1996 03-12
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
AGENDA
TUESDAY, MARCH 12, 1996 - 7:30 P.M.
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING HELD FEBRUARY 13, 1996:
(APPROVED)
APA: PRESENTATION OF 2015 TRANSPORTATION PLAN:
2. TABLED FEBRUARY 13, 1996: ANNEXATION AND ZONING REQUEST FOR
PACKARD SUBDIVISION NO.2 BY PNE/EDMONDS CONSTRUCTION:
(TABLED UNTIL JUNE 11, 1996 AT APPLICANT'S REQUEST)
3. TABLED FEBRUARY 13, 1996: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR PACKARD SUBD.
NO. 2 BY PNE/EDMONDS CONSTRUCTION: (TABLED UNTIL JUNE
11, 1996 AT APPLICANT'S REQUEST)
4. TABLED FEBRUARY 13, 1996: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR
THE RANCH SUBDIVISION BY WESTPARK COMPANY: (TABLED
UNTIL APRIL 9, 1996 AT APPLICANT'S REQUEST)
5. TABLED FEBRUARY 13, 1996: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
FOR THE RANCH SUBDIVISION BY WESTPARK COMPANY: (TABLED
UNTIL APRIL 9, 1996 AT APPLICANT'S REQUEST)
6. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR REQUEST FOR A
VACATION OF EASEMENT BY ROGER ANDERSON: (APPROVED
FINDINGS; APPROVED DECISION)
7. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR REQUEST FOR A
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A GROUP DAY CARE BY
ANGELA MILLER: (APPROVED FINDINGS; APPROVED DECISION)
8. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR REQUEST FOR A
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A GROUP DAY CARE BY
KATHLEEN LAWRENCE: (APPROVED FINDINGS; APPROVED
DECISION)
9. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR REQUEST FOR A
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A CHEVRON C-STORE, FUEL
ISLANDS, CAR WASH AND DRIVE THRU WINDOW BY AVEST:
(APPROVED FINDINGS; APPROVED DECISION)
10. PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED FROM FEBRUARY 13, 1996: REQUEST FOR
A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A SENIOR CITIZEN BOARDING,
LODGING COMPLEX BY WAYNE & KAREN FORREY: (CITY ATTORNEY
TO PREPARE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW)
11. PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED FROM FEBRUARY 13, 1996: REQUEST FOR
A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR BALLANTYNE-TROUTNER BUSINESS
PARK BY JIM BALLANTYNE: (TABLED UNTIL APRIL 9, 1996)
12. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF
APPROXIMATELY 14 ACRES TO I-L FOR OLSON-BUSH NO. 2
SUBDIVISION BY R-2 DEVELOPMENT: (CITY ATTORNEY TO
PREPARE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW)
13. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR
OLSON-BUSH NO.2 SUBDIVISION BY R-2 DEVELOPMENT:
(TABLED UNTIL APRIL 9, 1996)
14. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR
PORKY PARK SUBDIVISION NO. 1 BY RON VAN AUKER:
(TABLED UNTIL APRIL 9, 1996 MEETING)
15. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR AN CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
FOR A GROUP DAY CARE BY CRYSTAL MARTINEZ: (CITY
ATTORNEY TO PREPARE FINDINGS OF FACT AND
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW)
16. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
FOR A LEARNING CENTER FOR 50 STUDENTS BY
MILLSTREAM PROPERTIES: (CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW)
17. SEVENTH DAY ADVENTIST SITE PLAN REVIEW:
• i
MERIDIAN PLANNING ~ ZONING COMMISSION
AGENDA
TUESDAY, MARCH 12, 1996 - 7:30 P.M.
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING HELD FEBRUARY 13, 1996: a'~Pi~v~-
1. APA: PRESENTATION OF 2015 TRANSPORTATION PLAN:
6~ ~yv
2. TABLED FEBRUARY 13, 1996: ANNEXATION AND ZONING REQUEST FOR
PACKARD SUBDIVISION N0.2 BY PNE/EDMONDS CONSTRUCTION:
