1996 04-09
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
AGENDA
TUESDAY, APRIL 9, 1996 - 7:30 P.M.
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING HELD MARCH 12, 1996:
(APPROVED)
TABLED MARCH 12, 1996: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR THE
RANCH SUBDIVISION BY WESTPARK COMPANY: (TABLED UNTIL
MAY 14, 1996)
2. TABLED MARCH 12, 1996: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR
THE RANCH SUBDIVISION BY WESTPARK COMPANY: (TABLED
UNTIL MAY 14, 1996)
3. TABLED MARCH 12, 1996: REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR
PORKY PARK SUBDIVISION NO. 1 BY RON VAN AUKER:
(RECOMMEND APPROVAL TO CITY COUNCIL)
4. TABLED MARCH 12, 1996: REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR
BALLANTYNE-TROUTNER BUSINESS PARK BY JIM BALLANTYNE:
(RECOMMEND APPROVAL TO CITY COUNCIL)
5. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT FOR A SENIOR CITIZEN BOARDING LODGING COMPLEX
BY WAYNE 8 KAREN FORREY: (TABLED UNTIL FINDINGS OF FACT
AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ARE PREPARED)
6. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR ANNEXATION AND
ZONING OF APPROXIMATELY 14 ACRES TO I-L FOR OLSON-
BUSH N0.2 SUBDIVISION BY R-2 DEVELOPMENT: (APPROVED;
RECOMMEND APPROVAL TO CITY COUNCIL)
7. PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR OLSON-BUSH NO.2 SUBDMSION BY R-2
DEVELOPMENT; TABLED MARCH 12, 1996: (RECOMMEND
APPROVAL TO CITY COUNCIL)
8. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT FOR A GROUP DAY CARE BY CRYSTAL MARTINEZ:
(APPROVE FINDINGS; RECOMMEND APPROVAL TO CITY COUNCIL)
9. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR CONDITIONAL USE
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
AGENDA
TUESDAY, APRIL 9, 1996 - 7:30 P.M.
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MINUTES OF PREVJOUS MEETING HELD MARCH 12, 1996:
1. TABLED MARCH 12, 1996: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY P~~AT FOR THE
RANCH SUB~VISION BY WESTPARK COMPANY: , /'t.~ ~~ ; ^. ~
,.
2. TABLED MARCH 12, 1991 REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR
THF~ R~NCH SUBDIVISION BY WESTPARK COMPANY: J;N,,_ i
,~,i~^~.~ i~I,~~j=f~~
3. TABLED MARCH ~2, 1996: REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR
~RKY PARK SUBDM~ION NO. 1 BY RON VAN AUKER:
y~ n ,
4. TABLED MARCH 12, 1936: RE UEST FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR
BAS LLANTYNE-TROUTNER BUSINESS PARK BY JIM BALLANTYNE:
5. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT FOR A SENIOR CITIZEN BOARDI G LODGING COMPLEX
BY WAYNE & KAREN FORREY: ~ I'u~.~ ~,~~ ~~j
,. ~ ~~~'
~ ~ ~~ !~_ ~, _~ x ~ v ~'>2 ~ ~ ,
6. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR ANNEXATION AND
ZONING OF APPROXIMATELY 14 ACRES TO I-L FOR OLSON-
BUSH NO.2 SUBDIVISION BY R-2 DEVELOPMENT: ,~~I?~.~,.~ ti~~~ ~ r ~f~, L
7. PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR OLSON-BUSH NO.2 SUBD,1/ISION BY R-2
DEVELOPMENT; TABLED MARCH 12, 1996: i ~„ r -~ - , ,_~ , . ~; , , c 1
8. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT FOR A GROUP DAY CARE BY CRYSTAL MARTINEZ:
9. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT FOR A LEARNING CENTER FOR 50 STUDENTS BY
MILLSTREAM PROPERTIES: {i
10. PUBLIC HARING: REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR HONOR
PARK NO.3 SUBDNISIOI~BY WILLIAM HON: ~
)' ~ - i'
11. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR RAILSIDE
SUBDNISION BY RONALD YANKE: n
~~ ~%
12. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR
A PHOTOGRAPHIC PORTRAIT STUDIO BY BERTON 8 DEANNA
SPENCER: ~~~~~ ~~,~. ~ ,~; r~'L`I~ ~~ C L
13. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A VACATION OF A PORTION OF GEM
STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY BY WILD SHAMROCK PARTNERSHIP:
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION .APRIL 9, 1996
The regular meeting of the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission was called to order
by Chairman Jim Johnson at 7:30 P.M.:
MEMBERS PRESENT: Tim Hepper, Greg Oslund, Malcolm MacCoy:
OTHERS PRESENT: Wayne Crookston, Shari Stiles, Gary Smith, Anna Doty, E.J.
Quinteri, Brian Iverson, Wayne Forrey, Brian Hoff, Mike Caven, Gary Lee, Berton Spencer,
Dale Newberry, Sharon Barrus, Deanna Spencer, Greg Johnson, Brad Miller, Ehno
Tiddens:
MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING HELD MARCH 12, 1996:
Johnson: You have all read the minutes, are there any corrections, additions or deletions
to those minutes?
Oslund: I have got two, if I can find them here. Page 23, at the bottom, the last statement
attributes that statement to me but in fact I did not make that statement that is Wayne
Forrey's statement. One that begins, "Yes, it is stated in the letter,". Then on page 63
near the bottom, fourth from the top, the statement begins, " we have an original motion
by Commissioner Shearer and attributes that statement to me but in fact that is Mr.
Hepper, I don't think I was chairing the meeting that night.
Johnson: I am surprised, that on page 63 that late in the evening you remember what you
did say and what you didn't say.
Oslund: Actually I just grabbed those two so if (inaudible).
Johnson: Any other corrections, additions or deletions? Entertain a motion please.
Hepper: Mr. Chairman I make a motion that we approve the minutes of the previous
meeting held March 12.
Oslund: Second
Johnson: We have a motion and a second to approve the minutes with the two corrections
stated by Commissioner Oslund, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Johnson: For those of you that may not have gotten the word the item #10 which is a
public hearing we have a request for a deferral on that from the applicant so we will not
be doing anything on that. However, we will take public testimony if you are here to testify
but the applicant will not be responding this evening. If you want to testify tonight you may
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 9, 1996
Page 2
do so, it has been deferred to a date certain which is May 14, our next meeting.
ITEM #1: TABLED MARCH 12, 1996: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR THE
RANCH SUBDIVISION BY WESTPARK COMPANY:
Johnson: This had been tabled at the applicant's request in March. It is my understanding
that we received a plat on Thursday the 4th which was brought back on April the 5th.
Apparently there was an item missing. At this point we still do not have to my knowledge
ACHD comments or the requested traffic study. Do any of the Commissioners have any
comments regarding this preliminary plat?
Oslund: I have a couple, first I would just throw off the suggestion or possible suggestion
there that because this application has changed as dramatically as it has that possibly we
might want to open it back up to the public. That aside 1 had a couple of my own
comments, let me get to those here. We were given some information about quite a few
things, architectural standards and fencing and so on. I was interested in what a two pole
split rail open fence was, what you had in mind. It referred to a picture but our stuff is kind
of dark, the copy is I can't really see it. Speaking to the applicant on that.
Johnson: What is your other question if you have just two and maybe we can handle all
of these at one time.
Oslund: The question about sidewalks, you say that, or the applicant says that they would
be providing not, they would not be providing sidewalks on both sides of the streets at all
locations because the feeling is that the pathway that is included in the development would
serve the purpose of some of the sidewalks. So I haven't seen anything in my package that
indicates where the sidewalks would be. The third would be non-circular turnarounds,
there is a tum around near the entrance that I am wondering about and I will just kind of
go over these. But I think we really need to took at the plat that you might have to give us
a little clarity on this. The fourth item I had is you show some floor plans of some house
models but earlier in this information package you provided you say that all of the lots
would be available to individual builders. So I am wondering ff these really have any
relevance can we, is it likely that we would be seeing these same kinds of floor plans or
are these just something the applicant would actually build or is this something that is
going to be required of all builders in the development. I think that was number four. Then
my last one, there is an open space area in the northeast comer near the Nine Mile Canal,
and you state in your information package that is provided for the use and benefit of the
subdivision, that is the way t read it anyway. I guess 1 am wondering how they are going
to get the benefit out of it, at least what I am seeing there doesn't seem to be any access
to it across the canal from the development. So, those are the five questions that t had.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 9, 1996
Page 3
Johnson: I could add to that that perhaps is there really any reason for this to be a PUD
anymore since the project has been substantially changed and down sized since its
original submission. What special circumstances are existing that this should be a PUD.
Does anyone else have any other comments and then we will ask the applicant to respond
if the applicant is here and willing. Okay, is the applicant here or a representative? Is this
a continued public hearing, does he need to be sworn again?
Crookston: I don't recall, I would imagine that we did.
Wayne Forrey, 3045 Thayen Place, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Fon'ey: Mr. Chairman and members of the Commission, Greg Johnson is here tonight he
is the owner and President of Westpark Company, Greg and I are both going to address
some of these questions. t missed question number 3, but I wrote down 1, 2, 4 , 5 and 6.
Johnson: Well the 3 had to do with the turn around that Mr. Commissioner Oslund was
questioning.
Forrey: The photograph of the fence was supplied to the City in a colored photograph. I
don't know how it photocopied but if you are aware of the fence in Crossroads Subdivision
that is the photograph of the fence in Crossroads Subdivision. It is two rail split rail fence,
it is at the back of the tots bordering the common area. The sidewalk is shown on the
colored rendering that we provided to the City. Do you have that, is it in the City file?
Could we look at that because it does show, it answers questions 2 and 5.
Johnson: Was it in this packet?
Forrey: No, it is rolled it is a large colored rendering, full size, 24 by 36 inch.
Johnson: Apparently it is not in our file.
Forrey: It has the open space colored, the pathway colored, the fence colored.
Johnson: Why don't you proceed with what you can address and we will see if we can
come up with that.
Forey: The colored rendering shows where there is going to be chain link fence, six foot
high cedar fence, and the two rail split rail fence. It also shows access and gates into the
Nine Mile Drain, open space which was question fi.5. It shows the five foot asphalt pathway
where it is actually going to be developed which was question #2. It shows it going into
all through the open space and providing circulation through the open space. Which turn
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 9, 1996
Page 4
around was question #3?
Oslund: Block 1 provides access to Lots 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, right at the entrance.
Forney: Yes, it is anon-circular turn around.
Oslund: That is correct.
Forney: That question is, is that an approved design?
Oslund: Well I guess my concern about a design like that is 'rf you have got that open
space that you have to, for lack of a better term you have an open field of pavement that
is close to 120 feet long and probably 60 feet wide. I wonder how you then you have got
at least 4 properties gaining access at that point. I am wondering how you are going to
channel traffic, I don't know how you are controlling traffic at that point carrying people
from just kind of randomly entering the street.
Forney: JJ Howard Engineers designed that with communication with ACHD. Our
preference would be to put a landscape island to help define the main roadway and help
define turning into that eyebrow if you will. The Highway district, I don't know what the
standard is, but evidently JJ Howard Engineers has been designing it with ACHD and that
is the design they came up with. Again our preference would be to put a landscape island
in there.
Oslund: So you are saying that ACHD has approved this?
Forney: Well it is my understanding they have.
(Inaudible)
Forney: Greg Johnson mentioned that probably was that design was a concern over
maintenance getting maintenance vehicles in there not having a landscape island. The
floor plans, those are samples floor plans, and the ordinance calls for a style. That is the
style of building, we addressed that in the written submittal but staff also wanted to see
some sample type floor plans and elevation drawings of homes that could be built. So
those are samples. I am not saying that those three would be built at every 3 or 4 or 5th
lot but those are building plans that are now under construction in Sportsman Pointe that
Greg's company is familiar with and will probably use. Those lots will also be available
to other builders and they also have floor plans that they work with. So that is an example
of styles that will likely be built along with the color schemes we provided sample colors.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 9, 1996
Page 5
Oslund: So the homes that actually get built may bear no resemblance to what you
provided?
Forrey: That is possible, but they will be in that similar style. The covenants, conditions
and restrictions which we submitted is a lot of detail on what constitutes the style and the
percentage of brick and the type of roof and the type of siding, windows and all of those
things. So it gives you very good confidence in the type of homes that will ultimately be
there. Question #6, the city's ordinance encourages and asks developers to consider
PUD. In fact the ordinance says in effect we would rather have a PUD than a straight
subdivision. And so yes there has been some modifications here but the modifications
came as the result of City direction to us. The City said we still want the open space, but
we want you to scale the project down. We want bigger lots in some areas, the City didn't
particularly like some of the town homes, the attached residential so those have been
eliminated. So 1 hope you wouldn't consider it a substantial change that we would have
to go back to public hearings. All of these changes came as a result of the public hearings
and we have met those concerns. We hope you will approve this so we can get onto City
Council.
Oslund: Getting back to question t had about the fence then, the reason that I asked that
is because I was wondering what you intend to do with the fence, all the fences adjacent
to block 4, lot 61, from the material you provided us, I believe that what you are saying is
that all of that fence would be the split rail type is that true?
Forrey: That is correct, If you look on this colored drawing you will see a brown line and
it shows where all of that two rail fence is. Can you see the brown line in there?
Hepper: Would the lots adjacent to that two rail split rail fence be restricted into providing
their own fence. If somebody wanted to put up a cedar fence to keep a dog in the back
yard would they be allowed to do that or would they be prevented from that?
Forrey: They would be prevented from that, it is in the CCBR's to protect that open space
and the visual look of it and feel. That is why the developer will put in that fence and those
lots would be restricted.
Oslund: Could they put in a little privacy fence closer to the home around a patio or
something like that?
Forrey: I will let Greg answer that, 1 didn't see that in the CC&R's.
Greg Johnson, 2433 Can-Ada Road, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 9, 1996
Page 6
G. Johnson: It is our intent to allow these people to fence a private patio but the exterior
portion of it, the idea is to let them look across that landscape. We will have lots, if a
particular person wants to fence his yard in the ordinary traditional manner on the lot line
with the solid fence, there are many lots in the subdivision that would accommodate that.
But hopefully there will be enough buyers that maybe don't have a lot of pets or they have
children but they want them to be able to go out into the play areas and be able to look
across those play areas and that is what we are designing to accommodate there.
Oslund: You were going to at the same time with this drawing talk about that portion of
land at the northeast corner.
G. Johnson: This park does have an access off of this culdesac there is a paved path
designed to carry people up to the access road along the canal. The canal itself will be
fenced with a chain link fence. If the Nampa Meridian will allow a gate here they will be
allowed to go through that gate and walk along the Ridenbaugh Canal to that access road.
But their access to that area is through a foot path coming off of that culdesac. That is,
Nine Mile Drain at that point is nothing more than a slight suppression that it collects
drainage (inaudible) It is not a huge ditch by any means. There will be a walk path with
a culvert over it at that area. Our intention is to grade that drain and probably line it with
river rods rf we can get Nampa Meridian's approval. It is about 18 inches to two feet deep
and if it was sloped with river rock it would be a nice amenity and wouldn't have to be
covered at that point. That whole area picks up quite a bit of water seeping through the
canal is raised about 10 feet at that point so there is water, it is quite wet and marshy in
that area. So it will grow good grass it keeps the grass wet and we need a way of picking
up that water so it doesn't cause a problem in the building areas. So we would like to
retain that drain there in an open configuration so that water can escape. As Nine Mile
Drain continues when it gets down into the middle of the project it becomes a fairly large
drain at that point and then continues to the north.
Hepper: Would the area between the drain and Ridenbaugh Canal designated at the
common area would that be landscaped or sodded or anything?
G. Johnson: Our intention is to, it currently is raising grass in this pasture area. Our intent
with that is to mow it and use it as ball fields, children would be able to play baseball there
and other things. It has a gentle slope to it from the canal down to the drain area. But our
intent in that particular area is not hide development. There are some clusters of marsh
we intend to leave that as kind of wetlands and let the ducks and geese continue to nest
there. So it is more kind of an area of quiet peaceful walking and hopefully the Ridenbaugh
access can be used and people can walk along there and enjoy a nice summer walk. The
areas over in the middle of the Subdivision will contain a soccer field and there are fort
type things and hopefully the children, the teenagers and that type of thing will play in
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 9, 1996
Page 7
those areas and concentrate their activities there.
Hepper: What is lot 19 right in the middle of the project in the front there, coming off of
Victory Road, the big lot just to the east?
G. Johnson: That is an existing residence, it has a home and some horse barns behind it.
That would continue to be a large tract of ground with a residence on it.
Hepper: Okay
Johnson: Any further questions of Greg?
Ostund: I am still troubled with that square culdesac, I just don't see the logic in (inaudible
60 feet by 120 feet of open pavement with no control of vehicles. I just don't understand
how that is going to operate in any kind of organized way, it is is going to be a free for all.
I am not ACRD.
G.Johnson: Our original design has that as a culdesac with a landscape island and we
would be glad to do it as that if we can get it approved by the Highway District.
Oslund: t have no more.
Johnson: Anyone else that has any comments? (Inaudible) ACHD comments on this, we
haven't received them.
Forrey: We are surprised by that, we thought you would by now, you should have.
Johnson: Not on this submission because this is different, is that correct staff? Nothing
new that we have received.
G. Johnson: Our tech review with ACRD did include other portions but their comments on
this part are no difference then they have been. The one thing that they did request is a
secondary access out onto Victory, we have (Inaudible) Originally we had submitted with
access up here (inaudible) secondary access and there will also be a third access to the
north as that subdivision to the north of us develops. But that was ACHD's major concern
with this portion of the project was one access out onto Victory until the other subdivisions
complied Their other alternative to that is to widen this entrance and make that entrance
a limited access road for a portion of it in order to provide adequate access with one
entrance.
Johnson: (Inaudible) anyone from the public that would like to address this application on
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 9, 1996
Page 8
the preliminary plat? Any additional comments or questions?
Hepper: Mr. Chairman, I had a question of Shari Stiles, Shari, on the open areas and
common areas that are designated as right of ways, the open area up to the northeast
goes to the center line of the Ridenbaugh Canal and then there is a maintenance road and
then there is the Nine Mile Drain. Over on the west side there is also the Eight Mile Lateral
of which the property line goes down the centerline of the lateral. Would those areas be
designated as a percentage of the common area?
Stiles: Commissioner Hepper and Commissioners, I believe that is a decision for the
Commission and the Council as to whether those are suitable areas. I would also ask that
you look at storm water retention areas as being suitable open space areas.
Hepper: Is there a definition of open space that has to be usable for play ground or
walking paths or anything like that? Is it just visually an open area?
Stiles: There is a definition, I couldn't quote it to you right now but I could get that for you
from the ordinance.
Johnson: Does anyone else have any comments? I will close the public hearing at this
time. What is your pleasure, we are acting on a preliminary plat so it does not require
findings of fact and conclusions of law, only a recommendation.
Oslund: Mr. Chairman, I move that we table this item until the next regularly scheduled
meeting in May until we have time to consider some information that we have asked for.
Johnson: Could you be more specific on the information?
Oslund: I would like to hear in a little more specific detail what ACHD has to say about our
friendly square culdesac and also this issue of open space. If we could have a chance to
review our definition, the City's definition of open space to see that in fact these do, these
areas do meet those criteria. (Inaudible) was about the storm water detention area, do we
have any estimate of what, how much, how often that is going to be inundated if at all with
storm water and make it unusable.
Johnson: It is a little difficult to incorporate a question into a motion.
Oslund: Do you want me to back up?
