has been
cleaning that lateral and for the past 15 years or longer they have been putting dirt on
my property as well as the neighbors property. I wondered if that was going to continue
or if you are going to take part in that dirt being distributed. (Inaudible) probably those
are my most concerns there I just wondered what the stand was on that as far as the
enhancement area now. To my knowledge I have talked, I have entertained the
thought of building on my own property there and as far as the ditch company is
concerned 50 foot from the middle of that ditch is just about in the middle of my
property there, easement. So that kind of eliminates me building there. I am just kind of
wondering where we are at on that. Those are pretty much my concerns if you can
address that I would appreciate that.
Hepper: Okay when we get done we will give Wayne a chance to come back up and
address those. Anyone else? Okay Wayne would you like to address that?
Forrey: Thank you, building A is the and also Building B are the closest buildings to the
Grouper Lateral, it flows along the West boundary from the rail road tracks north of
Pine Street. I am aware of the easement, a portion of the Five Mile Creek easement in
the northwest corner of the property and Building A and B are not within those
easements. I purposely kept those buildings away. In the license agreement that we
have we have been informed that we can grass and sod those easements. The license
agreement says we are not to plant trees of it we do they can be taken out by
backhoes. So we went to Nampa Meridian Irrigation District and said we really need to
plan trees in there to dress that up and make that an amenity. The creek can be very
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 12, 1996
Page 20
beautiful right there so we want to make it safe but also visually very nice to the
residents. Not access to the Creek like the waters edge but a nice bench and a
pathway far enough that it is safe but also just relaxing just to sit there. Now under
that condition Nampa Meridian said you are going to put a park bench in our easement
and some trees and an asphalt pathway and we said yes and they said well you need a
second license agreement and you need to accept the liability if we go in and have to
do any work and we are willing to do that. My letter mentions that and we have an
attorney preparing that language right now. It is in our best interest to improve that
creek not to upset the Grouper lateral in any way, that feeds the pressurized irrigation
in Danubury Fair, it is the same water we will take our pressurized irrigation off with our
water right. So we will protect and maintain the Grouper lateral, we will work with the
creek and subject to that license agreement with Nampa Meridian. We are not
proposing any buildings in that easement.
Hepper: Is there a maintenance road down there on one side of the ditch?
Forrey: Yes and it is on our property, a portion of it is.
Hepper: Would you be covering up that maintenance road with sod?
Forrey: Yes we are proposing to do that but t hey will still be able to use it. We will
work that into the landscape the concept there. They will have access but they will be
driving over sod. So we are going to make sure the Grouper Lateral stays nice and
clean and (inaudible) we are not going to ignore it and just put it out of mind and let it
be messy, we have to work with those amenities. That is our concept, it might change
because the irrigation district, they are kind of tough to deal with, but we are going to
try.
Hepper: Any other questions? Thank you, this is a public hearing is there anyone else
that would care to testify? If not I will close the public hearing, this requires findings.
Shearer: Mr. Chairman I move we have the Attorney prepare findings of fact and
conclusions of law for this project.
MacCoy: Second
Hepper: It has been moved by Commissioner Shearer, seconded by Commissioner
MacCoy to have the attorney prepare findings of fact and conclusions of law
Oslund: Can we have some discussion on that before we take a vote? We can have
discussion on a second right. I guess instead of waiting until the next meeting I would
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 12, 1996
Page 21
like to see in the conditions that barrier be placed at the property of this development
rather than way over there by the rail road tracks. That would the only thing I would like
to see in there
Crookston: The south boundary of this project?
Oslund: That is correct, and maybe, I don’t recall what the distance was or the width of
that landscaped area but in addition to that wall possibly a six foot wall combination
with a berm or something.
Hepper: Do we need to amend the motion? Okay, we have a motion and a second, all
those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #11: PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED FROM FEBRUARY 13, 1996: REQUEST
FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR BALLANTYNE-TROUTNER BUSINESS PARK BY
JIM BALLANTYNE:
Hepper: Is there a representative?
Wayne Forrey, 3045 Thayen Place, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Forrey: Mr. Chairman and members of the Commission, Jim is a good friend, met him
many years ago. He has owned this property in Meridian since 1971, it is on West
Franklin Road, if you visualize Hoff Lumber or Hinckels McCoy, Meridian Veterinary, it
is right across the street from Hoff Lumber nestled between Hinckels and McCoy and
Meridian Veterinary clinic and then it goes south about 40 acre ownership. I think you
are familiar with this property, about, it has been about 8 months ago we came before
the Planning and Zoning Commission. Let me back up, you may recall the Troy Green
proposal where this was planned to be a mobile home park and that was ultimately
denied by the City. Jim rethought how to develop that ground, we came before the
City with a business park concept of limited office and C-G commercial general zoning.
The Planning and Zoning Commission passed on a favorable recommendation to the
City Council for annexation. We got in front of the City Council and they felt good about
the project but they said it is not our policy to see a preliminary plat before we will take
final approval on annexing new ground into the City. So the City Council said go back
and start with a preliminary plat which we did during Christmas time and submitted in
January and now we are on the agenda for a preliminary plat. For discussion purposes
it is referred to at the Ballantyne Troutner Business Park. I also have a letter with a map
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 12, 1996
Page 22
attached let me hand that out. Let me show just a couple quick slides so I can
acquaint you with this area. This is looking west on Franklin Road, off to the right you
see Hoff Lumber and in the foreground is Meridian Veterinary clinic. We are just now
starting to get to the Ballantyne property as you look west. The Master Roto Rooter is
on Franklin and Jim’s property is behind the Mater Rooter property, this property fronts
on Franklin and Jim has the 37 acres immediately behind this property, it is pretty
common to see there on Franklin Road. This is his frontage on Franklin Road, it is
238 feet wide, it currently has that for sale sign on it and I am standing right now in
about the parking lot of Hoff Lumber at their administrative office looking across the
street to the south. In the background you see those metal buildings and some
construction equipment that is the Hinkels and McCoy contractors yard. That fence
you see now and that power line there that is the common property line between Jim
Ballantyne’s ground and the Hinkels and McCoy. This is where we would plan the
entrance into the business park right across the street from the Hoff Forest Products.
When we came in for annexation there was some discussion with the Planning and
Zoning Commission and with the City Council about a 50 foot access easement through
the Norm Fuller property coming out to Meridian Road. We have adjusted that
easement with Norm Fuller’s input and approval so that this is actually where that 50
foot easement is. I am standing on Meridian Road and directly behind me is the access
road to Godfather’s Pizza it is Thomas property they are currently developing right now.
So future connection all lines up and all of that has been taken care of. It is shown on
the plat that way. Here is a copy of the plat that you have, up at the top there is the
entrance off of Franklin Road coming into the park. The Eight Mile Lateral courses
diagonally through the property, we propose to relocate that lateral. It is a major
expense but it opens up the interior and makes a very nice business park. We are right
next to Franklin Square Subdivision, we have planned a 35 foot landscape strip next to
Franklin Square Subdivision to be permanently landscaped. Those folks that are
familiar with Pennwood, it currently dead ends but we are proposing that it extend and
this is the little street on the south here coming out of Franklin Square subdivision and
coming east into Jim Ballantyne’s property. Corporate Drive which is shown and
generalized here on the bottom of the plat, is a future road that the Highway District is
planning in Meridian. So this property is going to be part of that Corporate Drive
extension with at least two access points. The easement that you see going out to
Meridian Road that is the 50 foot easement through Norm Fuller’s property that we
have adjusted and it lines up with the Thomas property over to East 1st Street by
Godfather’s Pizza. We propose that Barret Street not go through that we put a
hammerhead turnaround right there that is based on input from the neighbors that
didn’t want Barret to go through. Some neighbors probably don’t want Pennwood street
to go through and it really doesn’t matter to Jim Ballantyne but the Highway District has
told us that they want Pennwood to make a connection into this property and ultimately
south down to Corporate Drive so that you can come out of Franklin Square
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 12, 1996
Page 23
Subdivision and over to Meridian Road without going north up to Franklin, that is the
way you have to do it now. So it opens up better access. Most of those lots are about
7/10 of an acre to about one acre, that is the size that we are finding a lot of interest in.
In fact lot 1, block 1, right at the top by the entrance of Franklin Road, right across the
street from Hoff Lumber Jim has already sold that property and he has used a one time
lot split in the County and that is going to be the new Meridian office of the United
States Department of Agriculture, the new USDA office building that is going to set a
real nice tone coming into the business park. All of block 4 which is the property next
to Franklin Square subdivision and all of block 5 we are proposing to be zoned L-O
limited office as a transition to that neighborhood. The balance of the property would
be zoned C-G and would be for business use, office and office warehouse. We have
addressed all of the City comments in the letter, there is a map in there as well,
reduced copy of the plat. I would be happy to answer any questions. Jim Ballantyne
is here as well if we have some questions for Jim he can help answer.
Oslund: Question for you, the signalized intersection that you are showing, the T
intersection of 5th Street and Franklin, you say that is right at the entrance to Hoff?
Forrey: No, it is not, the current entrance to Hoff is a little bit east of the way we show
the entrance to this property right now. There is a power line in the way in order to
move it on the Hoff property. When ACHD widens and improves Franklin Road to 5
lanes which is the plan here that power line is going to be removed or relocated. So our
conversations with Idaho Power, ACHD and Hoff have been that we would line up this
road the entrance road within five feet of the Hinkels and McCoy property and then
Hoff would have a good access at that same location. They are going to have to make
some adjustments on their property but it is through a graveled area, their current
parking lot for staff it is not going to damage a lot of their paving but it is going to have
to relocate that power pole. So down the road I think we will have good access with
Hoff on one side and Ballantyne Troutner Business park on the other. Some day
probably a signal right there. Our traffic study right now the traffic study has not been
completed we are on tech review agenda for this Friday with the Highway District and
Pat Dobie is completing the traffic study. When Corporate Drive is put through this area
most of this traffic is projected to go south to Corporate Drive and out to Meridian Road.
So today without Corporate Drive we would need a traffic signal on Franklin by Hoff.
But when corporate drive is in the traffic study says that signal may not be warranted so
we are not proposing a signal at this time. We are contemplating that Corporate drive is
going to extend through and that helps solve the traffic. To confirm then are you
saying that Hoff will adjust their driveway location
Forrey: Yes
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 12, 1996
Page 24
Oslund: So that it is opposite what is a T intersection (inaudible)
Forrey: Yes, in order to line up that is correct.
Oslund: What is the 50 foot access easement, what is that exactly?
Forrey: When Jim Ballantyne bought property from Norm Fuller years ago he bought
property that is along the lateral, kind of the interior of the property. When he bought
that from Norm they negotiated a 50 foot access easement out to Meridian Road. That
is the intent and purpose of that easement. We have since adjusted that easement
north about 32 feet to line up with the Thomas property on the other side of Meridian
Road, that was at the request of P & Z and City Council during our annexation public
hearings.
Oslund: So that access easement would serve lot 15 only?
Forrey: Look at the revised plat Commissioner, it is on the back of the letter that I
handed out. The City staff asked us to make revisions to the plat and we have done
that, so you are now looking at the plat that complies with City staff comments.
Oslund: (Inaudible) that is all I have.
Hepper: Would these be under conditional use permit?