'~2fd/~ us~~ ~7cH..e~/~r~46 icef~, asp-e~c~eJtcd
3. TABLED FEBRUARY 13, 1996: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR PACKARD SUBD.
NO.2 BY PNE/EDMONDS CONSTRUCTION:
4. TABLED FEBRUARY 13, 1996: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR
THE RANCH SUBDIVISION BY WESTPARK COMPANY:
ta~~~ ws~,~,i F~~r y~,~~f~'6f~~j aJ re~ueJ~P~
5. TABLED FEBRUARY 13, 1996: REQUEST FO A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
FOR THE RANCH SUBDVISION BY WESTPARK COMPANY:
t~61~ uh-tiZ /~pr%~ ~I, /~%6 /h J ar r~~~ef~P~
6. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR REQUEST FOR A
VACATION OF EASEMENT BY ROGER ANDERSON:
(~ prav2 ,< f ~C/L Up/JrpdC dPC/~iou
7. FINDING~OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR REQUEST FOR A
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A GROUP DAY CARE BY
ANGELA MILLER: approve f/F ~'`C~/l
ctyprvve dPC~:ri'oa"..
8. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR REQUEST FOR A
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A GROUP DAY CARE BY
KATHLEEN LAWRENCE: ~/~p~'ove f/p ~ e/t
4pp~ore G/ C~Ti~
9. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR REQUEST FOR A
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A CHEVRON C-STORE, FUEL
ISLANDS, CAR WASH AND DRIVE THRU WINDOW BY AVEST:
Cc. ~rov-e ~~~ ?¢C~l Ci~~rovP ~CCi:I:e~
10. PUBLIC HARING CONTINUED FROM FEBRUARY 13, 1996: REQUEST FOR
A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A SENIOR CITIZEN BOARDING,
LODGING COMPLEX BY WAYNE & REN FORREY:
11. PUBLIC HEARING CO~INUED FROM FEBRUARY 13, 1996: REQUEST FOR
A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR BALLANTYNE-TROUTNER BUSINESS
PARK BY JIM BALLANTYNE:
~a~Q Gc~t~L /-~jril al~~/Grl6
12. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF
APPROXIMATELY 14 ACRES TO I-L FOR OLSON-BUSH NO. 2
SUBDIVISION BY R-2 DEVELOPM ~T:
t?~~ atfaY~ie''JJ~'' c"~ f7r~~a~.e ~/ ~ t/~.
13. PUBLIC HEARING: REZ~UEST FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR
OLSON-BUSH NO. 2 SUBDIVISION BY R-2 DEVELOPMENT:
t4~le crmt~7 ~n2 ~!?/!°r'~6 ~'
14. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR
PORKY PARK SUBDIVISION NO. 1 BY RON VAN AUKER:
15. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR AN CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
FOR A GROUP DAY CARE BY C YSTAL MARTINEZ:
L~~kf rzYlaz,,.eJ fa ,o-~epc..'~ ~~L ~ c'/L
16. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
FOR A LEARNING CENTER FOR 50 STUDENTS BY
MILLSTREAM PROPERTIES:
17. SEVENTH DAY ADVENTIST SITE PLAN REVIEW:
MERIDIAN PLANNING $~ 7gNING COMMISSION MARCH 12. 1996
The regular meeting of the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission was called to order
by Chairman protem Tim Hepper at 7:30 P.M.:
MEMBERS PRESENT: Jim Shearer, Greg Oslund, Malcolm MacCoy:
OTHERS PRESENT: Will Berg, Wayne Crookston, Gary Smith, Shari Stiles, Wayne
Forrey, William Humphrey, Susan Kelly, Jim Ballantyne, Lawrence Rackham, Brian Hoff,
Dave Roylance, Guy Valentine, Brad Miller, Bill Tokin, Dale Fletcher, Oren Mayes, Pat
Nations, Lyle Bear, Crystal Martinez, Shirley Marino, Charles Haacke, Rory Lowe, Robert
Polk, K. Lawrence, Helen Sharp, Dale Sharp, Cale and Janette Fletcher, Jadc Green, Dixie
Lee Roberts, Ed Doherty:
MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING HELD FEBRUARY 13, 1996
Hepper. You have all read the minutes are there any corrections, additions or deletions?
I will entertain a motion.
Shearer: I move we accept the minutes as written.
MacCoy: Second
Hepper: Motion made and seconded we approve the minutes of previous meeting, all
those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #1: APA: PRESENTATION OF 2015 TRANSPORTATION PLAN:
Olen: Thank you and good evening, my name is Erv Olen of the Ada Planning Association.
Our agency is responsible for developing long range transportation plans in Ada County.