Johnson: Yes I would appreciate it for clarity. I think you should restate your motion.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 9, 1996
Page 9
Oslund: That is as clear as I could do it Jim, maybe I want to withdraw that and ask the
applicant on that third question the specific one about storm water.
Johnson: Do you have a question for the applicant?
Oslund: Yes
G. Johnson: This is a preliminary plat and we typically do not do our final designs until we
get into final platting. That storm drainage will be similar in design and concept is very
similar to the existing park and storm drainage system in Sportsman Pointe Subdivision.
That particular storm drainage park is about 3 feet in elevation below the street grade and
it hose berms around the side of it. It is designed so that the predevelopment flow flows
into the Nine Mile Drain unrestricted. A major storm when that particular subdivision that
happens to be an 18 inch pipe if a storm providing more water than that 18 inch pipe can
discharge then water will bubble up out of the grate into a small retention area. If that
retention area gets full then it flows over into the volleyball court and the basket ball court.
In the three years that has existed the basket ball court and the tennis court have not been
flooded because of storm water. They have flooded because of broken sprinkler lines and
a couple of other things but storm water has never gotten into them. Until we reach an
agreement with Nampa Meridian Irrigation and Ada County Highway District as to
predevelopment flows and actual sizes of those I can't answer that although it will be
designed in a 3 stage system similar to that. But we do intend to use other than the first
small area that would get wet in a small storm that will be more of a wet (inaudible)
encouraging cat tails and fowl nesting in that small area. The other portion that we will use
for sport courts and that would probably only be flooded maybe once a year or even less
than that. So they are usable areas, our rationale in the other green belt areas that Mr.
Hepper referred to in our opinion the walking using the access roads of Nampa Highway
District as walk paths for jogging and just taking a stroll as a family or whatever you want
to do in the evening those are open areas that can be used and they are kind of pleasant
next to the water although they have to be screened from the subdivision for toddlers and
other things so that they don't have dangerous things there. The other thing is the City
staff has requested that we always plat those areas separately from our lots anyway to
avoid in the past homeowners if their lot is platted through Tike the Eight Mile Lateral or the
Nine Mile Drain the tendency is that should be their land in their mind and they want to run
fences down through it and we have lots of problems. We are better off to plat those as
common homeowner owned parcels and in this plat we are suggesting that all of those
areas will be separate lots owned by the homeowners association. Some of them will be
highly usable by the homeowners others will be somewhat restricted because of their
nature. But, if you look at the calculations on that we are way over our percentages of
10°~ common area in the subdivision and I think we are providing some very good
amenities here to the homeowners there.
c
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 9, 1996
Page 10
Crookston: Mr. Chairman, did you desire that to be on part of the public hearing, what Mr.
Johnson just stated?
Johnson: Yes, we want that as part of the record.
Crookston: You need a motion to have the record open for that purpose.
Johnson: Thank you, entertain a motion.
Oslund: Okay let's try this again.
Johnson: We need a motion to accept the testimony first since I closed the public hearing.
Oslund: I make a motion that we accept the testimony as given of Greg Johnson.
Hepper. Second
Johnson: Moved and seconded that we accept the testimony as provided, all those in
favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Oslund: I make a motion that we table this item until the next regularly scheduled meeting
in May, pending the review comments of ACRD.
Hepper: Second
Johnson: Moved and seconded that we table this item until ACRD comments are received
so it would be tabled until the May 14 meeting, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #2: TABLED MARCH 12, 1996: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
FOR THE RANCH SUBDIVISION BY WESTPARK COMPANY:
Johnson: It would be inappropriate to act on that would it not Wayne?
Crookston: That is correct.
Oslund: Mr. Chairman, I move that we also table that item on the conditional use permit
until the regularly scheduled meeting in May.
• •
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 9, 1996
Page 11
Hepper: Second
Johnson: Moved and seconded we table item 2 as well, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #3: TABLED MARCH 12, 1996: REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR
PORKY PARK SUBDIVISION N0. 1 BY RON VAN AUKER:
Johnson: It was tabled according to the minutes to receive comments from ACHD which
we now have in our possession. Do you recall whether or not this was a public hearing
that was left open or closed? I was not at that meeting.
Crookston: It is a public hearing, excuse me it was, I don'Y recall whether or not we
continued that.
Johnson: Well we start at page 44 in the minutes if you have those with you. According
to the comments on page 50 it was closed at that time.
Crookston: My notes indicate that it was closed.
Oslund: My notes say that it was closed and that it was tabled pending ACRD comments.
Johnson: In that regard then now that you have reviewed ACHD comments what is your
discussion what are your comments regarding the requirements as set forth. Is there
someone representing the applicant here this evening?
Hepper: - guess we need to know if the applicant is willing to abide by these comments
of ACRD if they have any problems.
Johnson: Sounds logical to me, would the applicant like to address the Commission?
Miller: Brad Miller, we met with ACHD and the requirements are fine.
Johnson: Site specific as well everything is alright, no problems?
Miller: Yes, no problems.
Johnson: I have to ask at least three times because sometimes people don't really
understand what we are asking. Any comments regarding those ACRD comments from
the Commission? What is your pleasure?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 9, 1996
Page 12
Hepper: Mr. Chairman I move that we recommend approval of the preliminary plat to the
City Council.
Oslund: Second
Johnson: We have a motion and a second to recommend approval of Porky Park
Subdivision No. 1 preliminary plat in the hopes that maybe someday someone will change
the name, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #4: TABLED MARCH 12, 1996: REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR
BALLANTYNE-TROUTNER BUSINESS PARK BY JIM BALLANTYNE:
Johnson: Checking the minutes here, starting on page 20, we need to determine whether
that was closed or open.
Crookston: My notes indicate that the public hearing was closed.
Johnson: Thank you, and it was tabled for what reason?
Crookston: My notes don't reflect that Mr. Chairman.
Johnson: On page 30 it indicates it was tabled for receipt of ACHD comments as well.
Page 30 of the minutes?
Oslund: Who made that motion?
Johnson: Malcolm MacCoy made the motion that ,"based on the material that was given
to 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 April 9," and we are
here. So what would you like to do?
Oslund: Discuss, at least from where I was sitting the prime concern I had related to
transportation and ACHD was that intersection the signalized intersection of the proposed
5th Street and Franklin. We did receive ACHD comments where that particular issue was
one of many was discussed by ACHD. I think it was in a tech review. I guess, in that tech
review ACRD said that the intersection could be either left where it is proposed and the
driveway for Hoff Forest Products relocated at the expense of this applicant. Or it could
be the cross could be moved to line up with that. I guess the two questions I have to the
applicant and one to Mr. James Hoff I believe that is his name, Brian Hoff if he is here, he
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 9, 1996
Page 13
testified. One question would be what is the plan to keep it where it is at or to move it to
line up with Hoff Products. Or and then the second question I have is to Hoff or a
representative of Hoff is if this is acceptable.
Johnson: And this would in accordance with the March 13 letter from Hoff Forest Products
to ACHD correct?
Oslund: That is correct.
Johnson: Is the applicant or representative here? Is Mr. Hoff here? Mr. Forrey
Forrey: I have an overhead transparency if that would help, can I take a moment and set
up the machine?
Johnson: Sure, we love pictures.
Forrey: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, we were tabled to receive ACHD
comments, we now have those. The comments from the Commission are correct, the
Highway District stipulated that we have really two options. Leave SW 5th in its current
configuration as shown on the plat and at our expense the developers expense realign the
Hoff entrance. Or move SW 5th to a line with the current Hoff driveway. That is shown as
Bin the blue. If we do line up with Hoff which is something we may have to do it would
change the configuration and kind of a jug handled approach there. There is room to do
that it eliminates lot 1 as a developable lot. It would become a nice landscape area. The
current use for lot 1 would be shifted down to lot 2. We are prepared to proceed with
alternative B if we need to. The other alternative that we agreed with the Highway District
is that we would move the entrance to a shared access with our neighbor to the west
which is Henkels and McCoy Contractors, we meet with them at 8:30 in the morning. We
may have an alternative of shifting to the green that is shown right there. That is also
allowed by the Highway District. So our choices are either line up with Hoff or we move
that entrance an appropriate separation from the Hoff driveway that meets Highway District
standards and right now that is 125 feet separation. So if we go to the combination access
that is shown in green with Henkels and McCoy, we are far enough west of the driveway
that we wouldn't have a conflict. We understand exactly the position of Hoff Lumber and
we agree with that. They did not want to realign their driveway, they want to leave it right
where it is at today. So we are really faced with option A or B and as a fall back I guess
we would eliminate access to Franklin Road if we can't work with A or B and we would
orient the access down Corporate Drive and just kind of let Franklin Road sit for several
years and see what develops with the Hoff and Henkels and McCoy and the veterinary and
that sort of thing. We don't want to do that, we would like to set that in motion today so we
know from a good planning standpoint where the access is going to be. So, we can live
i •
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 9, 1996
Page 14
with the ACRD comments and hope you will approve the plat so we can get moving and
get onto City Council with this plat.
(End of Tape)
Johnson: I am speaking for myself and not all of the commissioners it makes sense at least
to me and seems logical that option B is most plausible since the Hoff entrance has been
there for some time. To me it doesn't make sense that they should be put in the position
of having to move their entrance away when it is not doing any further development at this
point. How far (inaudible) have you talked with the so called neighbor there to the west?
Have you approached ACHD specifically with that option?
Forrey: Yes we have.
Johnson: Both questions is yes we have?
Forrey: Yes
Johnson: What has been the response from Henkels and McCoy if they are the owners
there?
Forrey: Well we won't have a final response, we have had preliminary meetings but we
have another meeting with them tomorrow morning at 8:30 but our meetings at the
Highway District, they would like to see option A. By the way so you understand options
A and B does not interfere with the current driveway at Hoff we are not asking to realign
Hoff at all. They have made that clear and we made it clear to them we are not asking to
realign. So we are just looking at our side of Franklin as A or B.
Hepper: From what I can gather from the ACHD somewhat stipulated that a signal was
desirable at some future date at that intersection.
Forrey: We think so too.
Hepper: If you went with option A how would that signal function in relation to the Hoff?
Forrey: Hoff does not have a lot of traffic coming out of it and going into it. It is employee
traffic it is not like a big commercial center. And so you always look at the intersections
in terms of separation between curb cuts and access point A even if it was signalized
would be far enough away from the Hoff driveway that it meets ACRD standards. Now I
think it would be best for everyone concerned that a signal if there is going to be one
would be right in front of Hoff as well because they might want to redevelop their property
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 9, 1996
Page 15
some day. In that case it might be best at site B, that is something that we have to work
out. If we can't do option A then we will probably drop to option B and that just, we just live
with losing lot 1.
Oslund: I don't see how 120 feet is going to do it between A and your entrance to Hoff.
The reason I say that is because if you are heading East on Franklin and you want to turn
into Hoff you have to pass through what is likely to be a signalized intersection A and go
your 120 feet and turn left into Hoff. What is in your way is that left turn bay that is turning
left into your development. 120 feet is not going to accommodate more than 3 cars plus
the tapered to get it back out to (inaudible).
Forrey: You realize that Franklin is going to be five lanes.
Oslund: Yes, and I am referring to the left turn bay that will be essentially continuous when
construction is finished. Also in the ACHD report it said that a warrant analysis for that
signal had not been performed yet and they expect to see that. To me you can't answer
the question about spacing between A and the driveway until you do your signal analysis.
Forrey: And that is just for the signal but it also says at such time when development
appears to warrant a signal then the developer prepares that signal analysis. In other
words they didn't require for that analysis, it can be at some point in the future.
Oslund: The way I understood it is they are requiring you to do a signal a warrant analysis
for a signal now or in the very near tens.
Forrey: No in the future, it is not required now. In fact there is even some doubt as to
whether there would be enough traffic to warrant a signal at build out of Corporate Drive.
Oslund: It says a warrant analysis should be completed prior to the District's approval of
the final plat for the first phase. If the signal is warranted then the applicant shall be
responsible for the entire cost of the signal.
Forrey: I don't think you have the latest edition of ACHD comments, because that was
specifically addressed and changed.
Oslund: Mine is dated, it is based on the ACRD Commission date of April 3rd, so last
Wednesday.
Forrey: Staff specifically told us it wouldn't be required as a condition of platting.
Oslund: Well it makes sense to me, all the warrant analysis tells you is is there ever going
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 9, 1996
Page 16
to be a signal warranted there. It seems like a question that should be answered. That is
my concem, I don't think, with all due respect of ACHD if they said is 120 feet I don't know
where they got that but that is going to be an issue and last time when Mr. Hoff testified
he gave us in his letter to us he told us he gave us the numbers about how many
employees were using that. I didn't get the impression that it was a small number
especially at peak times in the morning and evening. Maybe Mr. Hoff can give us some
more information on that.
Johnson: Wayne do you have a copy of these April 5th, we just received our yesterday.
Forrey: Yes, does that clarify the warrant analysis?
Oslund: It says the same thing, it is what I just stated. "Conduct a traffic signal warrant
analysis prior to the approval of that final plat of the first phase."
Forrey: Is ACHD here?
Johnson: Is there a representative of ACHD? Apparently not.
Forrey: Boy, that was addressed by staff specifically.
Oslund: It is the same thing I have it is just stated a second time under specific
requirements. I guess what I am getting to is if I have to pick right now I would say B I
don't know how you are going to get A so far over that you are going to have enough room
to give good access for Hoff. In my opinion Hoff should not suffer at all because of this.
They are out there now, it has been there for awhile. They are a big employer and they
have certain needs of access and they need to be made (inaudible) one way or another.
Forrey: We agree and I asked Brian Hoff and he will tell you that we absolutely agree with
that.
Oslund: Maybe it is time for Mr. Hoff to talk to us.
Johnson: If Mr. Hoff is here we would appreciate asking you some questions. Just state
your name for the record please.
Hoff: Brian Hoff, thank you for your concern. I think that the comments for the staff report
from Ada County answered all of the concerns that we had at that time and that was to line
up to our existing driveway or with our consent have our driveway moved. We went over
that with Wayne and Jim Ballantyne and were unable to find a suitable relocation. So we
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 9, 1996
Page 17
said we wanted to leave it where it is and that is where option B looked like an attempt to
line up to that driveway. Option A is something new to us but something they are looking
on. We had the same concerns that you pointed out. Can it be far enough away to impact
us (inaudible).
Hepper: What is the amount of traffic travelling in and out of your (inaudible).
Hoff: We have about 300 employees that we have that traffic and I think we figured 18
semi trucks in and out a day.
Hepper: How many shifts?
Hoff: Three shifts.
Hepper: So it not all at one time.
Hoff: We rotate it (inaudible) seven different times.
Hepper: So basically when one shift is letting off another one is getting on.
Hoff: About 1/2 hour apart, a lot of traffic.
Johnson: Thank you very much. Does anyone have any further questions of the
Commissioners, from the Commissioners?
Hepper: I guess I had one more question for Wayne, was there any other comments or I
don't know maybe you haven't seen the ACHD comments, I am just wondering if you had
any problems with those besides this one?
Forrey: No we don't.
Hepper: Have you seen them?
Forrey: Yes we have, all of the other comments are fine and we hope that you can approve
the plat and let us move towards City Council and get back to discussing the annexation
and the merits of this project.
Johnson: Thank you Mr. Forrey. This is a preliminary plat, it requires a motion, not
findings of fact and conclusions of law.
Oslund: Well, as far as I am concerned, since Mr. Hoff is aware of the facts and aware that
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 9, 1996
Page 18
this other alternative is coming or being developed and I think it is pretty clear that ACHD's
material that they state anything that does happen has to be with the consent of Hoff. I
would make a motion that we approve or not approve but make a recommendation to
approve the preliminary plat and send it on to Council.
MacCoy: Second
Johnson: We have a motion and a second to approve the preliminary plat as stated and
forward it to City Council, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #5: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT FOR A SENIOR CITIZEN BOARDING/LODGING COMPLEX BY WAYNE 8
KAREN FORREY:
Johnson: It is my understanding that these findings of fact and conclusions of law have
not been completed is that correct?
Crookston: That is correct.
Johnson: Without them we can't act on those so we will have to.
Crookston: I would like to ask Mr. Forrey some questions in regard to those. (Inaudible).
Mr. Forrey as I read your application I did not see that you asked for a PUD for the 7.75
acres.
Forrey: That is correct, in fact 1 made a point of saying that PUD was only for the 5 acres
of our property. And that the balance would remained zoned industrial.
Crookston: I did not notice that in the application.
Forrey: It is there and shown on the submittal map the design plan and it was noticed in
the newspaper as well. Also, in the submittal that I gave to the Planning and Zoning
Commission at the March public hearing that was addressed in the written response to the
staff comments. It was addressed specifically as an item.
Crookston: Thank you, then we have some problems with our ordinance. In Section 11-2-
409A it does state that, which is the residential listing, it does state that a PUD residential
is authorized as a conditional use permit. You go to the industrial section and it does not
even address a residential PUD it addresses a general PUD and an industrial PUD. As
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 9, 1996
Page 19
I understand it you have requested a general PUD.
Forrey: That is correct.
Crookston: Under our ordinance it also states that the general PUD is designed around
or for use when the use is not particularized. That, what I am trying to say is that the
application doesn't state that it is going to be residential, commercial or industrial or that
there are enough uses that it would be all of them. As t interpret your application that is
going to be a residential application for the senior center.
Forrey: No, if you will read the application I submitted and the information it complies with
your ordinance and talks about all of the various uses in the project. Many business uses
as well as the living center.
Crookston: But you just told me you were not asking for a planned unit development.
Forrey: No I did, I applied for planned development general in accordance with your
ordinance, very specific, which is an allowed use and the industrial zone and conditional
use permit.
Crookston: But what we are dealing with is only the portion that relates to the senior
citizen center.
Forrey: So I don't understand, what is the question?
Crookston: The question is as I read the application, the senior center is going to be
residential.
Forrey: Yes, with other businesses inside the complex and in the campus to serve those
elderly residents.
Crookston: Then that is something I did not (inaudible)
Forrey: And it describes that in the information I submitted to the City. I am devastated to
get to this point and there are no findings.
Crookston: (Inaudible) let me restate that,
Forrey: All of this was clearly outlined (inaudible).
Crookston: If the decision was to approve, let's say the senior center but not go forward
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 9, 1996
Page 20
with what you have requested on the 7.75 acres for one reason on or another do you have
a problem with that being separated and maybe one go forward and maybe one not?
Forrey: Welt, yes, I don't understand the implications of that. I am not prepared now to
understand how that relates to the ordinance. What I submitted complies with Meridian
City ordinances. It is all one piece of property and I am seeking a conditional use permit
on a portion of my property just like other developers do. It is a process that has been
encouraged by the City and we are following that.
Crookston: I don't dispute that.
Forrey: I guess I would like to know if there is a problem what it is. I don't, I just don't
understand what is at issue here.
Crookston: I have to apologize to you because apparently I was not totally up to speed on
what you have applied for because as I read the application that you were asking for was
that you were asking for a PUD on the portion that was going to be the senior center
complex.
Forrey: That is correct, PUD general.
Crookston: The way I interpret the ordinance is that and because I interpreted it without
being enough on top of it myself all that was going to go in that portion was the senior
citizen complex.
Johnson: (Inaudible) you people need to get together. We are not going to be able to
move fonroard on this this evening, so any further discussion really is a moot point at this
time. You need to get together and discuss what it is so we can get findings of fact and
conclusions of law prepared for our next meeting. We will do what we can to move that
along posthaste. If that requires a special meeting just to address those findings of fact
and conclusions of law I think this Commission is willing to do that for you so that we are
not delayed a whole month.