Oslund: Yes, as stated in the letter and it is also stated in the annexation application
that any use developing in this project would be under conditional use permit
procedures. But we are not requesting planned development, it is a business park with
everything conditional use permit.
Hepper: But any of those lots that back up to Franklin Square would come back to
Planning and Zoning for conditional use permit review for compatibility and everything
else?
Forrey: Yes as office uses, that is correct.
MacCoy: Let me clarify something you said that Lot 4 and 5 would be (inaudible)
Forrey: Block 4 and Block 5
Oslund: Did ACHD have any opinion about the 50 foot access over to Meridian?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 12, 1996
Page 25
Forrey: They have asked us to use I think it is I forget the citation I think it is on the plat
C3-NP-50 standard, it is a 3 lane collector no parking within a 50 foot right of way. They
are saying that as long as there is no parking it is signed that way then it can fit the
amount of traffic within a 50 foot right of way.
Oslund: (Inaudible) access to Meridian Road and
Forrey: Yes they do even with Corporate Drive, at this point they are telling us to put a
road through there. It is very possible that future development may change that but
that is the direction we have been given by the Highway District as of today.
Hepper: Any other questions? This is a public hearing is there anyone else that
wishes to testify?
Susan Kelly, 604 Pennwood, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Kelly: I apologize my comments are not formal, they are pretty much just informal from
what I have heard. I just want to state that my husband and I are the property that
adjoins this property that is about to be developed. We live on Pennwood Street. I
personally am very opposed to a major basically interstate that is going to come
through that property. When you open that area up and it becomes Pennwood it is
going to become a thoroughfare in front of our home. It is not set up, it is a residential
street, it will become like Franklin. Everybody that comes off the Boise interstate, I-84
will come through Pennwood to get to the following subdivisions therefore Franklin will
become almost non-existent our house will become a major interstate in front our own
ways. I would like you to research that and look at that. I would like you to know that
we are not opposed to a development in there. We are opposed to a development to
break open on Pennwood Street. I do not feel the whole subdivision is set up to take
that amount of traffic involved. I also am in question about the 35 foot landscape strip.
In spite of that if they break Pennwood open we are still going to have that major
(inaudible) As it is right now we have a lot of traffic that comes to the end of that street
that knows not where to go and therefore has to turn around in our yard and go back
the other direction. So I really would hope the committee would look at that that it is
not a good choice to break open Pennwood Street. Seriously I am not opposed to
them doing development I just do not feel that Pennwood Street is very good
(inaudible). We also are very concerned we are very long time residents we are very
concerned that the value of our property is going to go down as I am sure you would
understand. Anybody that lives on a major thoroughfare nobody wants to move in and
buy their properties. Thank you.
Hepper: I have a question, does Pennwood street in your subdivision connect to any of
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 12, 1996
Page 26
the other subdivisions is that a thru street or does that only?
Kelly: Pennwood dead ends at our house and it adjoins this property.
Hepper: What about on the other end of Pennwood?
Kelly: We are the dead end of Pennwood and Pennwood has been adjoined to the
other subdivision that was put to the west of us. So we are the older part of the
subdivision, we have been there quite some time.
Hepper: Okay, but Pennwood to the west does continue through?
Kelly: Yes it does and I can see why it would be a major factor in why they want to open
it up although it is not good for the residents on that street. Anything else? Thank
you.
Hepper: Anyone else that wishes to testify?
Jim Ballantyne, 10250 Whispering Cliffs Drive, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Ballantyne: I just wanted the residents on Pennwood to know that I sympathize with
their concern and the Pennwood Extension there is not our idea but it is the idea of
ACHD. If the traffic studies and the quality of the subdivisions, quality of life in the
subdivision to the west is affected by Pennwood and if you should decide that street
should in fact be blocked we would support the neighbors in that decision. Thank you.
Hepper: Any questions? Thank you? Anyone else?
Lawrence Rackham, 305 West Franklin Road, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Rackham: I was at the last hearing and I haven’t seen anything addressed to the
comments made there according to the canal and the set aside the canal that would
both be against the property that I own there and the safety factors involved should be
addressed there. Which also goes adjacent to the back of an apartment and the
safety factors involved there. On the west side of the complex just north of the street
that comes in off Meridian Road is an apartment complex that has families in there.
With the potential and the future plans that I might have for the property on Franklin
Road that is to the north of the canal almost straight through from the 5th Street section
depending on what we put on that property it would be necessary for the safety factors
for that canal barriers or whatever to be kept in mind so that it would be a safe and the
canal I don’t think has been a problem in the past, it is located away from the perimeter
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 12, 1996
Page 27
of the property. It has been out in the center, the idea of moving it to the border of
that property closer to surrounding properties as opposed to being isolated in the
middle of that piece of property is something that needs to be addressed.
Hepper: Okay now it is the Eight Mile Lateral that you are referring to?
Rackham: That is correct.
Hepper: As the canal?
Rackham: Correct
Hepper: You don’t agree with the relocation of the lateral?
Rackham: Well my question is what safety factors are being implemented in relocating
it first off? What impact would that have on the properties that it borders now that it
did not before this movement.
Hepper: We will have Wayne answer that. Depending on the size of that lateral if it is
small enough it would have to be tiled.
Rackham: It is too large for that. The piece coming off of Meridian Road that you see
behind the bowling alley is probably, Wayne what 12 (inaudible), 5 feet deep.
Hepper: Is that the one that is just south of the bowling alley.
Rackham: It crosses there, diagonally now and would be as proposed to make a 90
degree bend behind the apartment complex and go along behind the apartment
complex to the corner of the lot and then make the 90 degree bend bordering the other
properties there a mobile park and some other commercial buildings.
Hepper: We will have Wayne address that. (End of Tape)
Brian Hoff, 420 W. Franklin Road, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Hoff: Members of the Commission, we would just like to go on record as saying we are
concerned about that access way that we had been presented before. We do have an
access through there and the drive way does line up onto Franklin Road. It was
proposed to us that there would be a signal light there at some point and we want to
make sure that signal light is where our access is currently. We met with Wayne and
Jim Ballantyne, looked at some of the barriers of moving that access. We feel like there
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 12, 1996
Page 28
is some fair sized problems doing that. So we just want to make sure that is taken into
consideration that we do have adequate interest there now and would like to maintain
that.
Hepper: Any questions?
Oslund: I do, I guess then, Wayne made it sound like that Hoff was agreeable to
moving their entrance, is that not the case then?
Hoff: I think that we would entertain that we have not agreed to anything at this time.
There is a barrier right now with that power line. The last time that we met we thought
that maybe we could go east of that power line I mean further west and that was just
only an option. We know that we can’t go east we have some other barriers, an office
building there. Going west would split our property where that parking lot that we have
now and actually split some Franklin Road property.
Oslund: Can you back up a second and tell me where and maybe you don’t know,
where you entrance is in relation to where they are proposing to put an extension to
this street?
Hoff: Wayne might be able to help me, but I think it is almost exactly the center of that
leg that goes out. That is one of the problems from their standpoint is it splits their
property.
Forrey (Inaudible) Hoff access, the Highway District has asked that we push SW 5th
the new street as far west as possible right up next to the Hinkles and McCoy and that
conflicts with where Hoff would like it. So we have to work that out and especially with a
power line in there.
Hoff: Our other big concern is if there is a light there at some point we have about 300
people that go in and out of there each day. If you have a light that is off set of that
entrance safety considerations and just access is a problem.
Oslund: I think that is a critical issue it has to be addressed, I believe 300 I drive on that
road everyday going to and from work and (inaudible)
Hoff: And truck traffic too so if we did move that entrance we would have to move that
entrance all the way back to the plant to keep from having to turn and go in and turn
again.
Hepper: Anyone else wish to testify? Gary at our last meeting I think there was a
question about whether you had received all the written comments you need, is
everything (inaudible) that you need?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 12, 1996
Page 29
Smith: Mr. Chairman, we just received the comments tonight from the applicant, are
those the ones you are referring to?
Hepper: Well I don’t know, I think at the last meeting it was mentioned that there were
some comments from you and Shari that you needed some answers to. Apparently
you just received those tonight.
Smith: Yes, the applicant has addressed the comments that we made at our review
stage.
Hepper: Have you had a chance to review those?
Smith: I just read through them I haven’t compared them with what our comments were
so I can’t
Hepper: You are not really sure.
Smith: I can’t really address them.
Hepper: Have you heard, have you had a chance to contact ACHD and see if they
have any comments?
Smith: No I haven’t, Karen Gallagher was here this evening and she said that all the
rest of the items on the agenda are needing traffic study information before they will
make any comments on the project.
Hepper: Wayne would you like to readdress us?
Forrey: Mrs. Kelly’s comments are very good, those folks have lived there with a dead
end street for many years and now the Highway Districts wants to see an extension,
kind of what Erv Olen was talking about earlier tonight about transportation planning.
So we have been told for good transportation planning put a road through there and it
could hurt the neighborhood. From the Highway District standpoint you could take
right at the end of Penwood today, evidently in the area where Mrs. Kelly lives and you
could I believe get all the way to Linder Road interior through subdivisions. So the,
there is Ten Mile Creek I think that separates subdivisions in that area and there is no
bridge. So on the south side of Ten Mile Creek through new development you will be
able to use Waltman Lane and some others to get from Meridian Road over to Linder in
the future. On the north side of the creek there is no provision except to go out to
Franklin Road. So the Highway District says we would like to have some type of
internal linkage between Linder and Meridian Road. They indicated to us that
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 12, 1996
Page 30
Pennwood is that road. But as Jim said tonight if the City and the neighbors feel that
is inappropriate we would support that. It is only shown on the plat because the
highway district asked that it be shown. It doesn’t help the business park in any way
other than another access point for emergency vehicles, it does that. We have also
shown it as a 50 foot right of way not 60 feet, not to make it a collector type road. Mr.
Rackham’s comments again good comments. That canal is a major issue and Jim
Ballantyne is in the process of hiring an engineering firm right now to evaluate that. We
have met with Nampa Meridian Irrigation District some of their concerns were those 90
degree bends that are going to take major structures to take the water hammer effect
as that water turns. So there is going to be major expense in relocating that canal plus
fencing. The irrigation district requires substantial fencing for safety as well as to
delineate their easement. The canal today is open and directly on the south side of
Hope Arms apartments it goes from the bowling alley on the south side of Gem Avenue
right across the street and right on the south side of Hope Arms today. We would just
be adding more canal and that is a safety concern so we would be looking at the
fencing requirement there.
Hepper: Would that be fenced on both sides?
Forrey: Yes the irrigation district has indicated it would be fenced on both sides. Brian
Hoff is absolutely correct about the thorny problem we have to work out. I see the
answer coming in the reconstruction of Franklin Road. When those power lines are up
for relocation we have got a fresh chance to look at how those roads line up and also
today we don’t have the benefit of the final ACHD tech review and Commission action.
We go this Friday for tech review with ACHD, so we are going to have to sit down.
The Highway District has said to us we are not to damage Hoff and we don’t want to,
they are first and we don’t want to put a damage on them or disrupt their business. So
we have got to work that out. I see us doing that with ACHD and the Franklin Road
improvements. Does that help?
Shearer: Is that tech review Friday is that a public meeting?
Forrey: Yes it is.
Shearer: So these individuals that live there could go down and testify?
Forrey: I don’t think the Highway District notify people. I think they notify the engineers
and the applicants, it is a public meeting and yes it starts at 9 o’clock.