The City of Meridian has been a member of Ada Planning Association for a good number
of years and your Mayor and one Councilman is a member of the Association Board. Our
2015 Transportation Plan was recently adopted by the APA Board in fact they acted on it
on the 26th of February and will be coming to the City of Meridian for your consideration
as far as the Comprehensive Plan. What I would like to do is give you a little overview, ten
or fifteen minute overview of what is in that document and then some of the specifics for
the City of Meridian and then I would be happy to answer any questions you might have
or respond to any comments. If I might I would like to use the overhead projector and go
ahead (inaudible). The transportation plan is intended to address a number of issues that
affect us. When I go to meetings like this almost (inaudible) becoming more and more
significant (inaudible). The plan is attempting to address that. (Inaudible) We are looking
at the issue of congestion and delay and of course (inaudible) and I can tell you (inaudible)
We are looking very closely at the corridor preservation, we have not done a very good
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 12, 1996
Page 2
job in the County I don't think in preserving our opportunities for future roadways or
protecting the capacity of existing roadways. So there is quite an emphasis on the need
to do that. Of course the (inaudible) but work trip is the one that we generally plan for
(inaudible) An awful lot of emphasis is being placed on (inaudible) more and more
established neighborhood groups and they are getting more and more interested in
(inaudible).Of course we have to address that quality (inaudible) for carbon monoxide
(inaudible) and that ties directly to the transportation plan. We always have to be
concerned about money and how we are going to pay for it. I will address tha# a little bit
later. We typically do try to look at (inaudible) less and less of a federal mandate. We do
look at the overall travel and (inaudible). Finally and really not (inaudible) probably
(inaudible) the public is getting more interested in participating in the process and feeling
like they have a voice in the final outcome of our future transportation system. That kind
of leads me into my next one (inaudible) I just briefly want to go through the process
(inaudible) this 2015 plan. What this identifies basically are three tracks that we follow.
Normally we would take this middle track, the public input and educational track, your
typical public meetings (inaudible) and that sort of thing. That is typical of most planning
processes, we all do that all of the time. But in addition to that we also developed two
other parallel processes to involve the public. The one policy (inaudible) community team
that is composed of about 100 members (inaudible) and that a community team actually
developed the plan. They started with developing the (inaudible) which I will cover a little
bit later and (inaudible) they then met and put together the transportation plan itself.
(Inaudible) good mix of representatives, we had neighborhood groups there, we had
highway user types, we had elected policy officials, many staff and so on involved in that
process. Finally the third track that we followed we called random input. This was a rather
novel approach something we have not done before. We actually took advantage of the
public surveys, several of them to get a sense of what the rank and file feels about future
transportation issues. We did those surveys before we developed the vision plan, we had
a series of focus groups which is designed to bring a smaller group of random citizens
together and let them discuss among themselves what the transportation issues are and
out that you do get a pretty good consensus. Finally we did what I would call a post public
survey again random that asked the public to tell us what they thought about our
recommended transportation plan and I hope to summarize that a little later on. So that
is the approach we took, the normal input educational that you almost always do, but in
addition the policy (inaudible) it was a very interesting process. The outcome of the plan,
basically what is in the plan is a number of different policies. We addressed growth
projections, the growth projections that were used were actually developed as the City of
Meridian was developing their comprehensive plan. I know Mr. Forrey sat on the
committee and (inaudible) reflects the demographic projections that were used. In addition
a major study was going on called the Bench Valley study in western Boise that also
massaged some of the growth estimates for some amendments that the City of Boise was
considering those were taken into account as well. We looked at policies on travel
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 12, 1996
Page 3
forecasting though (inaudible) what kind of levels of service we were willing to accept and
that kind of thing. We identified what we classified as functional classification but maybe
it would be better describing it as a collector and arterial system. We need to look ahead
and identify those roads that are intended to carry thru trips versus those roads like the
local subdivision streets that are intended to simply serve the local developments. We
need to look at our capital needs, both quantifying the cost of things and what the kinds
of improvements to the system need to be made over the next 20 years to accommodate
our projected traffic demands. There is a commitment in this planned and regional transit,
I think the next line addresses that. There is a lot of interest in looking at regional transit
for the public, when we say regional we don't stop at an arbitrary line, this actually does