Forrey: I am not asking for that I am clearly disappointed but I can wait another month if
you need the time. I would like you to read everything that I have submitted, I had a ten
or eleven page handout described in detail. All types of maps.
Johnson: The fact is they are not ready for us so we can't move along.
Crookston: I would apologize, to Wayne and the Commission for not totally being apprised
of what was going on. Not because it wasn't there just because (inaudible).
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 9, 1996
Page 21
Johnson: Thank you very much. Do we need a motion?
Crookston: Yes
Johnson: We will need a motion from the Commissioners to table this until such time we
have an opportunity to prepare findings of fact and address them at the appropriate time,
no later than our next meeting.
Crookston: I think it is appropriate to include in the motion that Mr. Forrey and myself work
on this together.
Oslund: I make a motion that Mr. Forrey and Mr. Crookston get together and talk about this
and work all the glitches out and we will table this item until such time that occurs no later
than the next regularly scheduled meeting in May.
Hepper: Second
Johnson: Moved and second we table this item as stated, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #6: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR ANNEXATION AND
ZONING OF APPROXIMATELY 14 ACRES TO I-L FOR OLSON-BUSH NO. 2
SUBDIVISION BY R-2 DEVELOPMENT:
Johnson: We do have these findings of fact and conclusions of law, are there any
comments that the Commissioners would like to make at this time?
Hepper: Mr. Chairman, I have a question on page 15, paragraph 12, it is on page 18, I
guess it would be on paragraph 16 next to the last line. It says, "it is concluded that the
land should be annexed and zoned but not subject to de-annexation,° I am questioning
whether would not should be omitted.
Johnson: Yes, that doesn't look (inaudible)
Hepper: But subject to de-annexation.
Crookston: That is correct.
Johnson: We need to delete the word not on the next to the last line of paragraph 16, is
that correct. It also looks like we go from paragraph 16 to 18. Any other comments on
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 9, 1996
Page 22
these findings of fact.
Hepper: On the approval of findings of fact and conclusions, second sentence there it says
the City Council of Meridian instead of the City of Meridian.
Johnson: Good point, so we need to eliminate Council correct.
Hepper: Yes
Johnson: Anything else? Anyone else? Entertain a motion then for approval.
Hepper. Mr. Chairman, I move the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of the City
of Meridian hereby adopts and approves these findings of fact.
Oslund: Second
Johnson: Moved by Commissioner Hepper, second by Commissioner Oslund to approve
the findings of fact with the corrections discussed previously, roll call vote.
ROLL CALL VOTE: Hepper -Yea, Oslund -Yea, Shearer -Absent, MacCoy -Yea
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Johnson: Any recommendation you wish to pass along at this time?
Hepper. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby
recommends to the City Council of the City of Meridian that the property set forth in the
application be approved for annexation and zoning under the conditions set forth in the
findings of fact and conclusions of law. Including that the applicant enter into a
development agreement as required herein and that if the applicant does not do so that
the land be de-annexed. That if the applicant is not agreeable with these findings of fact
and conclusions and is not agreeable with entering into a development agreement the
property should not be annexed.
Oslund: Second
Johnson: Moved and seconded to pass a recommendation as written and stated, all those
in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 9, 1996
Page 23
ITEM #7: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR OLSON-BUSH N0. 2 SUBDIVISION BY R-2
DEVELOPMENT; TABLED MARCH 12, 1996:
Johnson: Any discussion regarding the preliminary plat?
Oslund: I move that we approve the preliminary plat including staff comments and move
it forward to City Council.
MacCoy: Second
Johnson: Motion by Commissioner Oslund, second by Commissioner MacCoy to pass an
approval recommendation onto City Council for the preliminary plat for Olson Bush
Subdivision No. 2, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #8: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR A GROUP DAY
CARE BY CRYSTAL MARTINEZ:
Johnson: Any comments regarding these findings of fad and conclusions of law that have
been prepared?
Oslund: 1 had a question, it was more directed to the applicant, I don't know that she is
here. But, when she was here for the public hearing she made some statements to the
effect that she was possibly considering the use of her home of more than 12 children
which would require a whole different process, whole different level of review I guess. She
made it sound like that was the direction she was going and she wasn't sure if the
conditional use permit was the correct process for her. I was wondering if she had
resolved that issue or if she had talked to staff about that at all.
Johnson: Is Crystal Martinez here, any representative for her here? Apparently not but we
are not here to act on that anyway, we are here to act on what has been presented.
MacCoy: Wayne told her what she had to do so it is up to her.
Oslund: I would make a motion that the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission adopt
and approve these findings of fact and conclusions.
Hepper: Second
Johnson: Motion by Commissioner Oslund, second by Commissioner Hepper to approve
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 9, 1996
Page 24
the findings of fact as prepared, roll call vote.
ROLL GALL VOTE: Hepper -Yea, Oslund -Yea, Shearer -Absent, MacCoy -Yea
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Johnson: The recommendation you would like to pass onto the City Council is?
Oslund: Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends to the City
Council of the City of Meridian that they approve the conditional use permit request by the
applicant for the property described in the application with the conditions set forth in these
findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law or similar conditions as found justified and
appropriate by the City Council and that the applicant be required to meet the
requirements of Bruce Freckleton and Shari Stiles, the water and sewer requirements, the
fire and life safety codes, uniform fire code and other ordinances of the City of Meridian.
The conditional use should be subject to review upon notice to the applicant by the City.
MacCoy: Second
Johnson: Moved and seconded that we pass the recommendation as read onto the City
Council, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #9: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT FORA LEARNING CENTER FOR 50 STUDENTS BY MILLSTREAM
PROPERTIES:
Johnson: Do any of the Commissioners have comments or corrections regarding these
findings of fact? Entertain a motion please.
MacCoy: I make a motion for approval of the findings of fact and conclusions, the Meridian
Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts and approves these findings of fact and
conclusions.
Hepper: Second
Johnson: Motion by Commissioner MacCoy, second by Commissioner Hepper, roll call
vote.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 9, 1996
Page 25
ROLL CALL VOTE: Hepper -Yea, Oslund -Yea, Shearer -Absent, MacCoy -Yea
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Johnson: The recommendation you would like to pass onto the City Council please?
MacCoy: The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends to the City
Council 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.
Hepper: Second
Johnson: We have a motion and a second, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #10: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR HONOR
PARK NO. 3 SUBDIVISION BY WILLIAM HON:
Johnson: As stated earlier we have a request from Mr. Hon and his representative to defer
this until our next meeting in May which is May 14. However since it is a public hearing
and it has been noticed if you would like to give testimony at this time I will open the public
hearing and ask you to address the Commission at this time.
Ehno Tiddens, 213 E. 2nd Street, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Tiddens: I am here representing the Williams Addition Lateral Association which is a
group of people who use flood irrigation for their yards in that subdivision which is, it
adjoins Franklin Road. Franklin Road is the southern most boundary, it goes clear over to
the rail road tracks is our northern boundary of our subdivision. On the east it is bounded
at 3rd Street East and on the west it is bounded by Meridian Road. In that area there we
have a lateral that flows through it and we want to keep the water flowing through it. In
this plan that we got in the mail of the subdivision that is in question here it doesn't show
any plans, any way of continuation. There is a ditch that runs along the park that is right
on the extreme western edge of this subdivision that we are talking about here. It flows
continually through the irrigation season and right now it is an open ditch. We want to
make sure that there are provisions for approval of that plot plan that water continues to
flow through and it goes under Franklin Road through our subdivision. Also, we would
recommend a 14 inch the through there instead of leaving it an open ditch. The ditch
presently is closed, in other words tiled in both at the park end which is right below the
•
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 9, 1996
Page 26
swimming pool is where our ditch comes out and or the the come out and the ditch begins.
And the ditch part is only I would say about 200 feet long there between where it comes
out there in the park to Franklin Road. Then it goes of course under Franklin Road and
through a 14 inch the into our subdivision. We just want to make sure there are plans so
that our water is not obstructed there.
Johnson: Okay, I have two things to respond to that or two items that will maybe give you
some comfort. Our staff recommends under their general comments which they responded
to this. Any existing irrigation ditches crossing the property to be included in this project
shall be tiled per City Ordinance. That is an ordinance that requires ditches to be tiled.
The ditches to be piped are to be shown on the preliminary plat plans will need to be
approved for the appropriate lateral users association, etc. Secondly we have a comment
from Nampa Meridian Irrigation District which is more or less a boiler plate type response,
but it says all laterals and waste ways must be protected, etc. So I think you can be
assured that your flow of water will not be interrupted down stream. Do you have any
other questions other than that?
Tiddens: Only, what is the time frame on that, when do you think it would be tiled?
Johnson: Well I can't answer that specifically because we don't know how long this
process will take before this approved. It will be a condition of acceptance of the
application that they have to tile. There will be a development agreement to that. Is there
a specific time that you can tell us that would be more specific than that Gary Smith?
Srhith: No Mr. Chairman, I don't know what their schedule is for improvement of the
subdivision. They have, if this plat is approved by City Council they have one year to file
a final plat on all of it or a portion thereof. If they don't do that they have to either ask for
an extension or the approval is null and void. I would like to get this gentlemen's name and
•telephone number and I will put that on our review copy of this preliminary plat and we wilt
call you sir when we have plans and let you come and look at them.
Tiddens: Do you want me to give that to you now?
Smith: Yes sir 'rf you would.
Tiddens: The name is Ehno Tiddens, at 888-7702.
Smith: Thank you.
Johnson: Thank you very much, I appreciate your testimony. Anyone else from the public
that would like to comment on this application? Seeing no one then 1 will close the public
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 9, 1996
Page 27
hearing.
Crookston: Don't you want to continue the public hearing for a presentation by the
applicant?
Johnson: Yes, that is a good suggestion, I will not close the public hearing I will leave it
open so we can receive the applicant's testimony. We will need a motion to table it to our
next meeting even though we have a request from the applicant.
Oslund: Mr. Chairman, I move we go ahead and keep it open and go ahead and table it
to the regularly scheduled meeting in May.
Hepper: Second
Johnson: All those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #11: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR RAILSIDE
SUBDIVISION BY RONALD YANKE:
Johnson: At this time I will open the public hearing and invite Mr. Yanke or his
representative to address the Commission.
Gary Lee, JUB Engineers, 1750 Summertree, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Lee: The application before you this evening is a request by the applicant of approval of
a preliminary plat known as the Railside Industrial Park Subdivision. This development
consists of 13 industrial lots ranging in size between 1 and 1/2 acres. It is situated on 22.8
acres off of Pine Road just directly west of Locust Grove. It is north of the rail road and
situated in a presently zoned industrial or I-L zone. The intent obviously is to develop light
industrial uses in that park as presented in the preliminary plat the uses will identify and
comply with the current ordinances. This particular piece of property as well as
surrounding parcels to the east, south and west is in an I-L zone and has been for quite
some time. It is bordered to a residential subdivision to the north known as Maws Addition
which is in an R-8 zone. The current use of the property has been in agriculture
production for quite some time. As you have seen earlier this evening there is an
application just to the west boundary of it by Mr. Forrey for the residential use. There are
services available on Pine Street for water and sewer as well as a sewer line along the
south boundary adjacent to the existing railroad track. There has been a variance
application submitted to the City which I guess will be heard by the City Council seeking
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 9, 1996
Page 28
a variance on the pressurized irrigation ordinance. This project being an industrial use will
be mainly hard surtaced areas, buildings, and very minimal landscaping. There will be
some provided to meet the minimum requirements of the City. There will be a landscape
buffer along Pine street in accordance with the City staff recommendations of a 20 foot
wide strip and also a ten foot wide strip along the future Locust Grove as it may extend in
the future. There has also been a request for a waiver on sidewalk on one side of the
street on Ralston and Commercial Avenue. This is very similar in nature to the Layne
Industrial Subdivision that was approved about a year ago just to the east of this property
on the present Locust Grove site. The lot dimensions are 185 to 200 foot in frontage so
this waiver we believe is a reasonable request. There are no commercial uses or
attractions in the neighborhood that would cause an excessive amount of pedestrian
traffic. We have reviewed at least technical staff review from ACRD on their comments
regarding right of way and road widths. We have agreed to shift the right of way along
Pine Street southerly so that the existing improvements along Maws Addition can stay as
they are today. By doing this we are giving up additional right of way there to
accommodate future plans (inaudible) street through there. Also there will be an
adjustment to the right of way along Locust Grove to line up with the present Locust Grove
north of Pine. A couple of comments from the City Engineer and City Planner. A letter we
received on Friday, general condition 4 speaks to the waiver, we would like to have the
waiver on the sidewalk to have it on one side of Ralston and Commercial Avenue. Site
speck condition 4, we would like to request that the landscaping along Locust Grove and
Pine Street be placed in an easement and the maintenance of that landscape easement
be by the individual lot owner rather than in a designated common lot. The reason for that
is this particular development we have no cause or reason to form a business owners
association and we would like not to do that. Site specific condition 7 where the City
Engineer spoke about the common lot for the sewer lines along the south edge of the
boundary of the project. We would like to discuss this further with the City Engineer and
see if we can't have some sort of exclusive easement right for the City and keep that on
private property. We may suggest that maybe limit the use of that property to either
emergency vehicle access or possibly parking and restrict any storage or building use.
Again we don't want to have to form a homeowners association to maintain the common
lots that would be an unreasonable request.
(End of Tape)
Lee: Well that concludes my presentation, I would entertain any questions that you may
have at this time.
Johnson: Questions of the applicant from the commissioners?
Hepper: Gary 1 had a question on these site specific comments from Shari Stiles and Bruce
Ii
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 9, 1996
Page 29
Freckleton, #4 states that a 20 foot planting strip would be required. It says as residential
properties abut this subdivision 20 foot planting strips are required adjacent to existing
residential properties to the north and the west of the subdivision. Do you agree with
putting a 20 foot planting strip down the west side?
Lee: That would be the residential house that is on the comer I suppose you are speaking
of?
Hepper: Well to the west of your project wouldn't that be Forrey?
Lee: Well there is a jog in the parcel and there is an existing home situated on Pine Street.
Yes you are correct in stating that part of it adjoins Wayne Forcey's property.
Oslund: Their's is right here, Forrey's is right here. Just a little clarification once again,
Forrey's property is to the west of your property.
Lee: Starting on the northwest comer of Lot 2 that is correct. Although that piece west of
Lot 1 is owned by a third party and there is a house on that property now.
Hepper: (Inaudible) 20 foot landscape strip down the west side, apparently it says,
because those are both residential, Forrey's would also be residential.
Lee: I did have a conversation with Wayne Forcey and his comment to me at the time was
he is planning on some landscape buffering on his development. He wasn't going to make
any undo hardships on future developments along this already approved industrial area.
Hepper: That is kind of what I was getting at was if you had worked anything out to
accommodate each other or just see that Shari's request is met.
Lee: I guess we would probably like to entertain that portion line along the west boundary
of Lot 1 which is a single family residence, there is a fair amount of separation between
the boundary and his home at present by his own property. His property is an industrial
zone.
Oslund: So let's say that again then, along Lot 1 and Block 2 you are not proposing to
landscape.
Lee: No
Oslund: How about along Blocks 2, 3, 5 of Block, I am sorry Lot 2, 3 and 5 of Block 2?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 9, 1996
Page 30
Lee: No, no plans for landscaping there.
Oslund: I guess I would, the fact that Wayne has come in and is proposing a residential,
basically a residential development to your west, somebody is going to have to put
something in there and buffer. It seems to me that since Wayne was in here a little earlier,
the only thing that seems logical is that this particular application you would be required
to put the buffering even though he beat you only by 30 days.
Lee: This is all industrial use in this area.
Hepper: I believe that Wayne testified and we could ask him that he testified before that
he would be willing to put in the required buffering so as not to place a hardship on the
industrial that was previously there before his property. So I guess before we go too much
farther we need to maybe get a comment from Wayne on this too.
Johnson: Any other questions of Mr. Lee?
MacCoy: I do, you don't have any problem with item 10, a note will be placed on the final
plat that states no direct access will be allowed to Pine and Locust Grove, are your plans
to be all internal?
Lee: Yes, that is fine, that is correct.
MacCoy: ACHD will have their statement I am sure, but I just think it is good policy to
maintain internal, you don't end up with a problem.
Lee: We agree
MacCoy: You had shown your drawing here JUB Engineering drawing that you have a 58
foot right of way, what set that?
Lee: That is the ACHD revised policy for collector streets.
MacCoy: For 58 not 60?
Lee: That is correct, it will have the same size street within that right of way as it always
has and that will be 41 feet back to back.
Johnson: Anything else Malcolm?
MacCoy: No, that covers mine, Gary and Shari have covered most of them.
i •
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 9, 1996
Page 31
Oslund: 1 have got another, you kind of peaked my interest when we mentioned about the
lots. Block 2 and Lot 1 and Block 1 those lots abutting East Pine. If you want to create a
20 foot landscaping easement there rather than a common parcel to affect the landscaping
improvements. I guess I wonder, I understand what you are trying to achieve there. What
is the easement, what is the purpose of the easement. Coutd you just make that one
ownership lot?
Lee: Well it would be a sp2cffic site easement on that lot for landscaping. And the CC&R's
should address those two lots as being required to have landscaping in that easement.
Ostund: Easements from who to who? I guess I don't understand.
Lee: Well I guess since it is a City requirement the easement should be for the benefit of
the City so it is part of their beautification of the entry into the City of Meridian. Or it could
be for the beneficial use of the lot owners in the subdivision, either one.
Oslund: That seems a little peculiar to me, because they are not really, the other, I don't
see what the benefit is to the other. If you are going to do that it seems to me you just
make it again a common ownership parcel and just go ahead and do it the way we have
seen it on others. I guess and maybe it is directed more to Wayne, if we try to do
something like that, in other words create some landscaping up front that none of the other
parcels have any involvement in does that make a case at all for possibly improving alf of
these parcel under the preliminary plat and then putting lots 1 and 1 along East Pine Street
of the conditional use permit. I don't see how we have any control if we approve the
preliminary plat with this kind of arrangement. I don't see how we
Crookston: The concern is going to be who is going to take care of that landscaping.
Oslund: Or that it gets done, how do we know that it will get done, I guess it what I am
asking. We trust you guys, don't get us wrong.
Lee: Well I guess our point of view is really the only people that are going to benefit from
that lot or that landscape easement won't be the users in the development. It is not a
common open space area for them to enjoy necessarily. And then you have only got 2
landowners to get after for landscaping maintenance or whatever the City may see fit
rather than 13.
Oslund: I agree, I guess I just don't see the purpose of the easement there because when
you grant an easement you are granting something to somebody so they and they pay
something to receive that benefit. I see those two parcels, if an owner, a particular owners
wants to dress up frontage maybe that is something that they would like.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 9, 1996
Page 32
Lee: Well maybe we should handle that in the CC&R's then to make those restrictions on
those two lots and those along Locust Grove. (Inaudible) 20 feet landscaping and you can
be specific on what you want, so many trees, so much in the way of shrubs and so on and
so forth.
Oslund: Well if we were to approve the preliminary plat with a condition or not a condition
but the fact that we would show that there was some landscaping up front what is the
process for affirming that is going to happen?
Johnson: Shari Stiles would you like to address the landscaping issue if you would at this
point (inaudible).
Stiles: Chairman Johnson and Commissioners I believe this came up in the Valley Center
Subdivision, I am not sure how that ended up whether they required an easement or a lot.