Shearer: Well if they have concerns about that street going through they should be
down there to protect their interest.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 12, 1996
Page 31
Forrey: Yes
Shearer: Those are the people that really make the decision on this.
Hepper: I think that is it, we will close the public hearing. What do you want to do?
MacCoy: Mr. Chairman I recommend that based on the material that was given us this
evening plus the ACHD material which has not been reviewed and still has to be
decided upon that we table this issue until our next meeting which is the April 9th
meeting.
Oslund: Second
Hepper: We have a motion by Commissioner MacCoy and second by Commissioner
Oslund to table this meeting until our next regularly scheduled meeting which is April
9th, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #12: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF
APPROXIMATELY 14 ACRES TO I-L FOR OLSON-BUSH NO. 2 SUBDIVISION BY
R-2 DEVELOPMENT:
Hepper: Is there a representative of the applicant?
Dave Roylance, 4619 Emerald, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Roylance: Mr. Chairman and Commission members my name is Dave Roylance, I am
a civil engineer, land planner representing the applicant. This project is located near
the intersection of Franklin and Eagle Road, just north and west of that intersection.
Bounded on the north by the Union Pacific Railroad tracks. The project contains 14.4
aces and has nine lots. We think it is supported by the Comprehensive plan. We
propose central sewer and central water and ACHD approved public streets. With that
can I answer any questions?
Hepper: Any questions? Have you seen the comments from the City Engineer?
Roylance: Yes I have
Hepper: Do you have any problem with any of those?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 12, 1996
Page 32
Roylance: No I don’t.
Hepper: Item number, on the site specific comments item 6, 60 foot wide stub street
needs to be extended toward Franklin Road are you aware of that?
Roylance: We have that shown on there now and
Hepper: That is a revised plat?
Roylance: It is and we just got that to the City this morning, we got the comments I
believe it was Thursday afternoon and made that change and resubmitted today. I
think what we will do however is pursue a variance to that. For now we have shown it
this way but I think we will file a variance and see how that goes.
Hepper: Do these lots come under a conditional use designation?
Roylance I think it was either this project or the following one Porky park, I saw that as
a comment from Shari and I wonder, is that typical for the City. I guess I have to ask the
question if this is rezoned and annexed.
Hepper: In the past it has been especially where there are other uses adjoining those
lots. It is up to the Council I guess to decide but typically that is what we have been
doing to try and preserve the compatibility make sure that whatever goes in is
compatible with the other property there that is not necessarily zoned the same way.
Roylance: Even if you had a building program that was a principle permitted use within
the zone, you still typically require a conditional use permit?
Hepper: Now as I understand it we have been haven’t you Wayne?
Crookston: I am not exactly sure where the property is Dave, is this near Crossroads
Subdivision?
Roylance: I am not sure of that, Franklin Road and Eagle Road, here in the lower right
had corner that is the intersection of Franklin and Eagle. North is to the top of the page
and Union Pacific Railroad, I will point it out. (Inaudible) Just as a clarification we are
not necessarily objecting to a conditional use permit on every lot, I guess I just need a
clarification so there is no misunderstanding later on.
Hepper: Those lots to the south those are Rural transitional, typically (inaudible)
different zoning designation to be conditional use to be (inaudible). I don’t know it is
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 12, 1996
Page 33
whatever you guys want to do. We will go ahead and get the rest of the comments
from the public and then let these guys discuss it. Any other questions? Anyone else
wish to testify on this project?
Guy Valentine, 2770 East Franklin Road, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Valentine: I have a visual aid, could I put that over here on this board? To give you
an idea (inaudible)
Hepper: If you submit this it becomes property of the City.
Valentine: Yes I would like it to be the property of the City. This over here are pictures
of the proposed Olson Bush No. 2 on the left, it is very picturesque and on this side is
Olson Bush No. 1 and that is what they have already started and now they want to put
another site right next to No. 1. If it is going to look anything like this we property
owners up here, there are several homes up here we are going to have to spend our
days looking down at these storage yards that are not screened, the parking lots that
are not paved, parking lots that are not screened and if you come to my house and look
out my deck at some of these things they have you can see, this here is from Eagle
Road all of these things here and Eagle Road and Franklin Road are entryway
corridors into our fine City. There has been absolutely no screening and no
landscaping and this is what is required in the comprehensive plan in the policies and
also in the zoning and development ordinances. I know that Olson Bush No. 1
development is not the subject that we are talking about tonight but this is going to
happen not only in Olson Bush No. 2 but they are talking about on the other side of
Eagle Road, Porky Park which is about 6 times bigger than these two, well four times
bigger than these two altogether and that runs right along Franklin Road. So what I
am getting at is we have a really problem with developing here and I would like to just
mention some things that I have. I have a letter to the Commission that I would also like
to enter into the record.
Hepper: Now Olson Bush No. 1 is that in the City limits?
(Inaudible)
Valentine: Do you want copies of these now?
Crookston: Are those for Olson Bush or Porky?
Valentine: (Inaudible)
Crookston: If you desire you can submit them for this hearing and then just ask to
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 12, 1996
Page 34
have them copied in the record for Porky if that is your desire, that is totally up to you.
Valentine: I would like to have them submitted for both. As concerned residents and
citizens I would like to represent my family and a few of my neighbors, we have
purchased our property primarily for the view. We want to protect our vested rights to
the same level of qualities or higher qualities that our environment afforded since we
purchased our property. Please do not allow an eyesore to live and grow in our
beautiful community. You mentioned the Crossroads Subdivision, yes Croosroads
Subdivision is right near this and also St. Luke’s hospital in Meridian the new facility
that they is within a 1/4 mile of this Olson Bush No. 2 which sets behind Olson Bush
No. 1. It is a very beautiful area, it is a beautiful intersection, it is a thriving area of
community and single family residences. We would like to keep it nice, we don’t want
to stop development but if they are going to do a project let them do it completely and
as best that they can according to the ordinances and comprehensive plan and just
plain common sense. It is a very scenic area, yes Olson Bush No. 1 is not the topic
this evening however if you look at the development today you will understand that we
are concerned and opposed to any further development unless and until this mess is
cleaned up. We have submitted pictures of Olson Bush No. 1 and the proposed site of
Olson Bush No. 2 for your review and for the record. As you can see Olson Bush No.
1 has not preserved the aesthetics of the area and severely damaged it. The visual
pollution is degrading to the neighborhood and degrading to the community as a whole.
We believe that most residents of the single family dwellings along Franklin Road and
within vision of these developments will not tolerate further development that poisons
our view of the sky and mountains and does not enhance our quality of life. This type of
insensitivity could be stopped cold with the help of concerned citizens and the Planning
and Zoning Commission and the City Council. Would you want to look at that garbage
everyday for the rest of your life? Most of these folks that live in those homes along
the rim they are older folks and they are soon going to be retiring. So they are going to
spend a good portion of their day looking out their window and I am sure they want to
look at something that is landscaped and screened. Now with Olson Bush No. 1 under
their belts these same folks (inaudible) degrade our beautiful area with Olson Bush No.
2 and Porky Park No. 1 developments. What (inaudible) do these folks offer to the
community (inaudible) and to the single family residents that overlook these
developments. They have submitted protective covenants that are apparently used for
the Broadway Place Subdivision as a guarantee of their intentions. We want to know
why they do not submit covenants that were used for Olson Bush No. 1? Were no
covenants prepared and if not why were no covenants prepared? On the other hand if
protective covenants were prepared for Olson Bush No. 1 why does the development
look like a junk yard and why are the conditions of the covenants not being enforced.
Do the conditions of those covenants permit such nonsense? If there were covenants
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 12, 1996
Page 35
prepared for Olson Bush No. 1 we want these developers to produce them for public
review. Under subsection 9-605 I of the City of Meridian zoning and development
ordinances protective covenants may be prepared and recorded as part of the
subdivision. However, the provisions within the protective covenants are enforceable
through civil action and local government units shall not be required to enforce these
provisions. I think that consequently the covenants will not give the community and the
residents of the single family dwellings that will be looking directly over these
developments the kind of assurances that we must be given concerning our vested
rights. Specifically we are requesting guarantees from the developers and owners of
all three developments. We request that these guarantees be in the form of a recorded
written commitment to the Commission and or the City Council and that the developers
and owners will develop establishments that are clean, quiet and free of noise, visual
pollution and hazardous or objectionable elements per the goal statements and policies
of the comprehensive plan, the zoning and development ordinances and per the
reasonable request of the community. And in particular the residents of the single
family dwellings and property owners that are directly affected. I find it odd that there
is no mention of the single family dwellings, the Meridian Academy school, the Snyder
lateral in the surrounding land uses description and I have a copy of that in the back of
your letter there that was in the application file. I would like to know why the seven
single family homes that are along Franklin Road rim are not mentioned (inaudible)
annexation of R2 development property his or her actions should be highly scrutinized
because they fail to provide the Commission and the community with significant
information. Specific issues that we request (inaudible) at this hearing and in their
written commitment to the Commission include but are not limited to number one, the
goal statements and policies of the comprehensive plan listed below. Number two,
zoning and development ordinances listed below. Number three, the definitions listed
below, and number four the concerns of any citizen of Meridian in particular the
residents of the single family dwellings and property owners that are directly affected.
I won’t go through everything in this but I will skip over some things. Number one the
goal statements and policies of the comprehensive plan, I would like them to address
the economic development policy 1.3, the land use goal statement which states all land
use development in the Meridian will be considered an asset to the community and not
detract from our quality of life. Policy 1.10U states that land use development must
promote the design of a attractive roadway entryway areas into Meridian will clearly
identify the community. In particularly residential policy 2.3U which stated that land use
development must protect and maintain residential neighborhood property values,
improve each neighborhoods physical condition and enhance its quality of life for
residents. Also, industrial policy 3.4 states that industrial uses adjacent to residential
areas should not create noise, odor, air pollution and visual pollution greater than
levels normally associated with surrounding residential activities. Eastern Eagle Road,
light industrial review area policy 3.14 and 3.16 U states the character and type of light
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 12, 1996
Page 36
industrial development should be harmonized with the residential uses in this area and
land uses within the Eastern light industrial review area must be clean, quiet and free of
hazardous or objectionable elements. I have particular concern with issues raised in
the community design section. The appearance of the City reflects a great deal about
the community and the people who live in it. “Appearance also greatly determines
whether or not the community is perceived as a progressive and active environment
and can play a very strong role in the economics of the area. A town that is attractive
will continue to draw shoppers, visitors, businesses and residents.” Nearby there there
has been talk of a power mall just within I guess a mile of there on the other side of the
freeway. If there is not a power mall going in there, there are three other corners right
there at Overland and Eagle that are going to be developed eventually into something I
don’t know what. On down the road toward Fairview there is talk of another, on the
other side of the Crossroads development there was talk of another shopping mall of
some kind. All around us is beauty and then you come to this industrial area, this right
in the middle of all of this beauty and we are not paying good enough attention to that
in my opinion at this time. This, the community identification policy 1.4 states that major
entrances to the City should be enhanced and emphasized. Unattractive land uses
along these entrances should be screened from view. The entryway corridor section
states that entryway corridors or arterial roadways entering the community that
introduce both visitors and residents to Meridian. City designated gateway arterials
include Franklin Road east and west entrances and Eagle Road north and south
entrances. Entryway corridors are a communities front door. It is acknowledged that
the corridors trees or lack thereof, commercial signage and site character provide the
first and often times the lasting impression of the entire community. Strong messages
are delivered to the travelling public and to local citizens alike. The communities
economic vitality, its willingness to ensure the safety and well being of the citizens, its
degree of concern for the natural environment and the respect citizens have for one
another are but a few of the messages. Therefore the entire community and most
specifically its governing bodies have the right and the responsibility to guide
development and redevelopment that occurs along entryway corridors. These words
are not mine I am taking them right out of the policy of the comprehensive plan and the
zoning and development ordinances. I cannot say things this well, but they do a pretty
good job. The entrance corridor goal statement under which policy 4.4U states that we
need to encourage landscape setbacks for new development on entrance corridors.