include parts of Treasure Valley. There is is some (inaudible) provision for pathway for
any street improvements not just selected corridors. Funding strategies were addressed
in the plan, how we are going to pay for all of this. It is going to require some additional
funds. (Inaudible) how do we soften the impact of future transportation on (inaudible). The
starting point for our plan is what we described as the vision statement and there were six
visions that were developed. That basically (inaudible) the first of those said that the
transportation plan is (inaudible) not the other way around. We look at the growth plans
of the various entities and then we develop the transportation plan system to support that
growth. Describe the need to look at regional (inaudible) it does address of course the
(inaudible) So the first vision really ties in with the comprehensive plan (inaudible). The
second one is really a combination of what started out as two vision statements but it
acknowledges that the general public in Ada County Idaho want to (inaudible) that is what
the people are telling us that is what they want to do in this County. However, there is a
long term goal for akemative transportation of 25°k. In the 1990 census the estimate was
about 17% the latest measure we had was about 19%. So it is an increase and (inaudible)
but it still means that 3/4 of the trips are going to be people who drive and the plan seeks
to accommodate those. It also talks about practical services offered in private sector
involvement and helping to develop our transportation system (inaudible) they have
agreed to pick up half the cost of that about (inaudible). It talks about, the vision talks
about financing, basically it says that there is support more using user fees for
transportation and to not take existing funding sources and apply them to transportation
but rather to identify those sources of funds that would (inaudible). The plan (inaudible)
smoothly and safely but we do need to protect neighborhoods by ensuring that future
improvements are compatible with adopted plans etc. There are an occasional arterial that
does have that is oriented to residential use that we simply are going to have to bite the
bullet and make the decision to get on with developing those arterials. But in almost every
case we can protect the integrity of those neighborhoods that are not on the major arterials
and the plan seems to address that. We tried to strike a balance. Long term
transportation options for preserving future right of way is (inaudible) and really a strong
theme in the transportation plan. This is a kind of beyond 20 year vision. This says that
over the next 50, 60 years whatever we need to think ahead and protect the future corridor
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 12, 1996
Page 4
needs that we are going to have. If we do it now we are going to save an awful tot of time
and effort and trouble some time in the future. Finally there is a provision in the vision
statement to look at mitigation when we talk about mitigation it is really more landscaping,
buffering, softening the impact of the developing new or expanding transportation
corridors. This is a schematic that identifies the provisions in the plan to look at regional
public transportation service. Basically the plan identifies urban transit type services in the
Boise Garden City area in the City of Meridian and the Nampa Caldwell area. The other
communities served by the system Eagle, Middleton, Kuna basically would probably be
more oriented to very limited bus, probably van pool service initially and maybe some
commuter bus service during the (inaudible). The plan envisions 140 to 150 buses to serve
that eventually. It would provide !/2 bus service in most of the urbanized areas of the two
county area. It would require some additional funding. What the plan recommends in
order to do that additional funding is to follow the examples of Portland, Oregon, or Reno,
Nevada, Spokane, Washington, Denver, Colorado and many others to identify either a
sales tax or an employee tax increase. We have estimated that in order to provide the type
of system envisioned in this plan it would require less than 1/2°k sales tax to accommodate
that. It would also require that a regional transit authority be developed to provide that
service. Now I think that those kinds of visions or provisions in the plan are probably a
little longer term. The public is not read to support that (inaudible). 1 think that is what we
ought to be looking at in the future and start planning now for a regional focus for public
transportation. We have been working with Nampa, Caldwell and Middleton and the rural
highway districts in Canyon County and they have also been looking at this kind of a future
transit system. So it is time to look regionally and time to envision an expanded transit
system (inaudible). Of course the plan also looks at the traditional road system basically
it identifies future existing and proposed arterial (inaudible) again it really doesn't stop at
the County line (inaudible) the need to maintain continuity between Canyon and Ada
County with an arterial system. It would make no sense at all for Ada County to identify an
arterial that stops at the County line and have Canyon County maybe pick one up maybe
a mile or two off set. So we have been working again with the folks in Canyon County to
see if we have agreement on where these interconnections need to occur to ensure that
there is continuity. The arterials that are designated in the plan are intended to first of all
preserve the corridors that are ident~ed for future expansion and to eventually expand the
arterial system to handle future travel demand. So that is kind of the schematic.