I believe Mr. Morrow was quite specific that he wanted a lot. The main concern is
consistency of the landscaping that it fit as one unit and that it be done prior to any
building on the rest of the plat so that planting strip which is intended as a buffer for the
residential across the street be in place prior to do any construction on the lot. I think that
they could probably handle it with probably a note on the final plat and in the covenants
that I believe the Council can make the condition that landscaping be construct prior to
beginning any construction on any portion of the plat.
Johnson: Is that a similar case where only two of 13 lots owners would benefit from the
easement or was it a situation where the landscaping area ran the length of the project or
do you recall specifically. Is it really similar to what we are talking about here?
Stiles: It is somewhat similar, they had much more frontage on Overland Road. There is
really nothing across the street from them and also it was a new annexation. This property
has been annexed for many years and we cannot require a development agreement as
part of the plat.
Johnson: If as Mr. Lee suggests they handle this through the CC&R's do you think that
would be acceptable to you, do you think that would be acceptable to the City Council?
Stiles: I thinkthatrfthe maintenance is handled through the CC&R's I still do believe that
it should be constructed as part of the initial improvements.
Johnson: And your hammer on that, your leverage on that to satisfy Commissioner Oslund
is what?
Stiles: Prior to their getting a signature on the final plat they would need to bond for those
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 9, 1996
Page 33
improvements.
Johnson: Or do the improvements.
Stiles: Right
Johnson: And Gary do you have any comments regarding Shari Stiles' comments?
Lee: No, I really don't think that is a concern. I think our biggest concern was forming an
association and having a corporation formed just to take care of landscaping.
Johnson: I can see where you wouldn't want to do that (inaudible) and I don't think that is
appropriate either. I wonder ff there is a better way of handling it. As long as you have the
signature or development agreement or something (inaudible) seems to me we could be
satisfied it would be completed because that seems to be Commissioner Oslunds Concern
that it will get done even though he trusts you guys. Mr. Forrey, since your name came
up in vain here several times would you make yourself available please so we could ask
you a couple of questions.
Wayne Forrey, 3045 Thayen Place, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Forrey: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, I met some time ago with Mike Ford
who is an executive with Ron Yanke Company. I committed to Mr. Ford that on our project
our retirement center campus we would build a lot of landscaping and quality screening
and fencing and it would not be necessary to ask them to do any of that work. I made that
same commitment to Gary Lee I think on two occasions. Our project abuts only a portion,
my entire property is the west boundary here except for the home on Pine. The elderly
campus is toward the north part of my property. So I am not asking for a special landscape
strip we will provide that ourself we will self buffer and screen. I don't think it is appropriate
to ask these gentlemen to do it, we are perfectly happy without it.
Johnson: Any other questions of Mr. Forrey or any other questions? In other words you
told us what we wanted to hear. Thank you Wayne I appreciate it. Is there anyone else
from the public or does the applicant still (inaudible).
Lee: I am finished unless there are some questions?
Johnson: Thank you Gary, any other people in the audience that would like to address the
Commission on this application. No further comments Mr. Lee? 1 will close the public
hearing at this time. This would require findings of fact and conclusions of law.
Meridian Planning ~ Zoning Commission
April 9, 1996
Page 34
Oslund: 1 thought it was just a plat?
Johnson: You are right it is just a plat, sorry about that, recommendation.
Hepper: Mr. Chairman, I move that we recommend approval on the preliminary plat.
MacCoy: Second
Johnson: Commissioner Hepper motions for approval, seconded by Commissioner
Malcolm MacCoy, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
FIVE MINUTE RECESS
ITEM #12: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A
PHOTOGRAPHIC PORTRAIT STUDIO BY BERTON 8~ DEANNA SPENCER:
Johnson: At this point I will open the public hearing and invite the applicant or the
applicant's representative to address the Commission.
Berton Spencer, 213 E. 3rd, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Spencer: Originally when we began this process and what we determined was really quite
a process what we would basically need is we need a place to do some photographic
portraits. The main thing that we are considering is for like seniors and at this location
there wouldn't be more than one possibly two seniors there at a time. It is going to be very
limited. The other thing would be interviewing and discussing wedding plans with brides
should we do weddings. Most of our work is done on site. For instance working with
seniors on the green belt, environmental type work. We originally made the application
for the enclosing the car port for a photographic studio and I saw that there were several
questions and comments with regard to that. Basically how we feel at this particular time
is that anything that if you don't want to enclose it we won't enclose it. I have also noticed
that there are also some concerns about a sign and that sort of thing. This would be an
appointment only sort of situation that we would like to have at this location. I am not sure
at this particular time if an accessory use permit might be a better thing than a full
conditional use permit but we would just like to state that any, we would be more than
willing to work with the Commission on any way it would allow us to be able to do this.
Johnson: Thank you Mr. Spencer, any questions from the Commissioners to the Applicant?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 9, 1996
Page 35
MacCoy: I do, you say it is going to be done by appointment only?
Spencer: Yes
MacCoy: How do you plan to advertise, through the yellow pages or though billboards or
what?
Spencer: Yes and word of mouth that sort of thing. As far as billboards, the other thing
would be like the school paper with a phone number that sort of thing.
MacCoy: You have read the material that was written up by the City?
Spencer: Yes, I would also like to include that there won't be any type of photographic
processing done on the site so as far as the compliance with the City sewer there wouldn't
be any problem.
MacCoy: Let's go bads one step here, you list your home at 213, I got the impression that
was a single family dwelling. I took a look at it and it is a duplex.
Spencer Yes, when we originally purchased the property there was a question about that
and we went to our insurance agent and he said that they insure it as a single dwelling
property because there is a split. evidently there is some sort of fire between the iwo so
they are able to insure them as separate properties.
MacCoy: Probably a fire wall in there.
Spencer: The other owner is here this evening as well.
MacCoy: I would like to hear from them later on. I have got a concern the fact that it is a
duplex, because 215 being your next door neighbor I have seen over the years this type
of installation causing a problem. You mentioned chemicals not being used in the building,
what kind of assurance do we have that is not going to happen?
Spencer: There used to be a problem in the past with nitrates in films, that is no longer a
concern. As far as lighting, I don't use flood lighting, it is all electronic. So there won't be
a problem with that.
MacCoy: There won't be a problem with wiring for example.
Spencer: It is very low.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 9, 1996
Page 36
MacCoy: Let's go back to your carport now, do you still plan to frame that to make a room
out of it or are you going to do that in your home?
Spencer: I would like to but I would, at some point my wife would like to have the extra
space. I frankly, at this juncture I would like to leave it to the Commission if that would be
acceptable.
MacCoy: Because framing that carport in puts you, I can see your neighbors fencing which
is pretty close.
Spencer: There is five feet from there in between the fence that exists there.
MacCoy: Is that a four foot high fence?
Spencer: No, I think it is more like a three (inaudible) in fact it is getting rather old if you
noticed. That is going to have to be taken care of sooner or later.
MacCoy: Where do you park your car when the car port is gone. I noticed behind your
area it doesn't look conducive to put more cars and more vehicles.
Spencer: There wouldn't be any access to get to the rear of it.
MacCoy: So you would be forced to park on the front part of your property.
Spencer: We have measured that and I am not sure of the requirements but there are 25
feet from the existing sidewalk to the street- and even without the carport there you could
easily put three in front and one in the driveway which is four vehicles. Frankly I don't see
any situation where we would be having more than two other vehicles there.
MacCoy: Okay, so you wouldn't plan to park your car on a I guess a concrete pad of some
kind in front of your existing (inaudible)
Spencer: There is one existing there now.
MacCoy: Did they list the fact that (inaudible)
Spencer: There is an existing four foot sidewalk there that runs the entire length of the
block. But it is getting rather old anyway. I am assuming that here when they were talking
about the installation of a five foot sidewalk that would go in its present position.
MacCoy: You mean replace what you have.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 9, 1996
Page 37
Spencer: Replace what I have and widen it by a foot.
MacCoy: I realize that in our Old Town zoning we do have some leeway but we are also
concerned about the health and safety of your neighborhood and particularly now your
neighbor which is next door to you.
Spencer: I do have a letter here from the folks that live at 200 East 3rd which is across the
street. We have gone around and discussed this with all of our neighbors as many of
them as possible and they all said they were in support of this.
Johnson: Would you like to enter that letter into the record?
Spencer: Yes, if I could.
MacCoy: Okay, for the time being I am going to shut off and pass it down the road here.
Oslund: What is the square footage of your home?
Spencer: It is a two story, I did some quick figuring back here and the total square footage
of the property came to 2070 square feet. Let me think here
Oslund: That is your lot size?
Spencer: Yes, that is the lot size, 2040 excuse me that confused me because there was
a statement in here about the regulation that is under 2070 would not be (inaudible). I do
have a floor plan of the house here if you would like to see that.
Oslund: Okay
Spencer: In that I did take some measurements, do I submit this to you?
Oslund: I think I can take a look at it and then submit it.
Johnson: That would be fine, we want to make sure to note on there that we received it
so we will do that here.
Oslund: Let's suppose then that you weren't allowed to enclose that carport and you
needed to do your work within your home. Are you going to have enough room in the lower
portion to do that?
Spencer: In the living room there is (inaudible) the other thing is that most of the or all of
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 9, 1996
Page 38
the equipment is rather portable. So it would also require that we take the equipment down
as well so that she could discuss plans with brides that want to come in and have a
wedding and to show work.
Oslund: You said that there is not going to be any photo processing on site, where would
that occur?
Spencer: That is done out of state. I presently have a professional lab that I deal with.
Oslund: You did say that if we were to approve this without the enclosure of the carport
that would be acceptable.
Spencer: That would be acceptable if it was between not being able to do my photography
and that. I am just trying to work with you.
Oslund: Then, just to make this clear on the, in terms of the advertisement and that sort
of thing then you would not be necessarily or you would not be advertising your location
for just for folks to just come in.
Spencer: In fad we would if we could stipulate it would be by appointment only, would that
be acceptable. 1 also have some photographs of the property if you would like those.
Johnson: If you submit those to us it becomes property of the City I have to tell you that
in advance.
Hepper: I had a quick comment, I am not sure that the feasibility of enclosing the carport
would be satisfactory. You would probably have to, you can just build a wall and set it on
the concrete slab. In order for the building department you would have to check with the
building department but you would have to have a footing and foundation under there
(inaudible) just like you have to have for a house. The cost of tearing all of that out and
putting that in is probably more then the cost of the carport right now.
Spencer: I was, it was one of those things where I was going to go do that then somebody
said no before you do that come here first.
Hepper: I don't know maybe Gary can comment on that, I believe that I am right. The
building requirements would require a footing and foundation and redwood plate and all
of that kind of stuff just like a new construction. So the only thing you would be salvaging
would be the roof but you would basically have to rebuild that as a part of the house.
Johnson: Did you indicate that your neighbor was here that is in the same building?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 9, 1996
Page 39
Spencer: Yes
Johnson: I would be interested in hearing if he would be willing to come forward or she.
Sharon Barrows, 215 East 3rd Street, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Johnson: The concern of some of the commissioners I believe, Commissioner Oslund and
also Commissioner MacCoy is compatibility of a commercial enterprise with someone so
Gose in proximity. My question to you is what is your reaction to this application and are
you on the favorable side or the negative side. How do you view this application affecting
your way of life.
Barrows: Our property is really close to down town Meridian, we are, I don't know what
you call when you are living in a commercial area anyway. As I see it I see this
photography studio as something positive, I think it will upgrade our property myself. It truly
doesn't sound like anything where there will be cars coming and going, coming and going,
it sounds like sort of a quiet family small business. I felt that it was positive.
Johnson: In other words you do not have a specific objection to the application as has
been presented. In case the record did not get that she said no she does not. For
clarification you are owners or your unit or your portion of the duplex.
Barrows: Yes, I don't own it yet but I am buying it.
Johnson: Right, it is not a rental situation.
Barrows: No sir
Johnson: Any questions of the neighbor, I am sorry the name escapes me right now.
Thank you very much we appreciate your testimony. Is there anyone else that would like
to come forward on this?
Crookston: I would just have a question for the applicant Mr. Spencer.
Johnson: Is that it?
Crookston: Mr. Spencer if you did use the carport my question is are you going to operate
in the winter'?
Spencer. If it wasn't enclosed I wouldn't operate it in the winter of course without enclosing
it in. At this particular point it sounds awfully unfeasible to do that because of the cost of
Meridian Planning i>< Zoning Commission
April 9, 1996
Page 40
enclosing it in.
Crookston: Are you aware that you would have to bring the property up to code, meet all
of the codes to do this?
Spencer: You mean for the carport, I am not sure about the other codes as far as if we
were to use a conditional use permit without the carport suggestion.
Crookston: It would be the electrical, the mechanical, the water and sewer codes, all of it.
Johnson: Well you need to be more specific, are you saying that none of this meets code
now?
Crookston: I have no idea whether it does or does not, I am just saying that is required.
Johnson: Of course that was in the comments from staff, you have those comments do
you not?
Spencer: Yes, I have a question about the fire department requiring the 25 foot in one of
the comments. I don't understand what that requirement exactly is. It was on #4 general
comments on the first page. As far as the American with Disabilities act, I will have to read
and find out what that is specifically referring to. Whether it is referring to wheel chair
access only.
(Inaudible)
Oslund: You alluded to early on in the testimony that you weren't sure if you were
supposed to be getting a conditional use permit or an accessory use. The way that I see
it anyway, if you were going for the proposal as stated that is the enclosure and the sign
out front and that kind of situation then I guess 1 would say yes that this is a candidate for
conditional use permit. I guess it is but if it is reduced, the scope of this thing is reduced
to the point where what you are talking about is you have people over you are not openly
advertising. You have clients over one and two at a time and you are taking pictures of
them and you are not processing the film on site and none of your neighbors seem to, the
ones we heard, didn't have any objection and you noticed the rest around your area. I
guess I just don't see the problem, I can't answer or address Wayne's statement about
bringing everything up to code. It seems like if somebody wants to do that it should be
Johnson: What you are saying Commissioner Oslund is this is a candidate for accessory
use is that what you are saying?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 9, 1996
Page 41
Oslund: I guess I am asking
Johnson: Let's get Shari's feed back on that since Shari is the expert on Accessory uses.
Stiles: Commissioner Oslund and the rest of you, they did initially apply for an accessory
use permit. However because of the of the commercial aspect of it and the fact that it is
in Old Town I did not feel it was eligible for an accessory use permit. Usually the home
occupations are merely office like such as a real estate or insurance where they do not
have traffic coming in and out. All they want to do is use it as a business address and don't
use it as a commercial site. That was the reason for requiring conditional use permit.
Johnson: There is usually little to no traffic, no signage.
Stiles: Yes
Oslund: I guess what I am asking is and that determination 1 assume was made given the
facts that are in his application that is the sign out front. I think the application at least
Spencer: Excuse me in the original accessory use permit application I didn't include that
sign, that sign was basically just an after thought.
Oslund: How about the addition?
Spencer: The addition I believe was in it. (Inaudible)
Oslund: I guess it would be my opinion that if we adjust the application to eliminate all of
those things and he wants to have just one or two clients in his home on occasion without
general advertising to take pictures it seems like it should fit. Especially when we have
noticed all the neighbors and one showed up and has no problem and the others didn't
find a good reason.
Stiles: I believe if this were an occasion where none of the work were done at the home
and they simply had a business and wanted to go out on site like they were going on the
green belt and things like that, I think that would be fine as an accessory use permit, but
I still believe this is a commercial use of the property and it should be under the conditional
use permit..
Johnson: The last and I am not arguing with you, but the last accessory use that I recall
that we approved was a fellow that actually made, manufactured wood signs in his home.
There was no traffic there and that seemed to be the reason that we permitted the
accessory use, but there was work there. He had converted his garage, there was no
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 9, 1996
Page 42
structural change to his building, but he was doing his sign work out of the garage. I am
a Tittle foggy myself on accessory uses. Accessory uses don't require for lack of a better
term the rigmarole that we are going through tonight. Shari's point about Old Town, we
have a special designation for this area Old Town because we want to kind of see it retain
its integrity so to speak. So everything in Old Town is conditional use where it not in others
areas of the zoning. That may be one of the guiding reasons that she decided that it
wouldn't fit accessory use. I am not putting words in your mouth I am just trying to see
where we are coming from here. We need to address at a different time what constitutes
an accessory use and what doesn't. I tend to agree with Greg which I don't do very often
that maybe this isn't a conditional use but that is the Commission's call.
Crookston: (Inaudible) I believe that whether it is a conditional use or an accessory use
they still have to meet the codes.
Deanna Spencer, 213 E. 3rd, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Spencer: I guess what my question was concerning code, was we have done some
research to find out what it is we need to bring this area into code as far as electrical,
heating, as far as any of these other things that would have to be added. 1 guess what my
question was is there anything different that you are talking about in this area that I am not
aware of?
Crookston: Well there would be one thing that you haven't mentioned that could be a
problem is the fire code, the health and life safety code, mechanical code, electrical,
mechanical, that is all that popped into my head right now, Shari?
Stiles: Uniform Building Code which would include the American with Disabilities Act.
B. Spencer: And then we would still, we couldn't ask for a waiver of any of, for instance
the parking ordinances or that sort of thing?
Crookston: You can always apply for a variance but when they are specific requirements
it is very difficult for the City to grant them.
Johnson: (Inaudible) City Council which is where the variance has to be approved not
before this body, it is reluctant to vary anything that is required by code.
D. Spencer: These are all things that I am sure we would have to have someone address.
We are required to meet any of those codes and so it is something that definitely we need
to do.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 9, 1996
Page 43
MacCoy: What is the age of that building by the way?
B. Spencer: I believe 80 or 81.
D. Spencer: Yes I believe so, 80 or 81, I would have to back through.
MacCoy: We have gone past that date, the reason I was (inaudible) more of a current
code already in place there is a lot less to be done. What you have heard this evening is
very true, I think the cost would be prohibitive considering what you want to do with that
building. You need to actually look at your finances.
D. Spencer: Well, that is another area that we have to (inaudible) and as far as some
actually other figures on the (inaudible) had an architect come out and it is certainly a
possibility. It certainly is something I would like to look into.
B. Spencer: In the findings of fact could you address those specific codes for us?
Crookston: They would be addressed.
Johnson: Those are in there they are more or less boiler plat but they would be mentioned
and referred to by specific ordinance.
Crookston: Let me put it this way, the codes would be referenced what you have to do
would not be, because I certainly don't have any ability to do that. It would just say what
codes you have to be or that you have to comply with.
B. Spencer: Well my concern was it says something about fire then I need to be talking to
the fire people, if is says something about concrete, I need to be talking to the concrete
people.
Johnson: We realize here that we are not dealing with professional developers or builders,
this is a one time deal for you and we want to give you the best guidance we can. In that
regard do either of the (inaudible) to add to that to help these people along because we
are not dealing with professional applicant's and specifically with respect to see if it would
be feasible for them to meet the code. How do we give these people the guidance they
need?
Smith: Mr. Chairman, there are I think there are several businesses around that do
inspections of residential units and they can advise owners of the situation of their home.
Johnson: With respect to the code?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 9, 1996
Page 44
Smith: With respect to the codes and they do this primarily for sale of home or for a buyer
perhaps but primarily for transfer ownership or homes. I would assume that they could do
the same thing.
Johnson: You locate those people in the yellow pages or do you have references?
Smith: Well, we have a contractor that works for us in the building inspection department,
his Company (End of Tape) he is in the building department and I think he does this kind
of work outside of his regular City inspection duties. I think he can advise these folks of
what they would need to do to upgrade in all of these categories. I am not sure of that but
certainly could give him a call and check with him. If he can't I would suspect that he could
advise them of someone that could.