The quality of environmental goal statement policy 5.1U states that we need to
preserve the aesthetic natural resources of the Meridian area. Policy 5.2U is ensure
that all new development enhances rather than detracts from the visual quality of its
surroundings especially in the areas of prominent visibility. Number 2, the zoning and
development ordinances.
Hepper: Excuse me, is there any chance you can highlight some of these things.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 12, 1996
Page 37
Valentine: I will make it quick, I will get to the meat and potatoes.
Hepper: This letter gets rather lengthy.
Valentine: It does, it is going to take a lot years of my life staring out over continued
senseless destruction of our community and also there are going be a number of
visitors coming to our community travel up and down Eagle Road and Franklin Road
and for a lot of years to come. They are going to be looking at the decisions we make
tonight and so I want to make sure that everybody understands what, I know you are
not familiar with the area but I am because I am there every day and I look at it and I
know. It is a very vital economic area in my opinion.
Hepper: I guess I have kind of a quick question, there is a comment here from Shari
Stiles that Olson Bush No. 1 needs to be annexed to the City, so apparently it is not
part of the City right now. So apparently that was done by the Ada County Planning and
Zoning and the Ada County Commissioners.
Valentine: The whole thing needs to be annexed or just part of it? The Yanke part?
Hepper: Well the application for Olson Bush No. 2 is within the City limits, Olson Bush
No. 1 is in the County. So it kind of seems to me like you are scolding the wrong set of
people.
Valentine: Well no I am not, because in your recommendations to these developers
you state that since Yanke owns several lots that also needs to be annexed into the
City also and he is the major contributor to the eye sore over there.
Hepper: But if there are restrictive covenants that have not been enforced or met
maybe the County should be the ones to see that those have been.
Oslund: I would like to say something, I think the point he is trying to make is the same
people that did one are applying for two and he is questioning their credibility and I
hear that loud and clear. I don’t think we are trying to say cut it short we have heard
enough I think when you are telling somebody something you kind of sold us we are
going to look at it so if you could summarize.
Valentine: Okay, I will summarize,
Hepper: I think that we will all read the balance of this letter (inaudible).
Valentine: I know you will, I want to just say that our concerns (inaudible) but are not
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 12, 1996
Page 38
limited to the following. The preliminary plat for Olson Bush No. 2 subdivision that we
received via, I will skip over that, certified mail indicates that the Snyder lateral does
not boundary the development. The Snyder Lateral however is the west boundary and
lies adjacent to the south of the development. This adjacent portion of the Snyder
Lateral would also boundary the development on most of the Southern portion had they
purchased more than 14 plus or minus acres from James and Mildred Barnham. WE
believe that the subdivision is arbitrarily or artificially laid out to avoid being adjacent to
the Snyder Lateral to which it would naturally include. We also believe that the
subdivision is arbitrarily or artificially laid out to avoid being adjacent to the seven
single family dwellings between which a transition yard would be necessary for
protection and beautification. Both the community as a hole and we residents of the
single family dwellings in this area of immediate impact stand to lose a substantial
portion of our quality of life as a result of the developer’s avoiding the Snyder Lateral
and a necessary transitional yard. (Inaudible) require a buffer strip or zone along the
entire southern and western borders of the development. This will protect the seven
single family homes from possible undesired characteristics of the industrial
development. A buffer strip will also help to protect the aesthetics of Franklin Road and
Eagle Road entryway corridors. We also request the Commission to require the
remaining area south of the this development up to and including the Snyder lateral to
be reserved and designated as a transitional yard. This area would be a buffer between
conflicting land uses and would also protect the aesthetics of the Franklin Road and
Eagle Road entryway corridors. We request that the Commission require the
associates involved with the development of Olson Bush No. 2 to cover and enclose
with (inaudible) Snyder Lateral (inaudible) at their sole cost. Students from the Meridian
Academy and employees and visitors of both Olson Bush developments and nearest
residents of single family dwellings will be increasingly attracted and directed toward
contact with the potential hazard. We request the Commission, I will skip over that, we
request that the Commission require Olson Bush No. 1 developers owners and
associates to clean up and screen their junky development to demonstrate they
deserve to expand before any other development applications are approved. That
means pave parking lots and screen them, screen their storage yards or move them
inside or better yet take them to their own back yards and put them there. We want
the principles involved with this development to provide the Planning and Zoning
Commission and or the City Council with a written commitment regarding the above
issues and how they intend to implement or not implement those issues. We also
request that the Commission ask the developers to have conditional use permits for all
of these lots. In conclusion we would like to say that we are not against developing
our area. However we require community concern developments such as the New St.
Luke’s Meridian center which is 1/4 mile away from Olson Bush No. 1 and 2 and
Porky Park. We understand that St. Luke’s will develop vital land into soccer fields for
the community until the land is needed for other uses. This type of world class
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 12, 1996
Page 39
community consciousness is what we require of the developers of Olson Bush No. 1
and 2 and Porky Park developments. They call it Porky Park, will they make it look like
a park or a pig sty? That is all I have to say.
Hepper: Questions? Thank you.
Brad Miller, 3084 East Lanark, Meridian, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Miller: I represent the R2 development, I work for Ronald Van Auker. Mr. Valentine
has presented some inaccurate information. Olson Bush No. 1 was not developed by
R2 Development, Olson Bush 1 was developed by Mr. Olson and Mr. Bush. We
purchased 14 acres from Mr. Olson and Mr. Bush. Another thing that Mr. Valentine
who by the way called me, I have spoken to him on the phone three or four times and
he told me he was a strong supporter of the project, one of the two to speak in favor of
it and maybe he did. But the other thing he didn’t point out here he didn’t point out the
north side of Lanark which shows the building that we have developed, which there are
only 3 lots on Lanark that are in the City limits. The corner piece which is on the
northwest corner which is vacant right now and the tan building with two gray stripes
around it. I think that if you went over there and looked at that you will see that is a fine
looking building and a fine looking property. I also suggested to Mr. Valentine that he
go and look at some other developments that we have, I gave him a number of different
developments. I told him to go over to TK Avenue at Federal and Broadway where Big
O Tire is, B & D Foods, Mountain States Microfilm, JoAnn Fabrics, Idaho Candy, Gem
Distributing, (inaudible) and a new building we just did for Hertz equipment rental. I
think that you would find those are fine developments through there and you would be
proud to have those in your backyard. The eyesore that he is talking about across the
street has nothing to do with us, Olson and Bush sold off those lots individually. I know
of no CC&R’s that exist on the property. I looked through our ownership records when
we purchased the property and I see no CC&R’s. So the parcels are all individually
owned. So it has nothing to do with us, nothing to do with the 14 acres at the end of the
street. We appreciate the concerns that Mr. Valentine and the neighbors have and if
they will look at some of our other developments they will see that they are fine looking
developments and quality construction, quality tenants and I don’t know of any junk that
we have in any of those buildings that I suggested he go take a look at. If there are
any questions I would be happy to address them.
Hepper: Questions? Are you going to have CC&R’s in your phase?
Miller: Absolutely, we submitted those and said that they are going to be the same as
we have done on the Broadway West subdivision in Boise. I suggested that Mr.
Valentine go over and take a look at those and apparently he hasn’t.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 12, 1996
Page 40
Hepper: Would those require fencing of any construction areas or yards?
Miller: Absolutely, screened fencing.
Hepper: Paved parking areas?
Miller: Absolutely, and that is all included in the zoning ordinance for light industrial
zoning and we intend to fully comply with.
Hepper: What about the yards themselves will they be paved?
Miller: We pave all of our yards yes.
Hepper: The storage areas in the back of the buildings will be paved?
Miller: Every storage area that we have currently is paved yes.
Hepper: And this one would be the same?
Miller: Well one of the things to consider is we don’t know who is ultimately going to
move into those buildings which will be constructed there. Our anticipation is that we
will subdivide that property build the buildings and lease the buildings out. We will
continue to own the buildings which we do in most of our developments. At some point
we may sell one or two of the buildings off but we also have a high incentive to keep it
a nice looking area since we actually are the property owners.
Hepper: Would the restrictive covenants require the storage yards to be paved?
Miller: I think that is part of the zoning ordinance as it is. I can’t say right now if our
current CC&R’s for the Broadway has that in it. I am not opposed to that at all.
Hepper: I think inherently where they are sitting up so high that they really have a
birds eye view looking down on the backs of those buildings, so there is some real
potential there for people to keep the front of their building looking nice and the back is
where they store their stuff and of course that is right where these people are looking.
So I think there needs to be some incentive there to try to get these tenants or property
owners to try and maintain that. Certainly screened fences would be a part of it and
paving to keep the weeds down. Any other questions?
(End of Tape)
Valentine: I would just like to respond to some of the accusations that Brad Miller made
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 12, 1996
Page 41
against me personally. I spoke to him on the phone and I did tell him that yes I would
like to support his development and I asked him about the trash that is not being
screened out there and he told me that he tended to look right though it. It is not a
matter of building a building and put a few of your things in the back and no screening
them they haven’t built buildings, instead of building buildings on that lot they have
streamed their stuff all over the place. He says that he has nothing to do with that over
there, I think we all have something to do with that. If not he than who does have
something to do with that, it is his neighbors, it is a direct, well it is a direct, it is a
neighborhood, what more can I say. Thank you.
Oslund: I have a comment to you, it sounds like we have two issues. One is we have a
development that we are looking at and apparently they are not the same owner. We
can handle that at P & Z. We have an issue with some existing properties that are
maybe violating the zoning ordinance I don’t know. There is an enforcement officer
with the City that addresses those types of things, trash in yards and junk all over.
Except that is the in the County so you will need to, we are kind of in a tough spot and I
don’t know what the County has in terms of enforcement.
Valentine: Did they buy that whole are all of those buildings from Olson Bush No. 1?
(Inaudible)
Valentine: Had you bought previously and sold it off to them?
(Inaudible)
Valentine: Okay, but there is absolutely no screening of anything.
Shearer: That is in the County, we don’t have anything to do with the County.
Valentine: It is right next door.
Shearer: I sympathize with you it is a mess.
MacCoy: Mr. Valentine before you run away there, I think it is only fair that you did a
fair job here I think a good job of presenting your case. You understand it very well and
I think we all agree with what you had to say about wanting to live in a nice community
and have a good entrance way. You have heard us from the standpoint that there is
County and City involved in this thing. I think the (inaudible) highlighted that behooves
us to at least look into that to see what the County would do and I think you are
deserving of an answer for that. So thank you for your time.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 12, 1996
Page 42
Valentine: I can expect one then probably then.