(Inaudible) the plan addresses some additional corridors that need to be studied. One of
those corridors is the Pine Street corridor that eventually will connect to Emerald Street
in Boise, that is provided for in the plan. Another corridor is what is commonly called the
south interstate bypass and that would take off somewhere around that new (inaudible)
and there are two thoughts about that. One would be a short bypass and would tie back
in somewhere between Meridian and Nampa. And the long bypass might go all the way
south of Nampa Caldwell and tie back into the Interstate west of Caldwell. That is
provided for in the plan as well. We will have to look at that. In addition to the arterial
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 12, 1996
Page 5
connections I did want to talk about some of the specific projects that are identified in the
project for the City of Meridian particularly the roadway projects. We started with a list and
I think you each received this list that identifies projects that are currently in the six year
budget either at the State or the Ada County Highway District. We consider those
committed projects. There are five of them listed there with a total estimated cost of about
almost $13 million. Those are intended to be developed (inaudible) over the next five or
six years. The second list is a list of four projects that are identified that are recommended
for construction within the next 20 years. They are currently not in existing budgets, they
have an estimated cost of almost $28 million. Those build projects are what the plan
envisions as needed improvements and capacity expansion if you will to accommodate
future travel demands in and through the City of Meridian. Then the final list is identified
for basically preservation only. Those projects would be evaluated every three years we
have to update our plan, federal mandate. So each of those are listed there in the
preservation category will be reevaluated at least once every three years to see if their
status needs to be moved up. We did estimate the cost of those projects, there are quite
a few listed there, about almost well $57. So for the city of Meridian we are identifying
almost $100 million worth of road improvements that will be needed sometime in the
future. That is the essence for the plan in the City of Meridian. With that I would like to stop
and see if you have any questions or comments about this plan. You will be receiving it
the next few weeks and that is incorporated into your comprehensive plan. This is a
chance to give you an opportunity to find out a bit more about it. If you have any questions
I would be happy to answer them.
Hepper: Any questions?
MacCoy: I think he has answered one already about the fact that it is reevaluated every
3 years. I see some of these that are down for 20 years away, after living in this area I
think they (inaudible) personally or collectively (inaudible) I think what we ought to do, I
would like to meet with you and go through some of these in detail.
Olen: Certainly, I would be happy to. Our crystal ball is like everybody else we look at
growth and where we are expecting it to occur. I think this opportunity to review this at
least eery 3 years allows us a chance to regroup and see where the group really has occur
ed and revise this when and if necessary. If something really came up it could be done
sooner, there is not prohibition there. Thank you, any other questions?
Hepper: I had a question, you talked about preserving corridors for future widening of
projects, how do you go about preserving those corridors?
Olen: Well, there are a number of options, we talked with with State Highway District a bit
about that. One might be to develop a fund, that allows for first right of refusal when a
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 12, 1996
Page 6
development comes in. That is basically the opportunity to acquire the right of way before
a property develops. Other ways of doing that would be through the review and
development process as developers come in that if they are adjacent to the roadway the
negotiation process for that could include acquiring the right of way or preserving the right
of way making sure they don't put in any major improvements in what would be the future
right of way. The Highway District's impact fee program there are opportunities to
negotiate that, they actually have been doing that. With few exceptions I think we are
beginning to catch the needs as developments come in rather than after the fact. Those
are basically the two ways. There will either be an early acquisition there is a lot of public
support for actually putting some budget funds aside to acquire future rights of way when
the opportunity is there, you actually save money in the long run.
Hepper: Anything else? Thank you
ITEM #2: TABLED FEBRUARY 13, 1996: ANNEXATION AND ZONING REQUEST FOR
PACKARD NO. 2 BY PNE/EDMONDS CONSTRUCTION:
Hepper: We have actually received a letter from them requesting that be tabled until June.
So I guess we need a motion.
Shearer: Mr. Chairman I move that we table that until the regular June meeting, the 11th.
MacCoy: Second
Hepper: Okay, we have a motion by Commissioner Shearer, seconded by Commissioner
MacCoy to table until June 11th, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #3: TABLED FEBRUARY 13, 1996: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR PACKARD
SUBDIVISION NO. 2 BY PNE/EDMONDS CONSTRUCTION:
Shearer: I so move
MacCoy: Second
Hepper: Okay, we have a motion by Commissioner Shearer, second by Commissioner
MacCoy to table the preliminary plat also until June 11th, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 12, 1996
Page 7
ITEM #4: TABLED FEBRUARY 13, 1996; REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR
THE RANCH SUBDIVISION BY WESTPARK COMPANY.
Hepper: Do we have a representative of the applicant?
Forrey: Thank you Mr. Chairman, my name is Wayne Forrey and Greg Johnson the owner
of Westpark Company couldn't be here tonight and he asked me to hand deliver a letter
to the Commission. It is a short letter, I would like to read it into the record. I have a copy
for every commission member would that be alright? Thank you. I will read fast Mr.