Johnson: Thank you, what we need to do here is help these people out so they don't
spend a lot of money going off into one direction and not be able to realize any return.
D. Spencer: I just wanted to further comment here that we wanted to do a small business
operation in hopes that someday we would be able to increase. Then at that time be able
to go out and rent the appropriate square footage for studio or reception for sales area and
maybe even production. What my thought was after this was accomplished I would like
to use and have that area revert back to residential as a spare family room or something
that we would like to use as additional space. So on those other things we would have
had to I think we would have had to do that anyway.
Hepper: From my own perspective on this I think, I don't really see where it is a problem.
If it is feasible for you guys to do it, just taking some pictures is really not a big intensive
use. I have no problems with putting a studio in there it is just if it is feasible for you to do
it. 1 think from my standpoint I don't have any problems with it.
Oslund: I agree, not sure how we get you through this as fast as we can. Like 1 said I was
kind of leaning towards the accessory use but I don't know if we can get that. I don't know
if it makes any sense, you are really close to getting through this process and like Wayne
said some of these issues about code requirements would apply regardless of the planning
process that you go through. I don't believe though, I guess I like, it is a good idea with
the exception of I don't really like the idea necessarily of the sign and the addition. But the
other stuff.
D. Spencer: Well I can do without the sign, it is not important.
MacCoy: But if you plan to do the addition anyway for another thing down the road then
that is a different story altogether. I think you have to do your homework and finances
•
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 9, 1996
Page 45
before you step into this.
Oslund: Well that addition doesn't need to be done, it could be, just come back go to the
building department and say we have a single family residence or a duplex and we want
to add on a family room and 1 don't believe that you will ever have to come see us. As long
as you meet their requirements.
Crookston: On your question about if you do go with a conditional use permit or an
accessory use permit either one and then you operate your business and in two years or
20 years later you want to go back to the home that is not a problem.
Johnson: Anyway, the way this process works is if we go to the findings of fact and
conclusions of law then those aren't addressed until our May meeting on the 14th,
following that it goes to the City Council so it is not a real quick process. That is as quick
as it can be under the (inaudible) with what we have to do with noticing the people etc.
Anyone else have anything else? Anyone from the public have a final comment? If not I
will close the public hearing then. It does require findings of fact and conclusions of law.
Oslund: Mr. Chairman, I move that the City Attorney prepare findings of fact and
conclusions of law for this application and incorporate the testimony given and the
concerns of the commissioners.
MacCoy: Second
Johnson: Moved and seconded you have the City Attorney prepare findings of fact and
conclusions of law, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Johnson: That is it for tonight, if you do have any question feel free to contact the City
either the public works department but that is probably not your best bet, go first to the City
Clerk if you have any questions he can direct you to the people to give you answers in the
interim here.
ITEM #13: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A VACATION OF A PORTION OF GEM
STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY BY WILD SHAMROCK PARTNERSHIP:
Johnson: At this time I will open the public hearing and ask the representative or the
applicant to come forward and address the Commission. I need to remind you that any
materials presented to the Commission become property of the City.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 9, 1996
Page 46
Mike Caven, 6874 Fairview Avenue, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Caven: Mr. Chairman and Commissioners my name is Mike Caven I represent the Wild
Shamrock on this application for vacation of Gem Street. I would like to kind of bring you
up to speed here a year ago this month on this project we had approved is what I have
here before you. The Blimpie's/Godfather site has been constructed and they are in
business and operation right now. We will be submitting the final plans for building D here
within 30 days and begin construction on that. What we have before you right now, we
are working with building A on this plan here shows that it is a sit down restaurant, under
the conditional use a year ago, that is approved for a drive thru and that is what we are
attempting to do is with our client right now to put that back into a drive thru. We have
another plan that will show that as a drive thru. What we are referring to tonight is for this
building, for the future drive thru, we feel it is critical for an access onto Gem Avenue. And
so we are looking for a vacation of Gem Avenue, we want to cover up that Eight Mile
lateral and put the access in on Gem Avenue.
{Inaudible)
Caven: Reviewing the comments from Shari we don't have a problem with items 1 through
4, if we can add a fifth item to that. The fifth item would be the plans for vehicle access on
Gem Street will need to be approved by Ada County Highway District, submit written
evidence of approval to the City Clerk's office prior to the commencing of work. Above and
item 1 were subject to working out of piping the Eight Mile lateral getting an executed
license agreement and submitting that as evidence to the City Clerk's office. In item #3 we
are to provide an approval letter from ACRD for all the work to be done in the right of way.
In item 4 we are to submitted a detailed landscaping plan for Gem Street prior to any
building. So item 5 as I suggested would just continue that we would get an agreement
with Ada County Highway District for this access to Gem Avenue prior to construction.
With that if there are any questions?
Johnson: Thank you Mike, any questions of Mr. Caven? This is a public hearing, is there
someone else that would like to address the Commission at this time?
Jean Quinteri, 2710 Laurelhurst Drive, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Quinteri: We have no objection to the tiling of the lateral adjoining Gem Street. The only
thing that we are concerned with that in April 1985 the Ada County Highway District
granted us permission to improve the South 24 feet of the north 59 feet of Gem Avenue
for additional parking, that we have done. We would like to be able to continue to use that
for a portion of Gem Street for off street parking for our patrons. Following some of the
plans that have been submitted and the details that I have here one concern that I have
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 9, 1996
Page 47
is how far into that south 24 feet will that improvement come. How much of that 24 feet
will be used in approving the lateral? We would like to be able to maintain that, I know
that the agreement from the Ada County Highway District has a stipulation they can
rescind that approval, but we sure need it and we would like to keep it. Are there any
questions, I would be glad to try and answer them for you.
Johnson: Okay Jean 1 am not too sure we can answer your question and I can understand
the importance of that to you. I would like to ask staff at this time if they have looked into
that specific issue and pefiaps can shed some light on the situation regarding Meridian
bowling lanes. It doesn't matter which one of you goes first.
Smith: Mr. Chairman, I have looked into that license agreement that they have.
Johnson: That license agreement is that the agreement that he is referring to of 1985 with
ACRD?
Smith: I believe so.
Johnson: Do you happen to have copies of that?
Quinteri: I delivered some to the City.
Johnson: The City has that.
Quinteri: I delivered copies and they made copies of mine.
Johnson: I don't think we have those in our packet. Let me see, we do have that in here.
It is smaller type, it has been reduced.
Quinteri: (Inaudible)
Johnson: It looks like it runs for an indeterminate period of time until such time as you are
notified by ACRD it no longer exists right? Is that your understanding?
Quinteri: That is correct, there is a rescind on section 1 the last seven lines you can see
where the license can be terminated with a 30 days notice which we haven't received.
Johnson: Have you had any discussions Jean yourself with any representatives from
ACRD on this?
Quinteri: (Inaudible}
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 9, 1996
Rage 48
Johnson: I guess the real question is one we probably can't answer at this point and that
is how far that comes into the 24 feet is that correct.
Caven: The reason that we would be happy not to improve the street, curb, gutter and
sidewalk, it is a recommendation by ACHD that we do that. Brian here can address the
technicalities of a 24 feet. How it got to what it is and why it is there. If you can see if we
can get rid of the curb, gutter and sidewalk then we can preserve his 24 feet and move on
and that would be fine.
Johnson: Well I would appreciate Brian's comments.
Brian Iverson, 826 LaCassia Drive, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Iverson: Just a little history, Gem Street has 91 feet of right of way, it was sold to the
County Highway District I believe it was about in the late 1940's. Sold them 91 feet of right
of way so they could get rid of the Eight Mile Lateral I guess with it. So at this time the
Eight Mile Lateral is located on Ada County Highway District right of way and the Wild
Shamrock parcel actually abuts Gem Street right of way south of the lateral. (Inaudible)
recommendations of ACHD was to curb, gutter and sidewalk Gem Street as part of the
development. That creates drainage problems plus we have no access so one of the
things that arose out of that was to go in and the the Eight Mile lateral and get access to
Gem Street and provide the improvements. To do that we proposed to vacate the southerly
36 feet of Gem Street. Mr. Quinteri does have a license agreement from 1985 for the north,
the south 24 feet of the north 59 feet of the existing right of way. The impact on him would
be that the new right of way would encroach 3 feet into his 24 feet from the south. Under
the provisions to provide curb gutter and sidewalk, the curb, gutter and sidewalk and
distance from the right of way to the back of the sidewalk will require an additional 9 feet.
So the total encroachment into his 24 feet is 12 feet leaving him a remainder of 12 feet
which is really a moot question because now we are looking at a paved street out there
and it would be my belief that the Highway District would rescind the agreement because
now you have an improved street with curb, gutter and sidewalk out there.
Johnson: So the parking would disappear is what you are saying?
Iverson: That would be what I believe.
Oslund: On both sides of the street?
Iverson: Yes
Oslund: So the typical section for this piece, then this is an arterial, five lane?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 9, 1996
Page 49
Iverson: I believe it is designated a local road, our firm also did the Meridian Road design
improvement. Because of the connector and everything else the existing curb returns at
E. 1st Street are 41 back to back for a street line with turn section. ACHD had approved
that and with my belief that because of the connection between Meridian Road and East
1st.
Oslund: So it is a 3 lane. So he is really going to lose a ton of parking, not just on the
south side of Gem Avenue but everything on the north side he is going to lose.
(Inaudible)
Oslund: Okay, so your improvements are only half street improvements from the center
line to the south.
Iverson: Right, well it requires just a pavement match and it is not even a full section.
Quinteri: Can I ask a question, is it necessary to put that wide of a sidewalk in Gem
Street?
Iverson: We, normally with that street section you have a 7 foot sidewalk in this case we
have 5 foot sidewalks. The other reason that the street is so far north and you will notice
that with the existing curb returns on East 1st that they are in the northerly portion of the
existing right of way. One reason of course is that the Eight Mile Lateral takes up the
southern portion of that right of way. The other is that the bridge is both on East 1st and
on Meridian Road by the time you put the radius in and you can see it on the existing curb
returns on East 1st and the road way would match those because of the bridge being there
by the time you get the radius, the curb return radius in the Gem Avenue moves north.
Oslund: Does this require findings?
Crookston: Yes
Oslund: (Inaudible)
Crookston: Well I think that it does but I am not sure.
Johnson: I didn't think that it did (inaudible) it is a recommendation as I recall.
Crookston: I will look into and if findings are required then I will do them and if not I won't.
Johnson: I think we need to move ff we are going, and if we are through with the testimony
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 9, 1996
Page 50
we don't know that yet (inaudible). Is there any other testimony?
Smith: Mr. Chairman can I ask a question? Brian do you know where the building is in
relation to the right of way line, Meridian Bowling lanes?
Iverson: I do but whether or not I have got it with me I don't know. I don't have it on the
drawing Gary.
Quinteri: Our building is 22 feet north of the Gem Street right of way that we have
(inaudible)
Iverson: So then 22 feet of the right of way and when you put the curb, gutter and sidewalk
on your side you would have basically 22 feet.
Smith: Is it possible then that his parking along his building would be protected even as
Gem Street is developed do you think or not?
Iverson: It would be my observation that as Gem Street is developed on the north side, as
curb and gutter is developed up there then you would be restricted to that 22 feet which
I believe would probably reduce it down from what he is seeing now because of the open
nature of it. (Inaudible) parking stalls so about 20 feet so if he was pulled in towards the
building (inaudible)
Oslund: What was the distance from the face of curb back to property line?
Iverson: Two feet, from the face of curb to the property line it would be 7.5 feet.
Oslund: It doesn't look good for parking as Gem develops.
Smith: I think the highway district would have to make some special ruling on that. I guess
that this their jurisdiction.
Quinteri: (Inaudible) South 24 feet (inaudible) along that side and leave (inaudible).
Johnson: We are not in receipt of ACRD comments is that correct?
Smith: Mr. Chairman, may I ask another question? Mr. Quinteri how many parking spaces
do you have available at this time for your bowling lanes, do you know?
Quinteri: 190 some.
s •
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 9, 1996
Page 51
Smith: How many spaces do you have adjacent to Gem Street do you think at this time?
Quinteri: Well we can use as many as 22, 24 places.
Smith: On the South side?
Quinteri: Yes (inaudible) you are going to have a passage way (inaudible)
Crookston: Wefl they have got to eat somewhere, you just won't have as much food
business Jean.
Quinteri: We are getting, it is amazing we get more restaurants out that direction and
(inaudible) going up, so bring more restaurants in.
Johnson: I am not sure that we are getting all of these comments on the recording here
that Anna has to deal with. At this point it looks like we are kind of at an impasse, we need
to have some kind of recommendation. If it does require findings of fact and conclusions
of law and Anna thinks it does and she does all the typing on all these (inaudible) so she
probably knows so 1 think we need to do that. I am sure that the Commissioners are
interested in ACRD comments.
Iverson: I guess as a point, we haven't filed a formal application with ACRD and I don't
know is it a part of the City process when you get a request for a vacation is it forwarded
to ACRD Gary?
Smith: They have their own process but Shari said this was forwarded to them.
Iverson: Part of their process is that we have to have City approval {inaudible) before we
proceed with their process.
Johnson: We just need some action on it whatever you want to do. You have some options
you can table it, you can proceed on the condition of (inaudible) deny it, ask for findings
of fact.
Oslund: I think it is a tough decision but I don't know what kind out of our jurisdiction.
Johnson: I think that is true but what might occur is some options, I don't know that they
might be that ACHD might come up with. I know ACHD is the one that wants the street 3
lanes wide. But I would still look for their comments on their review of this.
MacCoy: (Inaudible}
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 9, 1996
Page 52
Johnson: You guys can do whatever you want to do, 1 don't want to tell you what to do.
MacCoy: I propose that we table this until we receive the ACHD comments and (inaudible)
next meeting.
Johnson: You have to table it to a date certain which would be May 14.
MacCoy: May 14
Iverson: Well if you have submitted it to ACHD and they haven't responded what is the
mechanism to get comments from them?
Johnson: (Inaudible) process the way I understand it, is that correct?
Smith: Well I am not sure how the highway districts reacts on vacation. If what Brian is
saying, it sounds like they are waiting for a response from the City of Meridian before they
issue any action. I don't know 1 haven't followed one through before on a vacation of right
of way. I am sorry I can't tell you.
Johnson: We did one on Roger Anderson that we handled on March 12, do you recall that
specifically?
Smith: We vacated an easement for Anderson yes, that was a City easement, this is a
public right of way. I am song I don't know what their process is. I know they have public
hearings and advertisements just like we do but I don't know if they are requiring some
kind of input from the City of Meridian prior to their holding of that public hearing.
Iverson: As part of the application process you need to submit approval by the City for the
vacation. ACHD of course owns the right of way and now they charge you for it. The
developer has even had to have an appraisal done of the Eight Mile Lateral part of it so
that ACHD can determine Market Value at which you would purchase it.
Caven: I think what, we thought through these things, I think what when I first started on
these conditions 1 through 4, if we can add that number 5 that gives this Commission the
opportunity to go ahead and move this thing forvvard and get a decision that we can take
and put on our application to ACHD but still what their decision is have to come back
before your clerk with the written approval of what they will accept. That was my proposal
on putting that in the numberfive plans to be able to access onto Gem Street will need to
be approved by the Ada County Highway District, submit written evidence of approval to
the City Clerk's office prior to commencing of work. So I think that would allow you to
make that decision pass it forward and whatever ACHD decides has still got to go through
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 9, 1996
Page 53
the City of Meridian before we start work.
Oslund: Well 1 think we should consider as hard as it is moving this forward and if, have
we decided that there are findings.
Johnson: We are pretty sure that it is required. This is not something that we handle
everyday, but we think we do.
Stiles: Chairman and Commissioners, I know that the fast vacation that we did was for
Roger Anderson and that findings were prepared however in December of 1994 we
vacated an entire plat with all the roadways and associated easements, Crookston's
comment here, Crookston states,"this does not require findings", Johnson, "it is a
recommendation though is it not?" Crookston, "You can make a recommendation to the
Council." Shearer moved we recommend the City Council to vacate this plat, second and
it went right onto City Council. The motion was, we have a motion to recommend to the
City Council approval of the vacation of this subdivision plat and the associated right of
way all those in favor, opposed.
Crookston: There may be differences between vacating the plat and vacating a right of
way.
Stiles: I don't believe we did any findings for the Loffer vacation.
Crookston: Either way
Johnson: I don't think any of those cases had a negative impact on anyone. (Inaudible)
Crookston: If they are required I will do them if not I won't.
Stiles: Is this State code where it requires that?
Crookston: We deal with that and the City's ordinance on this, both.
Oslund: I am going to take a shot at a motion here.
Johnson: Well Malcolm already has one on the floor.
Caven: Could I ask a quick question, if you guys decide the sidewalk doesn't need to go
in, the improvements don't need to be (inaudible) says they want them (inaudible) is it this
Commission or the City of Meridian or Ada County Highway District.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 9, 1996
Page 54
Crookston: ACHD will make the final determination (inaudible).
Caven: That is where if we can get through this and add this number 5 the developer and
the bowling alley we can get down to ACRD and work this out with them and bring that
decision back to the City of Meridian.
Crookston: That could be, the City does have to approve it at some time.
Caven: ACHD is not going to hear it until they get recommendation from the City.
Johnson: We have a motion on the floor.
Oslund: Malcolm could you restate your motion please?
MacCoy: My motion was to table this until our next meeting in the month of May, regular
meeting in the month of May. We would then look at the ACRD comments on this. There
may not be any.
Oslund: I would like to second that and ask for discussion.
Johnson: You can't have discussion until there is a second or it dies for lack of a second.
Oslund: I just said that.
Johnson: Okay, we have a motion and a second, discussion.
Oslund: Okay, I guess I would, I don't know that there is a need to table it and I understand
that there is an impact to the property owner. It is ACHD's right of way that they are
seeking to vacate. ACRD is going to have to make a couple of decisions, they are going
to have to decide whether they are going to give him as (inaudible) on street parking that
is not currently shown in this I don't know. There are several issues that need to be
worked out and I don't know but I think they are all within the jurisdiction of ACRD. So, as
an alternative, I would offer that maybe we just go ahead.
Johnson: Well we have to vote on this motion first. (Inaudible) any further discussion?
We have a motion to table until our next meeting with hope of feedback from ACHD which
we may or may not be getting, all those in favor of that motion? Opposed?
MOTION DEFEATED: All Yea
Johnson: Is there any further discussion or another motion?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 9, 1996
Page 55
Oslund: I would like to make a motion that we determine if we need the findings of fact and
if we do we prepare them and if we don't then this motion would be that we approve the
request for vacation of this street right of way. Then we get a chance to review the
conclusions of ACHD's review. In other words that would come back to us.
Johnson: You have a motion on the floor is there a second? Motion dies for lack of a
second. Gary Smith you had a comment that might help us?
Smith: Mr. Chairman I was just wondering if the parking requirements for the Meridian
Bowling lanes should be taken into acxount here just to see what kind of impact this really
has on their operation.
Johnson: Square footage versus use and that sort of thing. I would guess it would
(inaudible) originally approved for that.
Smith: I have no idea, but I don't know that there has been any plan set forth as to how this
is going to look once the street is improved and whether or not parking spaces can be
provided along the south side of the building off of Gem Street. It may be that Meridian
Bowling lanes is not only going to lose the parking spaces on the south side of Gem Street
but they will lose them on the north side of Gem Street also with the improvement of the
road. There is after all 92 feet of right of way provided here, 92 feet, that is probably as
wide of right of way that we have in the City of Meridian except for Fairview Avenue.