MacCoy: I think we will (inaudible)
Valentine: Call me anytime, thank you.
Bill Tonkin, 2660 East Franklin Road, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Tonkin: I just wanted to affirm the comments made by Mr. Valentine and point out that
five of the 7 property owners that overlook the property are here tonight. I am certainly
not going to repeat everything he said, but I really think you understand the problem
and that we are merely reacting to something that has occurred and we certainly don’t
want it to occur again and I am sure you don’t either. We appreciate your time.
Hepper: Thank you, is there anybody else that wishes to testify?
Carl Schnebly, 2690 East Franklin Road, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Schnebly: I would like to take and reiterate the same expressions of Mr. Valentine and
I realize that we are on the verge of a lot of expansions and so on but I certainly don’t
agree with this proposal as stated. I furthermore feel if it is approved we are going to
have a lot of rubbish. I know that here some time ago that the Meridian garbage
collectors wanted to make a distribution area at the end of Pine Street which I believe
you all remember that. I am afraid something like this is going to happen, it don’t make
any difference what we do and I am certainly not in agreement in any way of having
that kind of a unit put down there and therefore I appreciate the fact that you people
have and your determination will be in our hands I know. Therefore I would like to say
that I am not in agreement with this.
Hepper: Thank you, is there anybody else that wishes to testify? Okay, Mr. Roylance?
Roylance: Thank you I will be brief here. I think we support exactly what the
neighbors said, we also can’t endorse that although this developer didn’t create that
and it is in the County. That is not at all what we are trying to represent here. In fact,
maybe one of the best ways to control that exact thing is annex it, bring it into the City
and put your own rules on it and you can do that. You can do that in a development
agreement and that is a requirement of this project is a development agreement and
that is the perfect instrument to include all of those kinds of protection and controls. It
can also do it at the design review stage and when the building permits are issued all of
that can be a condition that you screen this, do this. In fact Shari Stiles, no. 3 in her
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 12, 1996
Page 43
letter calls for 35 foot of setback on eagle Road and Franklin. So a lot of these things
that these people spoke either are addressed or can be addressed in tools that you
already have. If it is in the County you can’t control it. Thank you.
Hepper: Thank you
Dale Fletcher, 2730 East Franklin, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Fletcher: I agree with Mr. Valentine there but I am a little confused here. I thought we
were in the County, we did we become in the City?
Crookston: This is a request to be annexed.
Fletcher: That is what I thought, somebody stated that we were already, you have the
County and the City going together here. As far as I know right now we are in the
County.
Shearer: Yes (inaudible)
Fletcher: Okay, thank you very much.
Hepper: Anybody else wish to testify?
Oren Mayes, 5768 Marcliffe, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Mayes: I moved out on Franklin in 1963 and lived out there for 30 some years. Most
of that property along that rim of Franklin road was developed for subdivided off about
the time I moved out there. Then the people when they bought it same I knew when I
bought my farm that from the railroad to Franklin Road was almost even those days
was declared industrial property. There was no question it was going to be industrial
property. So when they built their home they knew they were going to build above an
industrial park someday it was going to happen. That is all I have to say, that these
people are complaining when they knew there was going to be an industrial park below
them, it is kind of ironic at the most.
Hepper: Thank you, is there anybody else that wishes to testify? Seeing none I will
close the public hearing.
Shearer: Mr. Chairman, I move we have the attorney prepare findings of fact and
conclusions of law for this project.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 12, 1996
Page 44
MacCoy: Second
Hepper: Mr. Shearer has moved that we prepare findings of fact and seconded by
Commissioner MacCoy, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Hepper: This will be sent on to our City Attorney and then will be back for our next
meeting to see what kind of restrictions the City attorney, what kind of legal issues
might be involved with it.
ITEM #13: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR
OLSON-BUSH NO. 2 SUBDIVISION BY R-2 DEVELOPMENT:
Hepper: Okay, we will open the hearing, do we have a representative, Mr. Roylance?
Dave Roylance, 4619 Emerald, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Roylance: Can I just say that all of the things I said at the other one be incorporated
into this public hearing I don't’ know that I need to add anything. With that are there any
questions?
Oslund: I have a question, probably the most basic, where did you get the name Porky
Park?
Hepper: We aren’t there yet.
(Inaudible)
Hepper: Thank you, is there anyone from the public that wishes to testify on this?
Guy Valentine, 2770 East Franklin Road, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Valentine: I would just like to have everything that I said before be entered into the
record, are there any questions?
Hepper: Thank you, does anybody else wish to testify or comment? Seeing none we
will close the public hearing.
Shearer: Mr. Chairman, I move that we table this until the next meeting when our
findings of fact and conclusions on this project come back.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 12, 1996
Page 45
MacCoy: Second
Hepper: That is to a date certain of?
Shearer: April 9th.
Hepper: Okay, we have a motion by Commissioner Shearer, and seconded by
Commissioner MacCoy to table this request until April 9th, all those in favor?
Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
FIVE MINUTE RECESS
ITEM #14: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR PORKY
PARK SUBDIVISION NO. 1 BY RON VAN AUKER:
Hepper: Is there a representative of the applicant?
Dave Roylance, 4619 Emerald, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Roylance: Mr. Chairman and Commission members as mentioned my name is Dave
Roylance I am a civil engineer and land planner representing the applicant. This
subdivision Porky Park is located at the NE intersection of Eagle and Franklin Road. It
contains 19 building lots and has 63.88 acres approximately. We propose central
sewer, central water, Ada County Highway District public streets built to their
standards. The project is in the City limits and as I understand it is already zoned Light
Industrial and General Commercial I think in portions of it. So we believe this is an
appropriate use for that zone. Apparently we are already in the City limits. Can I answer
any questions other than the name?
MacCoy: Do you have any answer for your name?
Roylance: Yes sort of, I don’t know if it is an answer but Ron Van Auker has kind of an
odd sense of humor which I can associate with. I just asked him what do you want to
call this we need a name and he looked right at me and said Porky Park and then
laughed, I said really and he said yes. I am hoping it is not referring to me but I don’t
know.
Oslund: Does he intend to market it with that name or just to file a plat with that name?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 12, 1996
Page 46
Roylance Well he did Donkey Park and he marketed it that way. I guess if that is
objectionable to the City, that is the answer I got that is exactly what happened. So, I
said we are going to be fielding a lot of questions and a lot of people on why is it called
this. I don’t know if it is going to be a serious concern or more of a tongue in cheek but
it is going to come up a bunch, can’t we just give it a name of something else and move
on. He said keep it at that.
Oslund: I would appreciate a sense of humor if it wasn’t on the gateway to the City.
Well personally I can’t speak for the City on the whole but me personally I would like to
see a better name. I think it kind of flies in the face of what the intention is here and that
is to produce quality development and try to improve the quality of the City. With a
name like that on the gateway more than a 1/2 mile from a quality development like the
hospital there I think it would be great to see the name changed.
Roylance: I will take that back to him, it was meant to be disrespectful to the City or
anybody it was kind of a joke I think.
Shearer: (Inaudible)
Roylance: I will talk with him I don’t think he is all that hung up on necessarily calling
that. If it is objectionable we can understand that and change it.
MacCoy: I wish you would take Greg’s comments seriously though because his
comments are very true. Most of us probably all of us feel that way.
Roylance I will do that, I will take that right back to Mr. Van Auker, I am pretty sure that
we can get that changed. I, for awhile I went along with it and then I left them on the
desk for quite some time with that name on it called and gave him three or four chances
to change it. I think he was just busy and didn’t take the time to do it. We will take it
serious and I will take it up with Mr Van Auker. I am sure that we can get it changed.
Oslund: Tell him we laughed at first and (inaudible).
Crookston: Just a comment it could be worse.
Shearer: Do we have four commercial lots on the corner is that (inaudible).
Roylance: I am not exactly sure where the zone changes but as I understand it
somewhere along Franklin. I think part of that if not all of that is commercial and I
believe as it joins the railroad tracks I believe that is industrial and exactly where the
dividing line is I am not sure.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 12, 1996
Page 47
Hepper: Have you seen the comments from Shari Stiles and the City Engineer?
Roylance: Yes I have, I was just reviewing them again. I don’t think we have any
problems with any of those requirements.
MacCoy: I raised the question about the exit out of your Lot No. 2.
Roylance: We propose providing access to that lot through an easement on one of the
adjoining lots. We don't’ yet know which one. It has been our experience on these
industrial parks that a lot of times one person will come in and buy two lots and the
whole problem goes away. I will go to the map, (inaudible) as the property develops
and as the users of the building and the foot prints and all of those things are known
that is how we tend to take care of that is through an easement for the adjoining lots
and there are three to choose from.
MacCoy: (Inaudible) otherwise there is no access.
Roylance: I think maybe the place to say that would be on the final plat, it might not be
resolved assuming we go to final plat and we get approved, it might not be resolved by
the time we present the final plat but we can put a note on the plat that access to Lot 2
would be provided by a 30 foot access easement impacting either lot, 3, 4 or 5 or
whatever and then I think that would cover it.
MacCoy: I would accept that, something has to be on there because you already had a
note on No. 4 (inaudible)
Roylance: We can take care of that like I said if that is acceptable.
Oslund: Has this gone through the ACHD tech review?
Roylance: No it is just about to, both of these projects are about to get on their agenda.
We think it will (inaudible) preliminary discussions with them prior to preparing this but
it has not been to their tech review yet.
Oslund: In those preliminary discussions did they talk at all about the number of
accesses on Franklin Road? I am concerned that you have (inaudible) fairly close to
the Eagle Road intersection.
Roylance: I didn’t go myself so I don’t know if that was discussed or not. If they deem
that to be inappropriate we will just have to change pretty much flat and simple. I think
the first one is just east of Eagle Road is probably okay. They might come to the
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 12, 1996
Page 48
conclusion that the other two are not needed in which case we could call this
(Inaudible).
Oslund: Once you get the final plat for this, what is the intent in terms of developing,
you are going to sell the raw parcels off or are you going to develop similar to. This is a
different owner than R-2?
Roylance: This is Ron Van Auker and maybe Brad can correct me if I am wrong, but
typically what Mr. Van Auker does, I have done a lot of work with him over the years, he
finds a tenants that wants a building and then he builds a building and then leases it to
them but he maintains ownership usually and controls it.
Oslund: You said that you have no problem with any of Shari’s comments including
item 6 which would require a conditional use permit?
Roylance: Maybe I am looking at the wrong one here. I guess the same comment as
before, I don’t know necessarily that I am opposed to it. Maybe it is good that you
brought that up, again I am questioning, if we propose a building that is a principle
permitted use within the zone typically conditional use permit isn't’ required. At least
that has been my experience. So I would wonder why we would here unless it was a
use that was only allowed under a conditional use permit. It would see awkward to
come in, it seems to me that is why you have zoning, you say okay here is the zoning,
under that zoning as a principle permitted use you are allowed to do these 15 things.
If we do those 15 things typically you don’t do a conditional use permit. Is that right?
Oslund: From my point of view, my concern is that and that is why I asked what is going
to happen with these parcels because we lose a little control, we have no way of having
somebody come back and to give you an example. If you were to cut this up and create
10 commercial lots and then sell those lots and then all that would be required is a
building permit application after that point there is no way to control in a material way.
Roylance: Don’t you have a design review process?