Chairman, it is addressed to the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission. "Dear
Commissioners, during the last 17 months we have been working very hard on the Ranch
formerly known as Highlands Ranch Subdivision. This is a planned development
community for the City of Meridian. Due to the many requirements by various government
agencies a large portion of this project is no longer feasible to develop. The Westpark
Company hereby withdraws the property east of the Ridenbaugh Canat to Eagle Road
from the Ranch Subdivision annexation and platting request. We have decided to continue
platting the Ranch Subdivision as a planned development community for only the property
which is west of the Ridenbaugh Canal to Locust Grove Road. This request will follow all
planned development requirements and will follow the preliminary plat drawings you have
already reviewed with very few minor changes. The minor changes include increasing lot
sizes, eliminating the attached town homes and securing a second road access to Victory
Road. 10°h of the property will be in usable open space included as part of our planned
development as required. We request that you table action on the Ranch Subdivision to
your April 9, 1996 Planning and Zoning meeting so we can sit down with your staff some
time during next week and review our plat drawing to make sure we have met all staff and
City requirements. We ask that we be placed on your April 9, 1996 agenda for approval
of our preliminary plat. By withdrawing property from our annexation and platting request
we have been assured taking this action does not constitute submitting new applications
to the City of Meridian. We plan to continue with our current applications with the
provisions and understanding that we are withdrawing property from the total project. We
look forward to working with you and your staff in the coming days. We also look forvvard
to a recommendation for approval from the Planning and Zoning Commission at your April
9, 1996 Commission meeting. Thank you, Greg Johnson, Managing partner, Westpark."
I would be happy to answer any questions that I can Commissioners. I hope this letter
explains and you can understand east and west of the Ridenbaugh Canal.
Hepper: Any questions?
Crookston: Do you know how this changes the proposed plat for the property that is west
of the Ridenbaugh?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 12, 1996
Page 8
Forrey: I do, I don't have a copy with me. I saw it this afternoon and I think it is generally,
you would agree it is an improvement. It is closer to the findings of fact and conclusions
of law that were prepared at the annexation stage in that there are larger lots, no attached
residential. We don't have the benefit of Gary Smith's input, Shari Stiles' input so we
thought the best thing to do was to table it and sit down with staff and let everyone have
a good look at that prior to your next meeting. I have a copy in my office but it is not yet
finished from the engineering firm. 1 know there are still things that need to be placed on
that plat.
Crookston: It may require an additional public hearing on that.
Forrey: I understand, we were hoping it wouldn't constitute a totally new application and
a new fee that we could continue the same file so to speak.
Crookston: I suppose until we see it the Commission won't know.
Forrey: I understand, thank you.
Hepper: This is not a public hearing so I will entertain a motion.
Oslund: Mr. Chairman I move we table this item until the next regular meeting in Aprif
which would be April 9.
MacCoy: Second
Hepper: Okay we have a motion by Commissioner Oslund to table to April 9, second by
Commissioner MacCoy, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #5: TABLED FEBRUARY 13, 1996: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT FOR THE RANCH SUBDIVISION BY WESTPARK COMPANY:
Hepper: I would assume that number 5 would be the same thing.
Oslund: I also make a motion for item #5 to table to the 9th of April.
Shearer: Second
Hepper: Okay we have a motion to table to the same date April 9th by Commissioner
Oslund and second by Commissioner Shearer, all those in favor? Opposed?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 12, 1996
Page 9
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #6: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR REQUEST FOR A
VACATION OF EASEMENT BY ROGER ANDERSON:
Hepper: We have the findings of fact are there any corrections, additions or deletions?
MacCoy: I make a motion that the Meridian City Planning and Zoning Commission hereby
adopts and approves these findings.
Oslund: Second
Hepper: We have a motion by Commissioner MacCoy and seconded by Commissioner
Oslund to approve the findings of fact, roll call vote.
ROLL CALL VOTE: Oslund -Yea, Shearer -Yea, MacCoy -Yea
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Hepper: Do we have a decision or recommendation?
Oslund: Mr. Chairman I move that the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby
recommends to the City Council of the City of Meridian that they approve the vacation of
the sewer and water easement at 75 W. Taylor Street.
Shearer: Second
Hepper: It has been moved by Commissioner Oslund, second by Commissioner Shearer
to approve the decision and recommendation, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #7: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR REQUEST FOR A
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A GROUP DAY CARE BY ANGELA MILLER:
Hepper: We have got the, was there a revised copy?