(Inaudible)
Smith: I understand that but it is still public right of way. We are going to vacate 36 feet
of it because of a ditch which will be piped. If the ditch is going to be piped it could be
moved onto the property and piped.
Johnson: Do you think there is a possibility that the vacation of this easement is going to
put Meridian bowling lanes out of compliance?
Smith: I am just asking the question Mr. Chairman, I don't know. But right now, I don't
know, I am just asking the question.
Johnson: I don't think we have enough information here to make a decision here. 1 think
in that regard we need to get some additional infomtation. We are going around in several
different directions here.
Smith: I understand that, I am just tossing out a question that I think from my standpoint
needs to be answered. We have an operation of a long term Meridian business down
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 9, 1996
Page 56
there that has relied upon parking along Gem Street and all of a sudden it appears to me
that parking on both sides of Gem Street is jeopardized by the vacation of 36 feet of the
existing right of way.
Oslund: Is that parking currently on public right of way?
Smith: It is on the south side yes sir. On the north side if there is 22 feet of space between
the building and the right of way then that parking area is on the Meridian Bowling Lanes
property. But on the south side that is definitely in the right of way. That is why this license
agreement exists with the highway district.
Oslund: I share your concerns as well and that is why I said that ACHD is going to have,
one of the decisions that they are going to have to make is are they going to allow direct
off street parking on the north side. I would say that is unlikely. That is, it is something that
is going to have to be dealt with.
Quinteri: On the north side of Gem Street there would be no need to provide (inaudible)
parking in our own property (inaudible).
Oslund: Yes, but that parking would have to direct, it would have access directly from the
street, is that correct, backing in and out?
Quinteri: It does now.
Oslund: And with the new street is that right? If they were to complete curb, would you still
have to get into that parking space directly from the street?
Quinteri: If you put curbs and gutters on the north side (inaudible) curbs and gutters would
have to go on the portions (inaudible) 92 feet of right of way. (Inaudible)
Johnson: Comment Mr. Caven?
Caven: A year ago when this was approved the climate of this site regardless of if we tiled
the ditch or not is to do the improvements to Gem Avenue. So the issue here isn't if we
should the it or not, that doesn't matter, we are required to put the improvements in by
ACRD on a conditional use from a year ago. So we have to do that. The way the ground
lays because of the ditch and the bridges to get the radius that ACHD wants that is why
the sidewalk is where it is. So that is going to go in regardless if we pipe the lateral or not.
The second issue, when you get down to it, we want to work with the neighbor but the
bottom line is the public right of way in the agreement with ACHD they gave the bowling
alley the right to use it until such time as the revoke the license to use it. I wish I could go
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 9, 1996
Page 57
around town and get parking on public property all over the place. But the bottom line is
that ACRD knew this was going to be improved at some time in the future, they weren't
using it at the time. (End of Tape) phase one of the Blimpie's and Godfather's they didn't
make us do it. When we come in with phase 2 they are going to make us put it in.
Oslund: What is the variance that you are referring, you just said that ACHD would grant
a variance, what variance are you seeking?
Caven: Well if I said variance I didn't mean variance, what, we did phase 1, Godfather's
and the Blimpie's they did not make us improve Gem Avenue at the time. When we come
in to do our next building they said they will make us do the improvements on Gem
Avenue, it is already set. And so what we have done in the mean time, we have a user
for building A, which the access onto Gem Avenue would be very beneficial for traffic flows
for getting in and out of the site. We determined if we pipe that and make an access to
Gem Avenue.
Oslund: So the half street improvements that you guys are committed on doing on the
south side there does it have on street parking of any kind? Or just bike lanes or what
does it have?
Caven: Has that been designed?
(Inaudible)
Caven: We will have to submit some plans to ACRD and go with what the requirements
are. So we get the vacation and your comments on it so we can go down and apply to
them and say the City of Meridian agrees to this (inaudible) on street parking or restrict the
parking or what they are going to do.
Oslund: That would replace maybe half of what he has got now, he has 24 spaces that
are perpendicular on the south side. If you did parallel parking possibly you can get some
back. I just don't see, the stuff that is happening on the north side that is going to happen
in the future and that is realty not, that is something that is going to have to be dealt with
but I don't think it is our, I think it is ACHD's issue.
Crookston: How far to the east of Meridian Road is the plan for the access into the Bolo's
area and that area?
Caven: That is another issue and we will need to get exacts, but as it is drawn right there
it is about 210 feet of East First and about the same from Meridian Road.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 9, 1996
Page 58
Johnson: Okay we need a motion guys or we will be here all night.
MacCoy: I recommend that this material be tabled until the next meeting to get the ACWD
material in hand and also study or comments by our staff to do with the bowling alley.
Johnson: Okay, 1 am looking for a second here before we have discussion.
Oslund: Second
Johnson: Okay, I think the problem here in this motion is you made your motion with the
ACHD would be providing comments and I don't necessarily think they are going to
provide us with anything. I think you can structure a motion to pursue that to clarify
whether we are going to get it. I think (Inaudible) requirement that someone from staff
contact ACRD. (Inaudible) 1 don't think we can state with those in hand because I don't
think we have anything in hand and therefore we would be stuck again with tabling it
again.
MacCoy: I rescind my motion.
Crookston: The second needs to rescind also.
Oslund: I wilt rescind my second
MacCoy: I recommend that we table this material with the fact we will review it again in
one month at the regular meeting with staff checking into the ACRD material if any, and
the needs for findings of fact and conclusions.
Oslund: Second
Johnson: Any discussion? All those in favor of the motion? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Oslund: I move that we close this meeting.
Hepper: Second
Johnson: We have a motion for adjournment, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:50 P.M.
r~
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 9, 1996
Page 59
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
APPROVED:
~/~~~g6
I NSON, CHAIRMAN
ATTEST:
WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CITY CLERK
CITY OF MERIDIA
MEETING SIGN- SHEET
~~l>C~
.. ~ i
ORIGfNAL
BEFORE THE MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
MILLSTREAM PROPERTIES L.L.C.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
LEARNING CENTER
EAST CORNER OF 4TH STREET NEST CHSRRY LARE
MERIDIAN, IDARO
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The above entitled conditional use permit application having
come on for consideration on March 12, 1996, at the hour of 7:30
o'clock p.m. on said date, at the Meridian City Hall, 33 East Idaho
Street, Meridian, Idaho, and the Planning and Zoning Commission
having heard and taken oral and written testimony and the Applicant
appearing through their representative, Charles Haacke, and having
duly considered the matter, the Planning and Zoning Commission
makes the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. That a notice of a public hearing on the Conditional Use
Permit was published for two (2) consecutive weeks prior to the
said public hearing scheduled for March 12, 1996, the first
publication of which was fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing;
that the matter was duly considered at the March 12, 1996, hearing;
that the public was given full opportunity to express comments and
submit evidence; and that copies of all notices were available to
newspaper, radio and television stations.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 1
MILLSTREAM PROPERTIES L.L.C.
2. That the property is located within the City of Meridian;
that the general location of the property is on the east corner of
4th Street and West Cherry Lane, is currently zoned Limited Office
(L-O), and is described in the application which description is
incorporated herein.
3. That the zoning of Limited Office District, (L-O) is
defined in the Zoning Ordinance at 11-2-408 B. 11. as follows:
(L-01 Limited Office District: The purpose of the (L-O)
District is to permit the establishment of groupings of
professional, research, executive, administrative, accounting,
clerical, stenographic, public service and similar uses.
Research uses shall not involve heavy testing operations of
any kind or product manufacturing of such a nature to create
noise, vibration or emissions of a nature offensive to the
overall purpose of this district. The L-O District is
designed to act as a buffer between other more intense non-
residential uses and high density residential uses, and is
thus a transitional use. Connection to the Municipal Water
and Sewer System of the City of Meridian is a requirement in
this district.
4. That the Applicant, Millstream Properties, L.L.C., is the
owner of record of the property.
5. That the property is currently vacant with no present
use; that the conditional use is being sought for a learning center
for approximately fifty (50) students and for the professional
offices of H & R Block Income Tax Services and other leased office
space.
6. That at the public hearing Mr. Haacke testified that the
learning center is a desirable alternative to public schools; that
students receiving a certificate of completion from the center
achieve a higher than average testing results; that the
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 2
MILLSTREAM PROPERTIES L.L.C.
administration consists of two people; that students are generally
dropped off and picked up by parents, thus keeping the parking
impact low; that classes are held three times weekly in four hour
lengths; that this proposed project is also for professional office
space, including a tenant being H & R Block; that the sizable
portion of the building will be dedicated to a learning center,
which is operated three (3) days a week, Tuesdays, Wednesdays and
Thursdays, at four hours per day, 8:00 a.m. until noon; that the
students are there for studies; that there is a break room provided
for such and that the time allowed is monitored closely and the
children are not out on breaks running around the neighborhood;
that this is an alternative program of academics to public school
and that many students attend extracurricular activities at public
schools after hours; that the school stresses achievement as far
past what the students can achieve on their own; that a school now
operating in the Nampa, Idaho, area has a total of 35 students,
with five in the beginning class and age ranges of 5 to 8 years
old, junior classes in the ages of 9 to 12 with 10 students, and 20
senior students ages 13 to 17; that the learning center will occupy
approximately 6,900 square feet of the building, basically being
phase 1 of the project; that if phase 2 is begun, the question was
how many more students could be expected; that the learning center
and administration would be moved to phase 2 of the project and H
& R Block put to the front and have the other offices for lease
including insurance offices or other permitted uses; that the
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 3
MILLSTREAM PROPERTIES L.L.C.
proposed number of employees at the building would be approximately
20, with a quarter of those being from H 5 R Block; that H & R
Block is actually a seasonal office, during the months of January
through April, with seven (7) to (10) ten employees; that the
building structure would be stick framed, type 5, stucco with steel
rib roofing, glass front and various glass around the perimeters;
that in the original site plan it was presented that the refuse
area would be on the east end of the project; that if the
conditional use was granted, it made better sense to do the full
phase and enclose the refuse area with cinder block type fencing,
six (6) foot tall, and move it to the rear of the project.
Mr. Haacke further testified that there are no plans to have
handicapped children in this building and no plans are being
advertised to do that; that the understanding is for new buildings
to have handicapped accessibility; that regarding drainage and
fencing requirements and fire related issues, all will be met and
brought up to UBC standards. Additionally, Mr. Haacke testified
that only phase one (1) of the project would be built if the
conditional use permit on the learning center is denied; that the
learning center will be omitted and H & R Block, the administrative
and the rest will be tenants, so the foot print of phase 1 will be
the same regardless of the conditional use.
7. Commissioner Hepper stated that the comments from ACRD
have not been received but that the highway department would
require the paving of 4th Street West at the end of this property
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 4
MILLSTREAM PROPERTIES L.L.C.
and pretty sure that would include curb gutter and sidewalk.
8. Rory Lowe, 1607 Weat 4th Street, testified regarding the
hours of operation for this project and what kind of landscaping
could be expected along West 4th Street.
9. That Robert Polk testified as to his concerns regarding
l the kids "piled" on that side of the street, whether you could
expect them to be running across the street, and a question
regarding the paving.
10. Commissioner Oslund stated that more than likely the Ada
County Highway District would require the Applicant to pave only
half of the street, but that comments have not been received from
ACRD regarding this Application.
11. That a letter from Steven R. Ricks, of Ricks Properties
and a property owner within 300 feet of this proposed project,
submitted a written statement, which is incorporated herein as if
set forth in full, stating that he is in favor the proposed
facility by Millstream Properties L.L.C. and stated that this would
positively contribute to the development of the area.
12. Commissioner Shearer commented that the comments from the
Ada County Highway District really has nothing to do with the
conditional use permit for the school portion of this project; that
the ACHD findings will be binding on the building permit process.
13. City Attorney, Wayne G. Crookston, Jr., stated that the
ACHD comments are nice to have in order to incorporate them into
the findings for the conditional use; that when they are written
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 5
MILLSTREAM PROPERTIES L.L.C.
the Applicant then knows, along with the City, what Ada County
Highway District (ACHD) requirements the Applicant must meet.
14. That the Assistant to the Meridian City Engineer, Bruce
Freckleton, submitted comments, stating that irrigation and
drainage ditches must be tiled, off-street parking, paving and
stripping done, a drainage plan submitted, and signage shall all be
provided in accordance with City Ordinances; that any existing
wells and/or septic systems will have to be removed but that wells
may be used for non-domestic purposes such as landscape irrigation;
that outside lighting shall be designed and placed so as not to
direct illumination on any nearby residential areas and in
accordance with 11-2-414 D 3.; and that sewer and water assessments
will be determined during the building plan review process. He
further commented that the City of Meridian owns and maintains an
8 inch diameter water main and sewer main along the west side of
the proposed site, in West 4th Street.
15. That Shari Stiles, Planning and Zoning Administrator,
submitted comments and they are incorporated herein as if set forth
in full and include the following:
a. All parking areas shall be landscaped and provided
with underground sprinkler systems to meet the
requirements of 11-2-414 D.[and 11-9-606 B 14.]
b. A minimum setback of 35 feet for landscaping has
been encouraged since Cherry Lane is designated as an
entrance corridor; that an additional five feet (5')
could be included if the parking dimensions were reduced
to the ordinance requirements of nineteen-foot (19')
spaces with a twenty-five foot (25') driveway.
c. A detailed landscaping plan needs to be submitted
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 6
MILLSTREAM PROPERTIES L.L.C.
for approval as part of the building permit application
and shall include all plant sizes and species.
d. That a minimum of one (1) three-inch (3"0 caliper
tree is required for every 1,500 feet of asphalt; that
this project will probably incorporate more than the
minimum requirements due to the entrance corridor and
planting strip requirements.
e. That Applicant shall the any existing ditches and
provide a letter of approval from the appropriate
irrigation district/downstream water users.
f. Provide temporary fencing during construction to
contain debris.
g. Provide a minimum 20-foot wide planting strip
adjacent to any existing residential uses, including
those across streets.
h. Streetlights, fire hydrants and street signs are to
be in place prior to obtaining building permits on any
parcel.
i. Illumination of parking lot shall not adversely
impact adjacent residential properties.
j. Provide a screened trash area and submit a detailed
plan with building permit application.
k. That complete, detailed plans are to be submitted
for approval as part of the building permit application.
1. That Fourth Street West is to be improved to ACRD
standards with five foot (5') wide sidewalks.
16. That comments from the Ada County Highway District (ACRD)
were not submitted regarding this Application; that they shall be
incorporated herein as if set forth in full when received by the
City.
17. That the Central District Health Department, Meridian
Police Department and Meridian City Fire Department submitted
comments and they are hereby incorporated herein as if set forth in
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 7
MILLSTREAM PROPERTIES L.L.C.
full.
~J
18. That Commissioner MacCoy submitted statements regarding
this application and they are hereby incorporated herein as if set
forth in full; that this application shall meet all health and
safety codes and ordinances; that the hours of operation, age and
grade level of students, be stated; that this facility meet all the
requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act; that external
security lighting be required; that fencing type and height be
stated as well as kind and type of landscaping; that a fenced
refuse area may be needed; that the structure material of this
proposed building be stated in addition to an occupant load sign
posted per Uniform Building Code.
19. There was no objecting testimony or other testimony given
at the hearing.
20. That proper notice has bean given as required by law and
all procedures before the Planning and Zoning Commission have been
given and followed.
CONCLUSIONS
1. That all the procedural requirements of the Local
Planning Act and of the Ordinances of the City of Meridian have
been met including the mailing of notice to owners of property
within 300 feet of the external boundaries of the Applicant's
property.
2. That the City of Meridian has authority to grant
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 8
MILLSTREAM PROPERTIES L.L.C.
conditional uses pursuant to 67-6512, Idaho Code, and, pursuant to
11-2-418 of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of
Meridian.
3. That the City of Meridian has authority to place
conditions on a conditional use permit and the use of the property
pursuant to 67-6512, Idaho Code, and pursuant to 11-2-418(D) of the
Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian, Idaho.
4. That 11-2-418(C) of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances
of the City of Meridian sets forth the standards under which the
Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council shall review
applications for Conditional Use Permits; that upon a review of
those requirements and a review of the facts presented and the
conditions of the area, the Planning and Zoning Commission
concludes as follows:
a. The use, would in fact, constitute a conditional use and
a conditional use permit is required by ordinance.
b. The use should be harmonious with and in accordance with
the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance.
c. The use apparently would be designed and constructed to
be harmonious in appearance with the intended character of the
general vicinity.
d. That the use would not be hazardous nor should it be
disturbing to existing or future neighboring uses.
e. The property has sewer and water service available.
f. The use would not create excessive additional
requirements at public cost for public facilities and services
and the use would not be detrimental to the economic welfare
of the community.
g. The use would not involve a use, activity, process,
material, equipment or conditions of operation that would be
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 9
MILLSTREAM PROPERTIES L.L.C.
detrimental to person, property or the general welfare by
reason of excessive production of traffic or noise.
h. That sufficient parking for the property and the proposed
use will be required.
i. The development and uses will not result in the
destruction, loss or damage of a natural or scenic feature of
major importance.
5. That all ordinances of the City of Meridian must be met,
including but not limited to, the Uniform Building Code, Uniform
Fire Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, Uniform Electrical Code, the Fire
and Life Safety Code, all parking and landscaping requirements and
the comments of the Planning and Zoning Administrator and the City
Engineers office must be met and complied with.
6. That the parking must be paved, the landscaping placed,
and any outdoor storage and/or trash receptacles properly screened,
prior to issuance of an occupancy permit.
7. That the Applicant shall provide proof of Bealth and
Welfare licensing, if such is required, prior to issuance of an
occupancy permit.
8. The following conditions shall also apply:
(1) Acquire an occupancy certificate.
(2) Provide one (1) off-street parking space per employee.
(3) Provide for a pick-up and drop-off area located off the
main-fronting street of Cherry Lane.
(4) Provide for screening of adjacent properties to protect
children from adverse impacts and to provide a buffer
between properties.
(5) Provide a fence of appropriate height/construction, to
enclose play areas, protecting children from traffic.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 10
MILLSTREAM PROPERTIES L.L.C.
APPROVAL OF FINDIN(i8 OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts and
approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions.
ROLL CALL
COMMISSIONER HEPPER
COMMISSIONER OSLUND
COMMISSIONER SHEARER
COMMISSIONER MacCOY
CHAIRMAN JOHNSON (TIE BREAKER)
DECISION AND
VOTED
VOTED
VOTED
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
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.
r
MOTION:
APPROVED
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
MILLSTREAM PROPERTIES L.L.C.
DENIED
Page 11
~ ~ ORIGINAL
BEFORE TBE MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
CRYSTAL MARTINEZ
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR GROUP DAY CARE
1432 W. CARLTON
MERIDIAN, IDABO
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The above entitled matter having come on for public hearing
March 12, 1996, at the hour of 7:30 o'clock p.m., the Petitioner,
Crystal Martinez, appearing in person, the Planning and Zoning
Commission of the City of Meridian having heard and taken oral and
written testimony and the Applicant appearing and having duly
considered the evidence and the matter makes the following Findings
of Fact and Conclusions:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. That a notice of a public hearing on the Conditional Use
Permit was published for two (2) consecutive weeks prior to the
said public hearing scheduled for March 12, 1996, the first
publication of which was fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing;
that the matter was duly considered at the March 12, 1996, hearing;
that the public was given full opportunity to express comments and
submit evidence; and that copies of all notices were available to
newspaper, radio and television stations.