Oslund: It is not going to come back to P & Z though.
Shearer: P & Z doesn’t get it back staff does. If it comes to P & Z (inaudible).
Oslund: The public has no way of testifying about the specific issues that might come
up. This one, Porky Park we haven’t heard the public speak there may be people here
with concerns in a similar way across the road there. That is my concern, I don’t know
that we can use a conditional use permit in this case. But that is the situation at least I
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 12, 1996
Page 49
find myself in. Once we sign this off we don’t even know who these users are going to
be and you say the owner typically retains the land in his ownership (inaudible).
Roylance: Typically, he doesn’t always do that, but that is typically his style of doing
things. It does seem awkward quite frankly to ask for a conditional permit on each and
every lot if it is an allowed use in the zone. I want to be cooperative by nature but to
me I would have to oppose that. That sounds (inaudible) on the other hand I think you
can deal with those issues in a development agreement, I think that is part of this. I
haven’t done it myself because I am not an architect I am an engineer I don’t get
involved that much in the building part of it as far as getting the permits, is there not a
design review process when somebody comes in with a building and they want to get a
building permit doesn’t the building department look at the landscaping requirements,
the screening and all of that and you can instruct staff as to what to do as those
buildings come through. It would seem to me that you do have the controls already.
Crookston: We do have some controls in the building process, if it is an allowed use
we don't’ have conditional use requirements unless the owner or developer agrees to
that. And of course if they wanted to do a planned development than that does require
a conditional use permit.
Roylance: We are not presenting that and the reason is we don’t know the building
program yet so we can’t go with a planned development. We would rather work with
you on the issues. After we hear from the public here if screening is required in certain
areas I think we would rather deal with those issues head on and incorporate
reasonable things into the development agreement, that would be our desire.
Hepper: Any other questions? Thank you, Anyone else wish to comment?
Guy Valentine, 2770 East Franklin Road, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Valentine: Everything that I said before about Olson Bush development No. 2 I would
like to have my letter entered into the record and my pictures entered into the record. I
would like to say that there are a number of people that live across Franklin Road and
from this development. If you do not require this developer to have conditional use
permits than these people are not going to have a chance to speak where their lives
are concerned in the future. If what they propose to do at the time they want to
develop these things is okay and kosher than there should be no problem for the
hearing for the conditional use permit it should be a nice smooth process. So what I
am asking for is to give these folks the guarantees that they deserve and require them
on this project to obtain conditional use permits for whatever they intend to do. That is
all I have to say, are there any questions? Thank you.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 12, 1996
Page 50
Hepper: Thank you, anyone else wish to comment?
Pat Nations, 4010 East Franklin Road, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Nations: I kind of agree, I do agree with most of Mr. Valentine’s concerns. I have a
major concern since my property lines the entire length or width of their subdivision. I
have a residential home there and I have a horse business there. My concerns are
that the noise and everything is going to be really tremendous for my animals. I have
a breeding farm and I would like to, well let’s see here, I am also representing Mr.
Kenny Ellis who lives down the street and the Carson’s that own the property next to
me. But my concern is that I would like to propose and ask to have, I am not against
the subdivision at all but I want to cushion it against my property and my business.
What I would like to do is first of all I would like to request an 8 foot wall from the tracks
all the way to the front of my property along the side. That I would like to have
between 6 to 8 feet from my property landscaped and with a sprinkler system to take
down and cut the weeds and to make it pretty and keep fire from coming there. The
reason I am concerned with that is because when Mr. Mayes owned the property next
to me he kept it plowed, there were never any weeds, there were weeds but he kept the
fire hazard down. Right now the weeds go past the fence, if any of that catches on fire
my animals have had it. It is a big concern for me, I may be in County still and they are
in City but it is still a concern to me and my animals and my house which is very close
to that fenceline too. This fence I would request it to be, it an can bermed partway and
then fenced but I would like not to be wood, I would prefer it not to be wood rather.
Because I want it to be a safety for my animals, it will have to be maintained and
everything if it is wood. So there would have to be a different alternative to that. Let’s
see, we need turn out lanes into the subdivision so the traffic does not back up into my
property or back up to my property in front of the road there where I go into my
property. I would like it to go both directions, a turn out lane. I would like it put in the
record that I would like setbacks from the back lot lines that will be sufficient enough to
ensure my privacy. I also would like to ask that I want the noise restriction so as not to
disturb my brood mares and my mares with babies particularly in the evening to the
mornings. I would like to sort of put a noise restriction on where the night shift work is of
loud nature that is not of loud nature. I also would like to know what the intent is of the
drainage ditch in the back that goes along, I don’t know what the name of it is but it
goes along the back side on our side of the property it is where the railroad tracks are
at. A lot of the people, there are not that many of us, but a lot of us their animals drink
from that. Our concern is if you stop your subdivision right there which is what it is,
what would they put in this ditch that might harm our animals down the road, we don’t
know. We would want to make sure that it is taken care of so that our animals don’t die
from the pollution that could go into it. I am not against this subdivision I just want it to
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 12, 1996
Page 51
be pretty and a nice entryway. It does say a lot for our homes in there and there are a
few of us that still have farm homes there. My business is very important to me, I do
work for Micron so I have a second source but my horses are very important. I do want
to conserve and try to keep anything from really interfering with them. That is all I
have to say, do you have any questions?
Hepper: Thank you, anyone else?
Lyle Bear, 3975 East Franklin Road, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Bear: I have property just across the south side of the of Mr. Van Auker’s. I just want
to go on record stating I have no problem with the development going in there. I have
lived there about 6 years and it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to realize that corridor
was going to be developed. My only concern is if Mr. Van Auker was going to develop
all of that and maintain ownership I would have no problem because I have seen some
of his developments and he does a fine job. My concern is if he sells some of these
parcels off what control do you have on what is being put in there. That is all I have.
Hepper: Anybody else? I will close the public hearing.
Shearer: Mr. Chairman, I move we have the attorney prepare findings of fact and
conclusions of law on this project.
Crookston: Oh, I would probably like to but this is a plat.
(Inaudible)
Shearer: I withdraw my motion.
Oslund: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion that we table this particular item until the 9th of
April pending the comments from ACHD.
MacCoy: Second
Hepper: Okay we have a motion from Commissioner Oslund and second by
Commissioner MacCoy to table this until April 9th, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Shearer: Before we continue on I wonder if we could have Mr. Roylance or one of the
owners on these last two projects bring forth their covenants for these that they are
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 12, 1996
Page 52
going to draw up for these plats for our next meeting so we can review them.
(Inaudible)
Shearer: Okay they have already been submitted, we will get a copy of them then.
Thank you.
ITEM 15: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR
A GROUP DAY CARE BY CRYSTAL MARTINEZ:
Crystal Martinez, 1432 W. Carlton, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Martinez: Okay, I wanted to address some of the conditions that Shari, I was just
handed this tonight so I wrote a couple of things down. I have never done this before so
if I am off track interrupt me. On here she puts one of the conditions of this is
maximum of twelve children less if determined by the Fire Department and this includes
my own children. I want to know, I have a fourteen year old daughter I want to know if
that includes children up to a certain age or under a certain age limit or if there is some
kind of?
Crookston: I believe it only pertains to children who are 12 or younger, I would need to
look at that but I think that is true.
Martinez: That is fine, I will also, I want the City of Meridian to realize that I will be
applying for a State license and through the State and talking to Jim Rabbit and Shari
they have directed me and Diana Rich out at Department of Health and Welfare have
all told me that when I apply for my State license because I am applying for a group day
care here in Meridian that they are one in the same and no difference. So a State
license will require me to also have a center license which would require me to be
allowed through the State to have 13 plus children if I wish to. Now I want to know what
kind of conflicts this has with the group day care as far as, I have heard from Jim and
Shari it is not conflict. So I want to make sure that is on record and that there is
something done about that if that is true the case I would like to know about that.
Crookston: There is a conflict, to my knowledge anyway. It is my understanding if you
have a State license they count the children at, there are 12 or under there at let’s say
8:00 in the morning and come back and check again at 5:00 so long as there are only
12 children the State doesn’t care. The City of Meridian says those 12 children cannot
be different children so that means you couldn’t have 12 at 8:00 and they change and
some kids go home and then you accept other kids that might be as far as Meridian
ordinance is concerned that might mean 18 children.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 12, 1996
Page 53
Martinez: I understand that part of it, but that is why I am saying I have had this
conversation back and forth and I don’t even know this is the appropriate style to
discuss it in but with Jim Rabbit and Shari both and this Diana Rich, that didn't’ seem
right to me either so that is why I am bringing that up because I want to make sure I am
doing everything legal and everything in the proper manner as far as the City of
Meridian is concerned. I want to make sure that if a center conditional use permit is
what I need to be applying for than that is what I need to be applying for because that is
what I intend to do. Not at this time, I am not doing that right now but if indeed I want to
come back and do that after I get my 12 children in my day care facility then do I need
to reapply because I asked Mr. Rabbit this and he said that I would have to come up
with another X amount of dollars to redo this again when in all reality my main intention
was to do this, but he said there was no difference. So it makes it really difficult on me
to have to redo this all again.
Crookston: I understand and I very much appreciate your questions because I think it is
very appropriate to have answers. We went through this 7, 8 or 9 years ago and what
the City had done which is the way our ordinance reads that they count the total
number of children in there during the day. It doesn’t matter whether, if you have 12
kids at 8:00 and there are 12 different kids at 5:00 per Meridian’s ordinance you have
24 kids.
Martinez: I understand that and you have made that perfectly clear. I just want to
make sure that my questions are answered after this. I feel like I am kind of being
mislead in a way so I want to make sure I am getting those questions answered. The
second thing that Shari puts on here is to secure and maintain an Idaho State License
a day care facility license. Now, if that day care license is pending does that allow me
in the City of Meridian to operate with 5 or few children until licensed or do I then
operate from 7 to 12 until licensed, what is my conditional use permit play in that?
Crookston: You would have to have in order to have any number of children that is less
than six you would have to have I can’t remember the name of it, an accessory use
permit but it is for five or less kids.
Martinez: The State doesn’t require you to have a license I know that for five or fewer
and as far as I was told again was five or fewer children you are not required other than
to pay the $80 for the conditional use permit for the five of fewer children.
(Inaudible)
Martinez: Is that the accessory use permit, so anyway, so I want to know what I can do
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 12, 1996
Page 54
from here so I can start operating and I can start doing this as this is going (End of
Tape) certificate of occupancy prior to obtaining and meeting all requirement of the
Meridian Fire Department. I don’t know what that means, certificate of occupancy
what, I am sorry?
Crookston: That is a permit that is, let me back up for a minute. Are you going to
operate out of your home and you already live in your home, you would just have to get
a certificate of occupancy to be able to use the home as a day care. The building
department here can do that.
Martinez: Okay, it says provide screen to adjacent residential properties to lessen
impact of noise, now does that screening include just my normal fence? I am wondering
are we talking walls here, what do I have to put up?
Crookston: Well Crystal I don’t know, I think that the building department you should
ask that.
MacCoy: Before you leave that question, I was out at your place and took a look, one of
the question I had here, do you plan to rebuild that fence or strengthen it.
Martinez: I just moved in six months ago, I purchased the house six months ago and I
think you will find if you ever drove by the house prior to that you will find that several
changes have already been made to the property. Yes I do plan on making it look a lot
nicer.