Crookston: There was, I made some minor changes, but the findings were totally
reproduced.
Hepper: I don't believe I have a revised copy. Does anybody have any discussion,
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 12, 1996
Page 10
corrections or additions or deletions? Entertain a motion.
Shearer: Mr. Chairman I move the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby approves and
adopts these findings of fact.
Oslund: Second
Hepper: We have a motion by Commissioner Shearer, second by Commissioner Oslund
to approve the findings of fact, roll call vote.
ROLL CALL VOTE: Oslund -Yea, Shearer -Yea, MacCoy -Yea
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Hepper: Decision or recommendation?
Shearer. Mr. Chairman I move the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommend
to the City Council the City of Meridian that they approve the conditional use permit
requested by the applicant for the property described in the application with the conditions
set forth in the findings of fact and conclusions of law or similar conditions as found by the
appropriate, just~ed and appropriate by the City Councl and that the property be required
to meet the water and sewer requirements, fire and life safety codes and other ordinances
of the City of Meridian. The conditional use should be subject to review upon notice to the
applicant by the City.
Oslund: Second
Hepper: We have a motion by Commissioner Shearer and seconded by Commissioner
Oslund for the decision and recommendation, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #8: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR REQUEST FOR
REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A GROUP DAY CARE BY
KATHLEEN LAWRENCE:
Hepper: Are there any corrections, additions or deletions? Counselor, on page 8, item F,
is that worded correctly that the conditional use should not be permitted or restricted, it
should be restricted? The item says that the conditional use should not be restricted to
operating only from 7 A.M. to 6 P.M.? It seems like the discussion at the time was that it
should be restricted.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 12, 1996
Page 11
Crookston: That "not" needs to be removed Mr. Chairman.
Hepper: Is there any other discussion?
Oslund: Mr. Chairman, I move that the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby
adopt and approve these findings of fact and conclusions.
Shearer: Second
Hepper: With the deletion of "not" on page 8?
Oslund: Yes
Hepper: It has been, a motion by Commissioner Oslund, second by Commissioner Shearer
to approve the findings of fact and conclusions of law with the exception on page 8, roll
call vote.
ROLL CALL VOTE: Oslund -Yea, Shearer -Yea, MacCoy -Yea
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Hepper: Decision or recommendation?
MacCoy: Mr. Chairman I would like to make the decision or recommendation that the
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council of the
City of Meridian that they approve the conditional use permit requested by the applicant
for the property described in the application with the conditions set forth in the findings of
fact and conclusions of law or similar conditions as found justified appropriate by the City
Council. That the property be required to meet the requirements stated in the conclusions
of law, the water and sewer requirements, the fire and life safety codes, uniform fire code
and the ordinances of the City of Meridian. The conditional use should be subject to
review upon notice to the applicant by the City.
Oslund: Second
Hepper: Its has been moved by Commissioner MacCoy and second by Commissioner
Oslund to approve the decision and recommendation, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #9: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR A CONDITIONAL US
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 12, 1996
Page 12
PERMIT FOR A CHEVRON C-STORE, FUEL ISLANDS, CAR WASH, AND DRIVE THRU
WINDOW BY AVEST:
Hepper: Are there any additions or deletions or corrections?
(Inaudible)
Hepper: Apparently we have a revised page where the word maintain has been changed
to obtain on page 8, item 7, the last word. Do we have a recommendation on the findings
of fact?
MacCoy: Mr. Chairman, I recommend that the findings of fact and conclusions that the
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts and approves these findings
of fact and conclusions.
Shearer: Second
Hepper: It has been moved by Commissioner MacCoy and second by Commissioner
Shearer to approve the findings of fact, roll call vote.
ROLL CALL VOTE: Oslund -Yea, Shearer -Yea, MacCoy -Yea
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Hepper: Decision or recommendation?
MacCoy: Mr. Chairman, the decision or recommendation of the Meridian Planning and
Zoning Commission hereby recommends to the Meridian City Council that they approve
the conditional use permit requested by the applicant for the property described in the
application with the conditions set forth in the findings of fact and conclusions of law.
Shearer: Second
Hepper: Motion by Commissioner MacCoy, second by Commissioner Shearer to approve
the decision and recommendation, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #10: PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED FROM FEBRUARY 13, 1996: REQUEST
FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A SENIOR CITIZEN BOARDING, LODGING
COMPLEX BY WAYNE AND KAREN FORREY:
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 12, 1996
Page 13
Hepper: Do we have a representative?