2. That this property is located within the City of Meridian
and the Applicant is the owner of the property, that the property
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW\MARTINEZ Page 1
is in Phillips Addition in Meridian and is zoned R-8 Residential;
that in the ZONING SCHEDULE OF USE CONTROL, Section 11-2-409 A.,
Residential, a Group Child Care Home is listed as a conditional use
in the R-8 District and such is required for the operation of a
Group Child Care Home.
3. That the R-8, Residential District is described in the
Zoning Ordinance, 11-2-408 B. 4 as follows:
L8) Medium Density Residential District: The purpose
of the (R-8) District is to permit the establishment of
single and two (2) family dwellings at a density not
exceeding eight (8) dwelling units per acre. This
district delineates those areas where such development
has or is likely to occur in accord with the
Comprehensive Plan of the City and is also designed to
permit the conversion of large homes into two (2) family
dwellings in well-established neighborhoods of comparable
land use. Connection to the Municipal Water and Sewer
systems of the City of Meridian is required.
4. Conditional Use Permit is defined in the Zoning Ordinance
as follows: "Permit allowing an exception to the uses authorized
by this Ordinance in a zoning district."
5. That the intention of the Applicant is to operate a group
day care for six (6) to twelve (12) children.
6. The Applicant testified that a state license will be
applied for; that she has a pool and would provide a four foot (4')
fence and master lock for it; that in her opinion a self-locking
device would be figured out by a child in no time at all; that the
hours of operation to be from 5:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.; that she is
not planning on caring for handicapped; that the ages would range
from birth to 11 years of age and both before and after school
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW\MARTINEZ Page 2
hours; that the Applicant has a gentle German shepherd dog and has
a separate fenced kennel for the animal; that the hiring of another
adult to help is being planned and to provide parking for that
individual.
Ms. Martinez stated that several changes have already been
made to her property since moving in six months ago and plans are
to continue to make it look nicer; that there is off-street parking
for two cars in the driveway and two in an area beside the driveway
for dropping off children; that she has agreed to pay any
additional utility fees for this operation.
7. That Shirley Marino testified that she lives behind
Crystal Martinez and does not approve of this conditional use; that
with a day care comes noise; that this use will lower her property
value and create traffic on Carlton where there was otherwise none
and that she has concerns with the dog.
8. Crystal Martinez stated that her neighbor, Ms. Marino has
stated valid concerns; that there is a six foot (6') high fence
which backs up to Ms. Marino's back yard which does not allow for
viewing into Ms. Martinez's yard; that she would like to address
any concerns of her neighbors.
9. The Assistant to the City Engineer, Bruce Freckelton,
submitted comments which are incorporated herein as if set forth in
full herein; his statements included that outside lighting shall be
designed and placed so as to not direct illumination on any nearby
residences; that all signage shall be in accordance with Meridian
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW\MARTINEZ Page 3
City Ordinances; that off-street parking shall be provided in
accordance with Section 11-2-414 of the City of Meridian Zoning
Ordinance and/or as detailed in site-specific requirements; that
sewer and water to this facility would be by means of existing
service lines; that assessments for water and sewer service will be
reviewed to see if the additional use and load would justify an
adjustment.
10. The Planning and Zoning Director, Shari Stiles, submitted
comments which are incorporated herein as if set forth in full;
that the Applicant is to limit children to no more than 12 cared
for throughout the day (less if determined by Fire Department) and
this is to include any children of Applicant; that Applicant shall
secure and maintain an Idaho day care license for the facility and
have an operator's license available for inspection at all times;
that the Applicant shall acquire a certificate of occupancy prior
to operating and shall meet all requirements of the Meridian Fire
Department, provide screening of adjacent residential properties to
lessen impact the of noise, traffic and other activities, provide
a minimum of three (3) off-street parking spaces, to be a minimum
of 9'x 19' and not less than 4' from adjacent residential property,
the gate to the pool area shall be equipped with an automatic
locking device, and that the Applicant shall remain current on
sewer and water utility payments or the conditional use permit
shall be subject to revocation.
11. That the Central District Health Department, Meridian
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW\MARTINEZ Page 4
Fire Department, and Meridian City Police Department, submitted
comments and they are hereby incorporated herein.
12. That Fire Chief, Ken Bowers, commented that the wood
stove would need to have protective devices in front or that it be
removed and that the pool area will need to have a lockable gate.
13. That Commissioner MacCoy submitted statements regarding
this application and they are hereby incorporated herein as if set
forth in full; he commented that Applicant must meet all health and
safety codes and ordinances, the fence type, height, and whether
the existing fence be replaced should be stated, that the fence
should have an automatic locking gate, that the type of pool safe
guards should be stated and in place prior to allowing children in
the area; the hours of operation should be stated as well as how
many children, and the age range, including if any handicapped
children will be cared for in the facility, and that the number of
dogs and type of dogs in the kennel be stated.
14. That there was no other testimony given at the hearing.
CONCLUSIONS
1. That all the procedural requirements of the Local
Planning Act and of the Ordinances of the City of Meridian have
been met including the mailing of notice to owners of property
within 300 feet of the external boundaries of the Applicant's
property.
2. That the City of Meridian has authority to grant
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW\MARTINE2 Page 5
conditional uses pursuant to 67-6512, Idaho Code, and, pursuant to
11-2-418 of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of
Meridian.
3. That the City has the authority to take judicial notice
of its own ordinances and proceedings, other governmental statues
and ordinances, and of actual conditions existing within the City
and state.
4. That the City of Meridian has authority to place
conditions on a conditional use permit and the use of the property
pursuant to 67-6512, Idaho Code, and pursuant to that section
conditions minimizing the adverse impact on other development,
controlling the duration of development, assuring the development
is maintained properly, and on-site or off-site conditions, may be
attached to the permit; that 11-2-418 (D) authorizes the City to
prescribe a set time period for which a conditional use may be in
existence.
5. That section 11-2-418 D states as follows:
"In approving any Conditional Use, the Commission and Council
may prescribe appropriate conditions, bonds, and safeguards in
conformity with this Ordinance. Violations of such
conditions, bonds or safeguards, when made a part of the terms
under which the Conditional Use is granted, shall be deemed a
violation of the Ordinance and grounds to revoke the
Conditional Use. The Commission and Council may prescribe a
set time period for which a Conditional Use may be in
existence."
6. That the City has judged this Application for a
conditional use permit upon the basis of guidelines contained in
Section 11-2-418 of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW\MARTINEZ Page 6
of Meridian, upon the basis of the Local Planning Act of 1975,
Title 67 Chapter 65, Idaho Code, the Comprehensive Plan of the City
of Meridian, and the record submitted to it and the things of which
it may take judicial notice.
7. That 11-2-418(C) of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances
of the City of Meridian sets forth the standards under which the
Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council shall review
applications for Conditional Use Permits; that upon a review of
those requirements and a review of the facts presented and the
conditions of the area and assuming that the above conditions, or
similar ones thereto, would be attached to the conditional use, the
Planning and Zoning Commission concludes as follows:
a. The use, would in fact, constitute a conditional use
and a conditional use permit would be required by
ordinance.
b. The use would be harmonious with and in accordance
with the Comprehensive Plan but the Zoning Ordinance
requires a conditional use permit to allow the use.
c. The use would be designed and constructed to be
harmonious in appearance with the character of the
general vicinity; that if the conditions set forth in the
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are complied
with, the use should be operated and maintained to be
harmonious with the intended character of the general
vicinity and should not change the essential character of
the area.
d. That the use would not be hazardous if access to the
pool is prevented as set forth under paragraph 8. and an
adult shall always be with any child that is outside; it
should not be disturbing to existing or future
neighboring uses if the conditions are met; that traffic
will increase, but due to the drop-off and pick-up being
off of the street it should not be a problem.
e. The property has sewer and water service already
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW\MARTINEZ Page 7
connected.
f. The use should not create excessive additional
requirements at public cost for public facilities and
services and the use should not be detrimental to the
economic welfare of the community.
g. If the conditions are met, the use should not
involve a use, activity, process, material, equipment or
conditions of operation that would be detrimental to
people, property or the general welfare by reason of
excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes,
glare or odors.
h. That sufficient parking for the proposed use is
required to meet the requirements of the City ordinance.
i. The development and uses will not result in the
destruction, loss or damage of a natural or scenic
feature of major importance.
8. That since conditions may be placed upon the granting of
a conditional use permit, it is recommended by the Planning and
Zoning Commission that the following additional conditions be
required if the conditional use is granted, to wit:
a) The hours of operation shall be restricted, as stated by
the Applicant, from 5:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
b) The children, if outside, be maintained in the fenced
area, as required below and specifically, the condition
in Conclusion 7. d. be met and the Zoning Inspector shall
be granted the right to inspect the property, but must
first be granted permission, by the Applicant or her
agent, for access and entry to the property.
c) That the Applicant shall meet the State of Idaho, Health
and Welfare, requirements for staff to children ratio.
d) That there shall be six foot perimeter fencing with
gates, and locks for the outside play area such that no
children can leave the property without an adult
unlocking and opening the gate to let the child or
children out of the play area; no child or children shall
be allowed outside of the play area or the home without
an adult being present with the child or children; the
fence shall be maintained in good repair and the
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW\MARTINEZ Page 8
children, when outside, shall stay in the fenced area,
and the children shall not be allowed outside of the
fenced area or the home, except for drop-off and pick-up
times, and an adult shall be with them at all times if
the child or children are waiting to be picked up.
e) That the area surrounding the pool be protected with at
least a six foot (6') fence with an automatic locking
gate placed not more than six (6) inches from the top of
the fence and the Applicant, or an employee, shall be
with any child who is in the back yard. If this
condition is not met, the City may require that the pool
be drained to allow operation of the day care.
f) That the Applicant shall hold and maintain a State of
Idaho Day Care License for a group day care.
g) That the conditional use may be reviewed annually, or
more often, upon notice to the applicant for any
violation of any of the conditions as has been done in
other day care conditional uses and other conditional use
applications.
h) That the conditional use, pursuant to the Zoning
Ordinance, shall not be transferable to another owner of
the property or to other property.
i) That the Applicant must meet the requirements of the
Central District Health Department and the State of Idaho
Department of Health and Welfare.
j) That the Applicant shall meet the requirements of the
City Engineer's office including the re-assessment
agreement, the Planning Director and other governmental
agencies submitting comments.
9. That there shall be no more than twelve (12) children
cared for at the home throughout the day; that this number of
children is arrived at from the total number of children at the
facility and not the number of children at the facility at any one
time.
10. That the dog is of concern to .the Commission; that the
Zoning Inspector shall visit the Group Day Care and make a
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW\MARTINEZ Page 9
determination if it is acceptable that the dog may stay in the day
care while the children are there.
11. That any violations of the conditions shall be deemed in
violation of the Zoning Ordinance.
12. That the above conditions are concluded to be reasonable
and the Applicant shall meet these conclusions and it is
recommended that if the Applicant meets the conclusions stated
above that the conditional use permit be granted to the Applicant.
APPROVAL. OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts and
approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions.
ROLL CALL
HEPPER
COMMISSIONER OSLUND
COMMISSIONER SHEARER
COMMISSIONER MacCOY
CHAIRMAN JOHNSON (TIE BREAKER)
VOTED ~~
VOTED
VOTED
V V'115 U
VOTED
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW\MARTINEZ Page 10
r~
U
DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION
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 these
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, or similar conditions as
found justified and appropriate by the City Council, and that the
Applicant be required to meet the requirements of Bruce Freckleton
and Shari Stiles, the water and sewer requirements, the fire and
life safety codes, Uniform Fire Code and other Ordinances of the
City of Meridian. The conditional use should be subject to review
upon notice to
MOTION:
APPROVED:
by the City.
DISAPPROVED:
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW\MARTINEZ Page 11
• • ORiGiiUAL
R-2 DEVELOPMENT
OLSON AND BUSH INDUSTRIAL PARR NO. 2
ANNESATION AND ZONING
MERIDIAN, IDAHO
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The above entitled matter having come on for public hearing
March 12, 1996, at the hour of 7:30 o'clock p.m., that Dave
Roylance, a civil engineer and land planner representing the
Petitioner, appeared in person, the Planning and Zoning Commission
of the City of Meridian having duly considered the evidence and the
matter makes the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. That a notice of a public hearing on the Conditional Use
Permit was published for two (2) consecutive weeks prior to the
said public hearing scheduled for March 12, 1996, the first
publication of which was fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing;
that the matter was duly considered at the March 12, 1996, hearing;
that the public was given full opportunity to express comments and
submit evidence; and that copies of all notices were available to
newspaper, radio and television stations;
2. That the property included in the application for
annexation and zoning is described in the application, and by this
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
R2 DEVELOPMENT PAGE 1
reference is incorporated herein; that the property is
approximately 14 acres in size; that the property is situated
within the City of Meridian's Area of Impact and Urban Services
Planning Area.
3. That the property is presently zoned by Ada County as RT
rural Transition; that the Applicant requests I-L Light Industrial
zoning for the property; that currently the property is being used
as pasture land.
4. The general area surrounding the property is used for
light industrial. That to the north is the Union Pacific Railroad
and on the other side of the railroad is the Elixir Industries
property which is a light industrial use; that to the west is
pasture and the school district bus facility and to the south and
west is the light industrial use of YMC and Van Auker.
5. That the property is now adjacent and abutting to the
present City limits.
6. That R-2 Development/Ronald VanAuker is the Applicant;
that the Applicant does own of the land and has consented to this
annexation and zoning and the application is not at the request of
the City of Meridian.
7. That the requested zoning of Light Industrial District
(I-L) is defined in the Zoning Ordinance at 11-2-408 B. as follows:
(I-L) Light Industrial: The purpose of the (I-L) Light
Industrial District is to provide for light industrial
development and opportunities for employment of Meridian
citizens and area residents and reduce the need to
commute to neighboring cities; to encourage the
development of manufacturing and wholesale establishments
which are clean, quiet and free of hazardous or
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
R2 DEVELOPMENT PAGE 2
objectionable elements, such as noise, odor, dust, smoke
or glare and that are operated entirely or almost
entirely within enclosed structures; to delineate areas
best suited for industrial development because of
location, topography, existing facilities and
relationship to other land uses. This district must also
be in such proximity to insure connection to the
Municipal Water and Sewer systems of the City of
Meridian. Uses incompatible with light industry are not
permitted, and strip development is prohibited.
8. That the Applicant's representative, Mr. Roylance
testified that this project it located north and west of the
intersection of Franklin and Eagle Road; that to the north are the
Union Pacific Railroad tracks; that the project contains 14.4 acres
and has nine (9) lots; that the Applicant proposes central sewer
and central water and ACRD approved public streets.
9. That the comment from Bruce Freckleton, the Assistant to
the City Engineer, regarding a 60 foot wide stub street being
extended toward Franklin Road, stated that the Applicant may pursue
a variance to this requirement.
10. That comments were submitted by the Assistant to the City
Engineer, Bruce Freckleton, the Planning and Zoning Administrator,
Shari Stiles, the Meridian Police and Fire Departments, the Ada
County Street Name Committee, and the Central District Health
Department, and are incorporated herein as if set forth in full.
11. That Bruce Freckleton commented that any existing
irrigation/drainage ditches crossing the property, to be included
in this project, shall be tiled per City Ordinance 11-9-605 M; that
any existing domestic wells and/or septic systems with this project
shall be removed from their domestic service per City Ordinance
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
R2 DEVELOPMENT PAGE 3
except wells may be used for non-domestic purposes such as
landscape irrigation; that a master street drainage plan be
submitted, including the method of disposal & approval from the
affected irrigation/drainage district; that a profile of the
subsurface soil conditions shall be submitted to determine the
seasonal high groundwater elevation and prepared by a soil
scientist with the street development plans; that a copy of the
proposed restrictive covenants and/or deed restrictions be
submitted for review; that 5 foot wide sidewalks be provided
according to City Ordinance Section 11-9-606 B.; that a letter from
the Ada County Street Name Committee, approving the subdivision and
street names, be submitted making any necessary corrections to the
preliminary Plat map prior to re-submittal to the City; that the
fire hydrant placement, with the City of Meridian's Water Works
Superintendent assistance, be coordinated; and that response in
writing to each of the comments on the revised Preliminary Plat Map
be made to the City Clerk's office prior to the scheduled hearing
date.
12. That specific site comments from the Assistant to the
City Engineer, Bruce Freckleton were the following:
a. That the legal description contained in the application
for Annexation and Zoning describes more property than what is
shown on the Preliminary Plat map, however the legal
description submitted with the Preliminary Plat application,
by Roylance S Associated and titled "Legal Description for R2
Development - Olson and Bush Industrial Park No. 2 Preliminary
Plat - 14.39 Acre Tract" appears to describe what is shown on
the Preliminary Plat; that if it is the intention to request
Annexation and Zoning for more property than what is shown on
the Preliminary Plat map, a new legal description must be
prepared to include all the intended property including those
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
R2 DEVELOPMENT PAGE 4
i
•
portions of adjacent Rights-of-way and shall be prepared by a
Registered Land Surveyor, Licensed by the State of Idaho, and
shall conform to all provisions of the City of Meridian
Resolution No. 158.
b. Water service to this development shall be from an
existing main installed along the westerly side of Eagle Road
and all water mains shall be installed, at subdivider's
expense and locations shall be coordinated through the Public
Works Department.
c. Sewer service to this development shall be from a main
that is currently being designed by Pacific Land Surveyor as
part of the "Ronald W. VanAuker, Inc. - Sewer Project".
d. When sewer and water mains are installed to service this
subdivision, access to sewer and water will be directly
adjacent to the twelve Lots in Olson and Bush Industrial Park
No. 1, an Ada County Subdivision.
e. Show, label and dimension, all existing easements and/or
right-of-way within or adjacent to the subject parcel, i.e.
"Union Pacific Railroad", "Evans Drain", "Snyder Lateral", and
the 60 foot wide easement going to Franklin Road and any other
easements of record.
f. A 60 foot wide stub street needs to be extended toward
Franklin Road, adjacent to the easterly subdivision boundary.
This stub street would align with the existing 60 foot wide
easement across the parcel south of this development. Sewer
and water mains shall be extended to the south boundary of
this development within the stub street. These mains shall be
installed, at subdivider's expense and locations shall be
coordinated through the Public Works Department.
g. The location of the proposed sewer main exiting the
development appears to be in error. Coordinate with Pacific
Land Surveyors for the actual design location. A 20 foot wide
common area Lot needs to be centered over the proposed sewer
main between the right of way of Lanark Street and the north
boundary of this development. Ownership and maintenance
responsibility of the common area Lot shall remain with the
owners association. A blanket easement shall be granted to
the City of Meridian for the operation and maintenance of the
sewer main.
h. That 250 watt high pressure sodium street lights will be
required at locations designated by the Meridian Public Works
Department. All street lights shall be installed, at
subdivider's expense; that typical locations are at street
intersections and/or fire hydrants.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
R2 DEVELOPMENT PAGE 5
i. The length of the cul-de-sac exceeds the maximum allowed
per City Ordinance; that no variances have been requested for
the excessive length.
j. That the treatment capacity of the City of Meridian's
Wastewater Treatment Plant is currently being evaluated; that
approval of this application needs to be contingent upon our
ability to accept the additional sanitary sewage generated by
this proposed development.