MacCoy: I talked to Shari maybe that is where her question came from, I said the fence
is in the state of needing some repair work.
Martinez: Right, and I have property bordering all sides of my, except for the front of
course. So I already talked to my neighbors about because they are required to pay for
half and I am required to pay for half and it would be a three sided bill basically one
fence down this way, one in the back and one fence this way. The only other thing I
have here for you guys is off street parking, I lied I have a couple things, off street
parking does that mean just strictly my driveway RV parking type area or is that I want
to make sure where I am telling parents to drive up what exactly does that pertain to as
far as off street as for at the (inaudible).
Hepper: That would be the driveway in front of the garage? Have you got a two car
garage?
Martinez: I have a one car garage and RV parking on the side.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 12, 1996
Page 55
Hepper: For one?
Martinez: Well there are four vehicles that can fit, actually two in my driveway, and two
in the RV parking, it is long enough for two complete vehicles to fit. So I have four
actually parking spaces, I park my car in the garage.
Hepper: How many can park side by side?
Martinez: Two. I have a pool in my backyard and that is addressed in number 6 in
Shari’s thing. She suggest that I put an automatic lock (inaudible) I want to let you
know this, I don’t know if all of you have children or grandchildren or whatever but I will
tell you right now I have a two year old girl and she sees me do something once or
twice and she has figured it out. To me myself personally I would not feel with an
automatic locking gate knowing that I just have to press a button or unlock it in some
way, shape or form where my two year old could do it just as easily. I think the best
opportunity for children not to get into my fenced pool area is a master lock with a key,
the key put up high enough where the children cannot reach it, where I hang all of my
keys. I think that would be the best option right there. Children are very bright, very
smart, very intelligent so I think they will figure that one out real quick.
Shearer: How high is your fence?
Martinez: It is four feet high all the way around the pool. There is one area where it is
six feet high because I have a deck all the way around my pool and that area that is six
foot high is from the ground up but it is at four feet high level.
Shearer: Those automatic locks are not good unless you have about a five fence fence
and put it up high where kids can’t reach it.
Martinez: When you are talking about taking care of kids that are like before and after
school age too they are tall nowadays they are not short so they can reach those
things. The other thing, number 7 I am willing to comply with that as far as keeping up
with my water payments and all of that. I don’t have any other questions, I went through
everything else (inaudible) I am sorry I made that kind of lengthy I was just told that. I
guess in front of the wood stove, the Fire Department made a comment that I need to
have a screen in front of it, I do have a screen but it is a removable screen it can fall
over or whatever. It is a wood stove, I have never used nor do I plan on using it. Again I
have a two year old and there is that hazard of her touching it and burning herself.
Other than that, that is the end of my comments as far as this goes. If you have any
questions I would be free to answers those if you would like.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 12, 1996
Page 56
MacCoy: I have a couple more, what are your hours of operation?
Martinez: My hours of operation I am going to try to operate for those parents that are
having awkward hours, basically from 5:00 A.M. in the morning until 6 P.M. in the
evening. I have talked to all of my neighbors about these hours, most of them work
pretty much those hours early in the morning, a lot of people are working 12 hours
shifts now at Micron unable to find day cares that will open up early enough and there
is a substantial need for that kind of hours.
MacCoy: Do you plan to have any handicapped children under your command there?
Martinez: I don’t plan to have any handicapped children, I think it is going to be
endangerment my house is not equipped for it first of all.
MacCoy: I noticed when I was there you had a, a dog was there, is that your dog?
Martinez: I have a dog, I have a german shepherd, she has been obedience trained,
she gets along well with children. There is a kennel strictly for Louie to stay in. She is
not in harm of any of the children and they are not in harm of her. Matter of fact she
stays in my fenced pool area until summer hits and then she goes in the kennel and I
do have a separate fenced kennel area and I have marked that off in my drawing that I
believe you all have received of my property.
MacCoy: I just noticed the area that you indicated as kennel (inaudible)
Martinez: On the side of the family room. There is a fence that goes in front of that with
a padlock on it also.
MacCoy: The day I was there he was in the regular play yard and then the kennel
looked like it had a lot of debris.
Martinez: Yes she left me behind quite a bit of junk wooded stuff. So I have tried to haul
it all off little by little but because I don’t own a truck and I am single I have to depend
on my brother to pick it up for at his convenience.
MacCoy: That is all I had right now.
Crookston: I am sorry Mrs. Martinez, I do not have the application right in front of me
what is the address of your property?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 12, 1996
Page 57
Martinez: 1432 West Carlton.
Hepper: What is the age range of the kids you will be watching?
Martinez: I am going to go from zero to 11 years old and I will only have one infant per
adult. I plan on hiring somebody else to help me also as another adult. So I am going
to go from zero to 11, I will have before and after schools kids because I am walking
distance from Meridian elementary.
Hepper: Do you feel that a four foot fence around the pool is adequate height to keep
kids of that age out.
Martinez: I feel that a fence with an adult out there is adequate to keep any child out.
If they are being supervised and the children will not be allowed outside without
supervision. I think that is only proper.
Hepper: So whenever there is only one child out in the play area there will be an adult
out there?
Martinez: I plan on having activities so number one there will never be a case where
there will be one child outside strictly because I am one adult and I can’t be everywhere
at one time. So the activities will be structured in a sense that everybody will eat lunch
at the same time, everybody will be watching a movie at the same time you know type
thing except for my infant of course and that type of thing.
Hepper: Any other questions?
Crookston: Are you going to have an assistant or an employee?
Martinez: Yes, I plan on hiring an assistant, as a matter of fact Tammy White is here
with me tonight, she has run a day care for eight years out of her own home years ago.
She is quite experienced and I have known her since we were 7 years old so this
would be the person that I plan on trusting in my home with the kids.
Crookston: And you would always have this system whether it is Tammy or someone
else?
Martinez: I plan on doing that yes. I know that one of the provisions is that you have to
have, I think Jim told me that separate parking for that person.
Hepper: Okay, thank you very much.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 12, 1996
Page 58
Crookston: Let me just, sorry, I think your questions are great, I wish more people that
were going to do this would ask those questions, thank you.
Hepper: Okay, this is a public hearing, does anyone else wish to comment?
Shirley Marino, 1037 Washington Place, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Marino: I live right behind where the day care so my whole back side of my fence is
her back yard. I have never spoken to her so I don’t know that the only thing that she
had going on. Day cares are noisy no matter if you have four kids or twelve. I didn’t
want my back yard to become a day care and that is exactly what it would be because
of all the children there and my back yard. It is all single family homes in there, I didn't’
think it was set up for businesses I consider this a business. I think that will down my
property value, I have lived in my home for 23 years I don’t plan to move out of it, I like
Meridian. But if I ever chose to I would like the option given the value that my home
should be and I think a day care in my back yard practically I think would lower that.
Carlton Street is a street that is nobody really has to travel it if they live on it. If you put
a day care there then you have a lot more traffic on there that you normally wouldn’t
have to have for a residential area. I have noticed in the last few days because after
getting the letter and realizing what was really going on over there that there is not
supervision in the backyard when there are children out there. Now that is only the
few times I have seen them I an not constantly looking over there but the times before I
go to work and such. My concern also was the four foot fence because the children
were playing with a ball one day and it hit over into the pool area and the dog
happened to pick it up. So they were sticking hands in and petting the dog and it didn’t
seem to bother them at all, but I thought that was a concern. I told you those are my
few concerns I hope you will think about them for (inaudible). Thank you.
(Inaudible)
Hepper: Let’s wait and see if anyone else has any comments. Anyone else?
Martinez: I just wanted to address some of her concerns and she has some very valid
concerns. Number one her fence line does not, I am correct in assuming that you live
right along my back fence line and there is a fence that comes here so your whole
backyard is half of my back yard. It is a 6 foot high fence so I can barely see the top of
her house, I am not quite sure how she has seen into my back yard because the fence
is like this there are no holes. As far as the comments, like I said I don’t want to hinder
any of me neighbors. I am a very friendly person I have never met this person however
but I would be happy to address any of her concerns on a regular basis if she were to
ask me about those concerns that she has. First of all I don’t plan on moving out of
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 12, 1996
Page 59
there either I plan on living there quite a while and I would just like to say that if she
works those normal business hours that most people work than she will not be home
during that time. I am not sure if she is a single parent and stays home with her kids or
whatever the concern is. I would be happy to work with those in any way, shape or
form. I don’t plan on making a loud noisy thing back there, (inaudible) so I think they
need a place to go that is safe and protective. Thanks.
Hepper: Okay, anybody else? Seeing no one I will close the public hearing. We
need findings on this.
Shearer: Mr. Chairman, I move we have the Attorney prepare findings of fact and
conclusions of law on this.
MacCoy: Second
Hepper: Okay, Commissioner Shearer has motioned and Commissioner MacCoy has
second that we have the City Attorney prepare findings, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #16: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
FOR A LEARNING CENTER FOR 50 STUDENTS BY MILLSTREAM PROPERTIES:
Charles Haacke, Salt Lake City, Utah, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Haacke: I am here to propose a project and I have some permitted tenants already
involved that being H & R Block an administrative office. The reason why I bring this up
even those this is a conditional use for the learning center is it affects the size of the
building. I have another layout of the building. I don’t know if you guys received
copies of the site plan from Shari Stiles but there are two phases shown, one and two.
Here I have both phases together, the top portion of 6900 feet is basically your phase 1
showing that he had a first. The reason why I am addressing this is the learning center,
one of the things brought up by Shari Stiles was if we did phase 2 how many more
students we are going to be bringing on and it would be (inaudible) we would basically
move the learning center and the administration to the second phase. Move H & R
Block to the front and have the other offices for lease, insurance offices or other
permitted uses. Backerboard doesn’t travel well on the planes, I apologize for that.
The school basically stresses achievement as far past as the students can achieve on
their own. One of the things that Shari brought up was wanted to know age groups,
number of students. We actually have offices right now in Nampa where there are 35
total students. Five of them being in a beginning class and age ranges of 5 to 8 years
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 12, 1996
Page 60
old. Junior classes in the ages of 9 to 12 there are 10 students and 20 student seniors
ages of 13 to 17 years old. She also expressed a (inaudible) for the existing tenants
we are proposing 20 employees, that being almost a quarter H & R Block is actually a
seasonal office. During the tax season, January 1st to April 15th we have seven to ten
employees there and that reduces down to zero after April through December. The
administrative offices we have (inaudible) working the non tax season and up to four
during the tax season at that location. So at the maximum load 35 of that being 20
students and just to express that 20 students are dropped off and picked up very few
are of age to even be driving. Any questions?
MacCoy: I went out and looked at the site (inaudible) I think the area is a good area
for you to be into it is a location that I think is well suited to what you want to do
(inaudible). Looking at your layout I thought it had good possibilities. I raise the
question, do you plan to have any handicapped children in this building?
Haacke: We currently don’t have any handicapped children in Nampa and don’t plan on
advertising for them. I understand buildings the new buildings that everything needs
to be handicapped accessible as far as my knowledge. We don’t plan on it.
MacCoy: If you had to you could retrofit later which would be costly.
(Inaudible)
Haacke: (Inaudible)
MacCoy: By the way have you looked at her sheet that she has?
Haacke: I have, I didn’t know if you wanted me to, being as late as it was, express
each issue but I plan on meeting each and every one of the drainage and fencing
requirements, fire related issues, bringing it all up to UBC standards.
MacCoy: I had requested information on external security lighting because I felt that
type of facility you had and the location that you need that for sure for your own safety
as well as (inaudible). You just told us how many (inaudible) on your phase one.
Haacke: Yes, what was the question for phase one?
MacCoy: Any youth during phase one (inaudible).
Haacke: Basically I will only do phase one if conditional use on the learning center is
denied. Then the learning center will be omitted and H & R Block the administrative will
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 12, 1996
Page 61
be there and the rest will be tenants. So I will have the foot print of phase 1 irregardless
of the conditional use.
MacCoy: What kind of building material do you plan to use?
Haacke: I am planning on having it stick framed, type 5, one hour with 5/8 inch gypsum
board, stucco and the upper areas is (inaudible) with steel rib roofing, glass front and
various glass around the perimeters.
MacCoy: I would assume that (inaudible) your refuge area was not fenced before.
Haacke: We presented that on the site plan being on the east of the project and have
kind of, the reason why you didn’t get this is we kind of, the more we thought about it it
made sense to do the full phase if we have conditional approval and move that around
towards the rear and close that in, cinder block enclosed fence type enclosure, 6 feet
tall to visually secure.
Hepper: Would the street to the end of your property be paved?
Haacke: Are we talking about 4th Street West? Currently that is unpaved, I am not
sure. I do most of by building in Salt Lake and along Wassatch front and I am pretty
sure that second hand ADA will probably require us to pave the whole side and even
possibly curb and gutter I have heard.
Hepper: You haven’t gotten your comments back from them?
Haacke: I haven’t put in for a building permit and (inaudible) based on not completely
obtaining the blue prints depending on the phase one or two.
Hepper: I am pretty sure the highway department will require you to pave that to the
end of your property, probably have curb gutter and sidewalk.
Haacke: I have heard that expressed but haven’t had any.
Hepper: I guess that is all we have then.
MacCoy: What does PHP.HP stand for on your drawing? You haven’t got a key that
shows (inaudible) property line and so on.
Haacke: I was trying to go through that myself, I am not sure if we can’t rectify that with
all the other concerns of Shari Stiles. Something to do with the property lines, I know
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 12, 1996
Page 62
there was something that came up with the church having a right of piece going through
that 4th Street West and we rectified that situation with them. That may have something
to do with that. I know that some faxes have been sent back and forth between Shari
Stiles and I know they have rectified that right of way issue.
Hepper: Any other questions? Thank you, anyone else wish to comment?
Rory Lowe, 1607 West 4th, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Lowe: Just two questions that we had written down that the Council didn’t ask was we
had one on hours of operation for the school, just want to know when their sessions
ran. And the other thing was we were just wanting to know what the landscaping was
going to be like on West 4th. That is all I had.
Robert Polk, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Polk: I am concerned about it being kids piled on that side of the street or will they be
running across the street or what? Just a few questions like that. And the paving of
the streets, will the City pave the opposite side on our side of the property?
Oslund: That would be up to ACHD.
Crookston: The City would not.
Oslund: More than likely ACHD would require this applicant to pave only half of the
street and we don’t know how wide that street is until we get their comments back.
Polk: Okay (inaudible)
Hepper: Is there anyone else from the public? Mr. Haacke, would you like to address
those comments?
Haacke: Just to hit on the hours, we are actually 3 days a week, Tuesdays,
Wednesdays, and Thursdays from 8 to 12 p.m., so four hours three days a week. As
far as extracurricular activities children are just there for their studies, they are not out
on breaks outside running around other peoples’s properties. They are watched pretty
close in that regard, we do have a break room designed in there for that but we keep
them such a short time and the break is such a time period that it doesn’t give them a
lot of time to cause any problems. Landscaping I don’t have any definite plans but I
plan to meet the UBC code percentage of landscaping and plan on having a long and
bermed islands with bushes and trees to buffer and make it a pleasant property not an
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 12, 1996
Page 63
eyesore to look at whatsoever. As far as paving goes whatever Ada County Highway
Department requires us we will comply with whether it be half way or both sides we will
work with them.
Crookston: The City of Meridian requires paving on the lot and your parking areas and
things like that.
Hepper: This school is it an alternative public school or is that in addition to public
school?
Haacke: It is an alternative, it does qualify for an alternative program.
Hepper: So the students who go to your program probably would not go to a public
school this would be their main source?
Haacke: That is correct, many of them do attend extracurricular activities at public
schools in addition to this but as far as academics.
Hepper: But for four hours a day 3 days a week.
Haacke: That is correct
Hepper: And that is enough to do it?
Haacke: Yes, the first time I heard about this I was very speculative about it,
reservations about the project. But students that are graduating from there, certificates
are actually having 10 points higher GED equivalent tests. There are some really
positive results coming out of these students, really promote them to achieve outside of
the classroom.
Hepper: What did you say the hours were?
Haacke: Eight to twelve Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday.
Hepper: A.M. or P.M.?
Haacke: A.M., have I addressed all those questions?
Hepper: Yes, thank you. Is there anyone else? Seeing none I would close the pubic
hearing.
Shearer: Mr. Chairman, I move we have the City Attorney prepare findings of fact and
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 12, 1996
Page 64
conclusions of law.
MacCoy: Second
Oslund: Discussion, we don’t have any comments from ACHD.
(Inaudible)
Crookston: Depending upon when we get them.
Oslund: I would like to offer an alternate (inaudible). We have no clue what ACHD
wants on this at this point.
Shearer: I would like to amend the motion for the attorney to prepare to include the
ACHD findings when they arrive.
McCoy: Second
Crookston: If they arrive on or before (inaudible) Thursday the 5th, 4th.
Shearer: In way of discussing that the ACHD really has nothing to do with our
conditional use. Our conditional use is for the school, ACHD’s findings will be binding
on the building permit when he goes for a building permit on this thing therefore we
really don’t need ACHD material for this conditional use because it has nothing to really
do with this conditional use.
Oslund: Wayne do you have an opinion that you would like to share?
Crookston: I will share an opinion, you may be exactly right Jim but it is nice to have the
ACHD findings and make them a requirement for the conditional use, the annexation or
whatever.
Shearer: It is going to be required for the building permit anyway.
Crookston: But if you have them (inaudible) then they are written down and the
applicant then knows what is required what the City is requiring which with ACHD they
are exactly the same thing as what ACHD is requiring but it is just nice to have them
written down so the applicant knows he has to meet those.
Shearer: The problem I see Wayne is that the architect will not submit to ACHD until he
gets his plans done and he can’t, he doesn't want to do plans for a building that he
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 12, 1996
Page 65
can’t build because we don’t approve a conditional use. This is not a subdivision or a
site situation it is going to be a building plan.
Crookston: It is up to the Commission, I will do whatever you people direct.
(Inaudible)
Shearer: I would like to withdraw my amendment to my motion.
MacCoy: Second
Oslund: We have an original motion by Commissioner Shearer and second by
Commissioner MacCoy to have the City Attorney prepare findings of fact and
conclusions of law for this item, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #17: SEVENTH DAY ADVENTIST SITE PLAN REVIEW:
Hepper: Is there somebody here that would like to discuss that with us?
Doherty: My name is Ed Doherty and I am the Building Chairman for the project. I just
came here tonight to find out when we are going to get our permit. That is about it.
Hepper: I don’t know talk to the Building Inspector I guess.
Doherty: I was wondering what this site plan review had to do with, are you going to
approve the site plan?
Hepper: I don’t know that is something that really falls upon us does it?
Oslund: You are asking the same question that we are asking, what is this all about?
Hepper: We are basically asking why are we looking at it. Gary?
Smith: Commissioners typically the site plan comes in with the building plans and we
review, the Public Works Department reviews the site plan, Shari Stiles review them
and all of those comments are sent back to the Building Inspectors from whence the
plans came and any comments that are on the plans as result of those reviews are
returned to the architect for changes, revisions, additions. I believe the Fire Department
gets a copy of the plan, Shari gets a copy, the Water department gets a copy, my
department gets a copy and the plans are sent out for the building plan check by an
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 12, 1996
Page 66
outside plan checker and all of that review information then comes back to Daunt
Whitman our Building Inspector then he sends it back if there are comments and
revisions needed they go back to the architect for revision. So I really don’t know
when we saw this on the agenda we were a little surprised as to why it was there.
MacCoy: Do you want our drawings back or do you have enough of them right now?
Smith: Do I want your drawings back?
MacCoy: We all have sets of drawings.
(Inaudible)
Smith: I thought perhaps at first that it was a design review issue, that is why we didn’t
comment, Public Works didn’t comment. Because we will do our regular site plan
review when it, as part of the building permit process.
Oslund: I believe the ordinance does say at one time I read it all the way through it did
say that technically P & Z is supposed to get site plans back for this review. We have
never done it before at least since I have been here, two or three months.
(Inaudible)
MacCoy: We had the discussion in the workshop and we said we were not geared for
that type of (inaudible)
Oslund: The ordinance does say they should come back to P & Z after you get your
final plat basically your construction drawings (inaudible).
Crookston: I don’t believe I did write that.
(Inaudible)
Oslund: That this was something I was talking to Will to, sorry about that Will, if we are
going to review stuff like that well I am not sure that we need to but if we are I think it
should only be on the turns of (inaudible) conform with what was approved. Clearly
stuff like that is getting through, I hear stories all the time about a guy comes in and
gets something approved and goes out and builds something totally different.
(Inaudible)
Oslund: I am not saying it is our problem but it has to be fixed.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 12, 1996
Page 67
Hepper: That is what our new enforcement officer is supposed to be doing, checking on
those things.
Shearer: (Inaudible)
Hepper: I guess what I get out of all of this is we don’t even need to see this.
(Inaudible)
Doherty: Well I came in at 8:30 knowing it wasn’t going to get done before that. So
you gentlemen have nothing (inaudible).
Oslund: Just tell them we approved it.
(Inaudible)
Hepper: Have you already turned your plans in?
Doherty: We already turned everything in we are just waiting for final approval.
(Inaudible)
Doherty: We turned in our application and plans back in October. That is why I came
here tonight to find out if you gentlemen knew anything that we could do to help hurry
the project along.
(Inaudible)
Crookston: There are some ordinances in the development code that says that the
Planning and Zoning Commission has the ability to approve or deny, I would just have
to look back at the ordinance to see what it said.
(Inaudible)
Hepper: Have you been in touch with the Building Department?
Doherty: We have our contractors keeping in touch with them several times a week.
(Inaudible)
Doherty: I am sorry, November we turned in our permit and we turned in our plans.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 12, 1996
Page 68
We were hoping to have gotten started on this at the end of February. (Inaudible) we
had our ground breaking a week ago Sunday.
(Inaudible)
Crookston: I would have to go back and look. It was annexed years ago.
Berg: (Inaudible) if this body has to check it or approve it if that comes to the case we
should probably schedule a special meeting and get it done for them.
(Inaudible)
Oslund: Do we need a motion on this?
Hepper: No I don’t think so it is just (inaudible).
Shearer: I move we adjourn.
(Inaudible)
Oslund: Second
Hepper: All those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 11:40 P.M.
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
APPROVED:
JIM JOHNSON, CHAIRMAN
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 12, 1996
Page 69
ATTEST:
WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CITY CLERK