13. That Shari Stiles, Planning and Zoning Administrator,
submitted comments and they include the following:
a. All parking areas shall be landscaped and provided with
underground sprinkler systems to meet the requirements of 11-
2-414.D.
b. That a detailed site plan review will be required at the
time of the building permit application; that this site plan
review will ensure compliance with all City Ordinances.
c. That the seven (7) lots in Olson Bush Subdivision No. 1,
by owner Ron Yanke, should be annexed to the City of Meridian;
that not having this entire area annexed along the frontage of
Lanark Street can create problems for the Meridian Police
Department, and any development of these additional lots
should take place under the requirements of Meridian City
Ordinance.
d. Provide a 60 foot wide stub street to the south at the
location of the existing 60 foot wide easement; that no
additional access will be granted to the property south of
this development from Eagle Road.
e. Provide a letter of approval from the appropriate
irrigation district(s) for tiling of existing laterals/drains.
f. Provide permanent non-combustible fencing adjacent to
Union Pacific Railroad right-of-way prior to obtaining
building permits. No encroachment of this right-of-way is
permitted. In addition, at minimum, temporary fencing to
contain construction debris will be required for all
development.
g. Since the Applicant has indicated this is a
commercial/industrial development but has requested Industrial
Zoning, a conditional use permit application for a planned
development shall be submitted and approved if it is to be
considered as a mixed-use development.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
R2 DEVELOPMENT PAGE 6
h. Sixty foot wide proposed Lanark Street should be
readjusted to provide abetter transition from the existing 50
foot wide section.
i. That streetlights are to be in place prior to obtaining
building permits on any parcel.
j. Applicant shall submit a revised preliminary plat
incorporating required staff and agency changes and showing
all existing easements a minimum of two (Z) weeks prior to
City Council hearing.
k. All sewer/water line locations should be located in
public right-of-way or within a common lot.
14. There were property owners in the area of the proposed
annexation that appeared and testified at the Planning and Zoning
hearing to make comments on the application and the following is a
summary of their testimony:
a. Guy Valentine testified, bringing visual aids to show his
concerns regarding this development; that with respect to
Olson Bush No. 1 development, there has been absolutely
no screening and no landscaping done; that his concern is
this will be the case with this application; that storage
yards not screened, parking lots not paved or screened;
that representing some concerned citizens and residents
in the area, they want their right protected to the same
level of qualities or higher qualities that the
environment affords; that this is a thriving area of
community and single family residences and the residents
would like to keep it that way; the visual pollution is
degrading to the neighborhood and the community; that the
protective covenants will not give the community the kind
of assurances that must be given concerning the
residents' vested rights; that written guarantees from
the developers and owners committing this development to
provide a clean, noise-free environment, free of
pollution and hazardous elements which are objectionable
to the residents and property owners that are directly
affected.
Mr. Valentine summarized in saying that the residents
believe that the subdivision is arbitrarily or
artificially laid out to avoid being adjacent to the
Snyder Lateral and well as to avoid being adjacent to the
seven single family dwellings between which a transition
yard would be necessary for protection and
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW.
R2 DEVELOPMENT PAGE 7
beautification; that a buffer strip would help with the
aesthetics of Franklin Road and Eagle road entryway
corridors; that this Commission require Olson Buah No. 1
developer and owners to clean up and screen their junky
development to demonstrate they deserve to expand before
any other development applications are approved and to
require conditional use permits for all the lots; that
the residents, including himself, are not against
developing the area.
b. Brad Miller, representing R2 development, testified that
the information presented by Mr. Valentine is about the
Olson Bush No. 1 development, of which, R2 development
had nothing to do with; that on the north side of Lanark,
R2 development has a fine looking building and fine
looking property; that R2 has other developments of
equally fine looking character that Mr. Valentine would
be proud to have in his backyard; that C C & R's have
been submitted in this phase; that screened fencing will
be provided in the construction areas or yards; that all
parking areas will be paved, including the yard
themselves; that every storage area which R2 has
currently constructed, is paved, and that this
development would be the same; that R2 development does
not know who ultimately will move into the buildings
being constructed in this project, but the anticipation
is that the property will be subdivided, buildings built
and leased out; that at some point the Applicant may sell
one or two of the buildings, but keeping the area looking
nice is would be an incentive since the Applicant is the
property owner.
c. That Bill Tonkin, testified, affirming the earlier
testimony of Mr. Valentine; that the property owners that
overlook this property, are merely reacting to something
that has occurred and don't want to see it repeated.
d. Carl Schnebly, offered testimony that he does not agree
with this proposal as stated and reiterates that same
expressions as that of Mr. Valentine.
e. Dale Fletcher testified that he too, is in agreement with
what Mr. Valentine had to say.
f. That Mr. Oren Mayes testified, stating that some 30 odd
years ago when most of the property along the rim at
Franklin was developed and subdivided, there was no
question to whether this was going to be industrial in
light of the railroad; that folks are complaining about
an industrial park development taking place below them
when they knew an industrial park was going to happen
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
R2 DEVELOPMENT PAGE 8
someday.
15. That the parcel of ground requested to be annexed is
presently included within the Meridian Urban Service Planning Area
(U.S.P.A.) as the Urban Service Planning Area is defined in the
Meridian Comprehensive Plan.
16. That the property can be physically serviced with City
water and sewer, but the sewer and water lines will have to be
extended to the property by the Applicant.
17. That Meridian has, and is, experiencing a substantial
amount of growth; that there are pressures on land previously used
for agricultural uses to be developed into residential subdivision
lots, commercial, and industrial uses.
18. That the following pertinent statements are made in the
Meridian Comprehensive Plan:
A. Under the LAND, GENERAL POLICIES, section commencing at
page 22, it states: Encourage a balance of land uses to
ensure that Meridian remains a desirable and self-
sufficient community; and under the INDUSTRIAL POLICIES,
it states in part as follows:
3.1 Industrial development within the urban service
planning area should receive the highest priority.
3.4 Industrial development should be encouraged to
locate adjacent to existing industrial uses.
3.5 Industrial areas should be located within proximity
to major utility, transportation and services
facilities.
3.9 Industrial uses should be located where discharge
water can be properly treated or pre-treated to
eliminate adverse impacts upon the City sewer
treatment facility and irrigated lands that receive
industrial runoff.
3.10 Industrial uses should be located where adequate
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
R2 DEVELOPMENT PAGE 9
•
water supply and water pressure are available for
fire protection.
and under the Eastern-Eagle Road Light Industrial Review
area is stated as follows:
3.15 The City of Meridian shall encourage the
development of a Technological park and compatible
light industrial uses within the proximity of the
Idaho Foreign Trade Zone.
3.17 It is the policy of the City of Meridian to
encourage and promote light industrial development
in the Eastern Light Industrial Review Area.
B. Under ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, Economic Development Goal
Statement
Policies, Page 19
1.1 The City of Meridian shall make every effort to
create a positive atmosphere which encourages
industrial and commercial enterprises to locate in
Meridian.
1.2 It is the policy of the City of Meridian to set
aside areas where commercial and industrial
interests and activities are to dominate.
1.3 The character, site improvements and type of new
commercial or industrial developments should be
harmonized with the natural environment and respect
the unique needs and features of each area.
1.5 Strip industrial and commercial uses are not in
compliance with the Comprehensive Plan.
19. That the property is included within an area designated
on the Generalized Land Use Map in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan
as being in a Mixed/Planned Use Development area.
20. That in 1992 the Idaho State Legislature passed
amendments to the Local Planning Act, which in 67-6513 Idaho Code,
relating to subdivision ordinances, states as follows:
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
R2 DEVELOPMENT PAGE 10
"Each such ordinance may provide for mitigation of the effects
of subdivision development on the ability of political
subdivisions of the state, including school districts, to
deliver services without compromising quality of service
delivery to current residents or imposing substantial
additional costs upon current residents to accommodate the
subdivision.";
that the City of Meridian is concerned with the increase in
development that is occurring and with its impact on the City being
able to provide fire, police, emergency health care, water, sewer,
parks and recreation services to its current residents and business
and to those moving into the City; the City is also concerned that
the increase in commercial and industrial development is bringing
in more population and is burdening the schools of the Meridian
School District which provide school service to current and future
residents of the City; that the City knows that the increase in
population, and the housing for that population, does not
sufficiently increase the tax base to offset the cost of providing
fire, police, emergency health care, water, sewer, parks and
recreation services; and the City knows that the increase in
population does not provide sufficient tax base to provide for
school services to current and future students; that the increase
in commercial and industrial which might locate in this annexation
would be helpful.
21. That pursuant to the instruction, guidance, and direction
of the Idaho State. Legislature, the City may impose either a
development fee or a transfer fee on residential property, which,
if possible, would be retroactive and apply to all lots in the
City, because of the imperilment to the health, welfare, and safety
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
R2 DEVELOPMENT PAGE 11
of the citizens of the City of Meridian.
22. That Section 11-9-605 C states as follows:
"Right-of-way for pedestrian walkways in the middle of long
blocks may be required where necessary to obtain convenient
pedestrian circulation to schools, parks or shopping areas;
the pedestrian easement shall be at least ten feet (10')
wide."
23. That Section 11-9-605 G 1. states as follows:
"Planting strips shall be required to be placed next to
incompatible features such as highways, railroads, commercial
or industrial uses to screen the view from residential
properties. Such screening shall be a minimum of twenty feet
(20') wide, and shall not be a part of the normal street right
of way or utility easement."
23. That Section 11-9-605 H 2. states as follows:
"Existing natural features which add value to residential
development and enhance the attractiveness of the community
(such as trees, watercourses, historic spots and similar
irreplaceable amenities) shall be preserved in the design of
the subdivision;"
24. That Section 11-9-605 K states as follows:
"The extent and location of lands designed for linear open
space corridors should be determined by natural features and,
to lesser extent, by man-made features such as utility
easements, transportation rights of way or water rights of
way. Landscaping, screening or lineal open space corridors
may be required for the protection of residential properties
from adjacent arterial streets, waterways, railroad rights of
way or other features. As improved areas (landscaped), semi-
improved areas (a landscaped pathway only), or unimproved
areas (left in a natural state), linear open space corridors
serve:
1. To preserve openness;
2. To interconnect park and open space systems within rights
of way for trails, walkways, bicycle ways;
3. To play a major role in conserving area scenic and
natural value, especially waterways, drainages and
natural habitat;
4. To buffer more intensive adjacent urban land uses;
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
R2 DEVELOPMENT PAGE 12
5. To enhance local identification within the area due to
the internal linkages; and
6. To link residential neighborhoods, park areas and
recreation facilities."
25. That Section 11-9-605 L states as follows:
"Bicycle and pedestrian pathways shall be encouraged within
new developments as part of the public right of way or as
separate easements so that an alternate transportation system
(which is distinct and separate from the automobile) can be
provided throughout the City Urban Service Planning Area. The
Commission and Council shall consider the Bicycle-Pedestrian
Design Manual for Ada County (as prepared by Ada County
Highway District) when reviewing bicycle and pedestrian
pathway provisions within developments."
26. That 11-9-607 A, of the Subdivision Ordinance, states in
part as follows:
"The City's policy is to encourage developers of land
development and construction projects to utilize the
provisions of this Section to achieve the following:
1. A development pattern in accord with the goals,
objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan;
5. A more convenient pattern of commercial, residential and
industrial uses as well as public services which support
such uses."
27. That proper notice was given as required by law and all
procedures before the Planning and Zoning Commission and City
Council were given and followed.
CONCLUSIONS
1. That all the procedural requirements of the Local
Planning Act and of the Ordinances of the City of Meridian have
been met; including the mailing of notice to owners of property
within 300 feet of the external boundaries of the Applicant's
property.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
R2 DEVELOPMENT PAGE 13
2. That the City of Meridian has authority to annex land
pursuant to 50-222, Idaho Code, and Section 11-2-417 of the Revised
and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian; that exercise of
the City's annexation authority is a legislative function.
3. That the City Council has judged these annexation, zoning
and conditional use applications under Idaho Code, Section 50-222,
Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code, Meridian City Ordinances,
Meridian Comprehensive Plan, as amended, and the record submitted
to it and things of which it can take judicial notice.
4. That all notice and hearing requirements set forth in
Title,67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code, and the Ordinances of the City of
Meridian have been complied with.
5. That the Council may take judicial notice of government
ordinances, and policies, and of actual conditions existing within
the City and State.
6. That the land within the proposed annexation is
contiguous to the present City limits of the City of Meridian, and
the annexation would not be a shoestring annexation.
7. That the annexation application has been initiated by the
Applicant with the consent of the property owner, and is not upon
the initiation of the City of Meridian.
8. That since the annexation and zoning of land is a
legislative function, the City has authority to place conditions
upon the annexation of land. Burt vs. The Citv of Idaho Falls, 105
Idaho 65, 665 P.D 1075 (1983).
9. That the development of annexed land must meet and comply
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
R2 DEVELOPMENT PAGE 14
with the Ordinances of the City of Meridian and in particular
Section 11-9-616, which pertains to development time schedules and
requirements, and Section 11-9-605 M., which pertains to the tiling
of ditches and waterways and 11-9-606 14., which requires
pressurized irrigation.
10. That the Applicant's proposed use of the property is in
compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, and therefore the
annexation and zoning Application is in conformance with the
Comprehensive Plan.
11. That the City adopted the Comprehensive Plan at its
meeting on January 4, 1994, and has not amended the Zoning
Ordinance to reflect the changes made in the Comprehensive Plan;
thus, uses may be called for or allowed in the Comprehensive Plan
but the Zoning Ordinance may not address provisions for the stated
uses; it is concluded that upon annexation, as conditions of
annexation, the City may impose restrictions that are not otherwise
contained in the current Zoning and Subdivision and Development
Ordinances.
12. The Applicant has not stated or represented its
intentions for development, which is of concern to the Commission;
it is therefore concluded, as a condition of annexation and zoning,
that any use or development of the property shall only be allowed
as conditional uses.
13. That it is concluded that the City could annex the
property and zone it as requested but once the property was zoned
the Applicant could place many different uses on the property
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
R2 DEVELOPMENT PAGE 15
without additional approval from the City other than building
permits, which limits the control that the City should have over
the development and the uses of the property due to the mandates of
the Comprehensive Plan.
14. That it is concluded that since the Comprehensive Plan,
under LAND USE, Mixed-Use Area at Eagle Road and Franklin Road, in
5.16U, states that all development requests will be subject to
development review and conditional use permit processing to insure
neighborhood compatibility, that such limitation, should also apply
to the land in the area where the property is located, and since
the City should have control over any uses that are to be placed on
the land, it is therefore concluded that development of the parcel
of land is conditioned on being developed as a Industrial Planned
Development or under the conditional use permit process.
15. Therefore, it is concluded that the property should be
annexed and zoned Light Industrial (I-L), as requested in the
Application, but shall only be capable of being developed as a
planned commercial development or under the conditional use permit
process.
16. That, as a condition of annexation and the zoning the
Applicant shall be required to meet all Ordinances of the City and
specifically the below stated Ordinance requirements and shall also
enter into a development agreement as authorized by 11-2-416 L and
11-2-417 D; that the development agreement shall address, among
other things, the following:
1. Inclusion into the development of the requirements of 11-
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
R2 DEVELOPMENT PAGE 16
~~
9-605
a. C, Pedestrian Walkways.
b. G 1, Planting Stripe.
c. H, Public Sites and Open Spaces.
d. K, Lineal Open Space Corridors.
e. L, Pedestrian and Bike Path Ways.
f. M, Piping of Ditches
2. Payment by the Applicant, or if required, any assigns,
heirs, executors or personal representatives, of any
impact, development, or transfer fee, adopted by the
City.
3. Addressing the subdivision access linkage, screening,
buffering, transitional land urea, traffic study and
recreation services.
4. An impact fee to help acquire a future school or park
sites to serve the area.
5. An impact fee, or fees, for park, police, and fire
services as determined by the city.
6. Appropriate berming and landscaping.
7. Submission and approval of any required plats.
8. Submission and approval of individual building, drainage,
lighting, parking, and other development plans under the
Planned Development guidelines.
9. Sermonizing and integrating the site improvements with
the existing development.
10. Establishing a landscaped setback area all along the
properties southern border and plant trees that will grow
to a height in excess of the twenty (20) feet, but not
higher than forty (40) feet and which shall be not more
than twenty-five (25) feet apart at the time of planting,
shall be six ( 6 ) feet in height when planted, and an
irrigation system shall be constructed, water and
fertilizer supplied to the trees to allow adequate
growth.
11. Addressing the comments from the City Staff, applicable
at the time of annexation and zoning or at the time of
development.
12. The sewer and water requirements.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
R2 DEVELOPMENT PAGE 17
13. Traffic plans and access into and out of any development.
14. Meeting all parking and paving ordinances.
15. And any other items deemed necessary by the City Staff,
including design review of all development, and
conditional use processing.
16. That Section 11-2-417 D of the Meridian Zoning Ordinance
states in part as follows:
"If property is annexed and zoned, the City may require or
permit, as a condition of the zoning, that an owner or
developer make a written commitment concerning the use or
development of the subject property. If a commitment is
required or permitted, it shall be recorded in the office of
the Ada County Recorder and shall take effect upon the
adoption of the ordinance annexing and zoning the property, or
prior if agreed to by the owner of the parcel. .";
that the above section states that the development agreement shall
take effect upon the adoption of the ordinance annexing and zoning
the parcel, but no development agreement has been agreed on, or
even discussed. The land could be subject to de-annexation if an
acceptable development agreement is not ultimately agreed upon
after the annexation ordinance is passed. It is concluded that the
land should be annexed and zoned, but not subject to de-annexation
if a development agreement is not entered into.
18. That it is concluded that the annexing and zoning of the
property would be in the best interests of the City of Meridian,
but it is concluded that the property may be de-annexed if
appropriate development agreements are not agreed on and executed
by the City.
19. That the requirements of the Meridian Police Department
Meridian City Engineer's office, Ada County Highway District,
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
R2 DEVELOPMENT PAGE 18
Meridian Planning Director, Central District Health Department, and
the applicable irrigation district, shall be met and shall be
addressed in a development agreement, which may be entered into
after an annexation and zoning ordinance is passed and adopted, but
prior to a final plat.
20. That all ditches, canals, and waterways shall be tiled as
a condition of annexation and if not so tiled, the property shall
be subject to de-annexation. That pressurized irrigation shall be
installed and constructed, and if not so done the property shall be
subject to de-annexation.
21. That the Applicant shall be required to connect to
Meridian water and sewer, at its expense, and resolve how the water
and sewer mains will serve the land; that the development of the
property shall be subject to and controlled by the Subdivision and
Development Ordinance and the development agreement finally entered
into.
22. That these conditions shall run with the land and bind
the applicant and its assigns.
23. With compliance of the conditions contained herein, the
annexation and zoning as requested in the Application would be in
the best interest of the City of Meridian.
24. That if these conditions of approval are not met, the
property shall be de-annexed.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
R2 DEVELOPMENT PAGE 19
APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of the City
ouncil f Meridian hereby adopts and approves these Findings of
Fact and Conclusions.
ROLL CALL
COMMISSIONER HEPPER
COMMISSIONER OSLUND
COMMISSIONER SHEARER
COMMISSIONER MacCOY
CHAIRMAN JOHNSON (TIE BREAKER)
VOTED_ ~ -/~,.,~ ~
VOTED__ ~'AI,F/ ~
VOTED '7U~
VOTED~~ /
VOTED
The Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends to the
City Council of the City of Meridian that the property set forth in
the application be approved for annexation and zoning under the
conditions set forth in these Findings of Fact and Conclusions of
Law, including that the Applicant enter into a development
agreement, as required herein, and if Applicant does not do so that
the land be de-annexed; that if the Applicant is not agreeable with
these Findings of Fact and Conclusions and is not agreeable with
entering into a development agreement, the property should not be
annexed.
MOTION:
APPROVED:
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
R2 DEVELOPMENT
DISAPPROVED:
PAGE 20
~w"1