Wayne Forrey, 3045 Thayen Place, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Forrey: Mr. Chairman and members of the Commission I have some slides I would like to
show can I switch projectors here for just a minute? Thank you, Commission members my
wife and I are really excited about this project. We have applied for a conditional use
permit for an elderly planned development general residential project here in meridian.
It involves 114 units of elderly housing and a retirement style type campus. It is located on
East Pine Street in the area near Locust Grove but it is actually about 1 /4 mile West of the
Locust Grove/Pine Street intersection, it is right up next to Five Mile Creek. It is actually
where you leave the platted portion of the edge of the City and then it is into a grain field
right now. There is a tremendous need we have discovered in the City of Meridian. My
grandparents live in Meridian and have many family members over the years getting older
and in the search several years ago for a retirement center for both of my grandfathers it
really became apparent to us that there was a real good need in Meridian for a good
elderly retirement center. In fact even though we haven't formerly introduced this to the
public just the fact that it was noticed in the newspaper has generated phone calls
primarily from elderly ladies wanting to be placed on the waiting list to live here. So we
know there is just a really great need. Our site plan includes extensive landscaping and
I will show you some of that tonight. We have extensive buffers and very sensitive to the
neighbors. It is, my wrfe and I are purchasing 12.75 acres, it goes from Pine street all the
way south to the rail road tracks. We are only proposing the front 5 acres to be used in
this planned development project right up next to Pine Street. We have addressed all of
the City and agency comments and I have a letter that I would like to give you tonight that
confirms how we address each of those items. We don't have any negative impact on
schools and I think that is important. Our budget for this project is $8.3 million and that is
the value that would be added to the communities tax roll so that is a positive impact on
the schools not negative. The employment that we are projecting is 10 to 12 professional
paid staff. The planned development requirements in the City stipulates 10°!0 open space
but we are proposing 20°k and that is based on research and conversations with seniors
that want more of a campus environment, a security feeling and that required more setback
and landscaping. We anticipate starting construction in the winter of 1996 or early 1997
and opening in Fall of 1997 and let me just walk you through a few slides to punctuate a
few points. Then I will go through the staff comment letter. This is actually the site plan
showing the four buildings. Erv Olen was here first on the agenda about transportation,
even though we are not required to, this is hard to see but on Pine Street right across the
intersection of Stonehenge Way we are planning a bus stop. We think someday there is
going to be bus service or van/pool service in Meridian. At our expense we have agreed
to construct that bus stop. One of the things that is really important to us is how Pine street
looks and we envision a very extensive setback and berming, intensely landscaped area
Meridian Planning 8 Zoning Commission
March 12, 1996
Page 14
long Pine. The City asked us to reserve a 20 foot landscape strip we are proposing 35
feet, it is that important to us. Five Mile Creek touches the northwest corner of this
property and we are working with Nampa Meridian Irrigation District on a second license
agreement. We already have one to use the easement but we want to really landscape
and put a pathway along Five Mile Creek on our side of the creek with benches, an
overlook area and hand rail. We are negotiating a license agreement with the irrigation
district to do that. We envision lots of outdoor garden areas, flower beds, raised with
benches and hand rails to enjoy the outdoors especially along the Five Mile Creek area.
We are anticipating that we would raise the floor elevation above existing grade probably
2 to 2.5 feet so on the patio areas you would have, they would be elevated above existing
grade and there would be berming and slope and hand rails (End of Tape) so it is a
terrace effect. That I think will make a very nice outdoor area. The entrance the
substantial monument entrance with good landscaping. This is an architectural concept
for the two main buildings on the campus buildings A and B. They are L shaped building
and that is building pad A and B. Parking is central, we envision an on site maintenance,
24 hour shuttle van service, property management, contracting with professional
management company for the operation of the center and the campus and the
maintenance. We feel really good about this project and using the site wisely. The City
had several comments from staff and from the different agencies. 1 have addressed each
of those in a letter and I would like to hand it out to you. That is all the slides, you can turn
the lights back on. I am very flexible I can read each one or I could pick a few key
highlights. You will note in there where we were asked to do something we said we would
or we have indicated that we agreed with the comment. I would ask that you incorporate
this letter into your findings of fact and conclusions of law. We have also asked for a
development agreement and would like you to incorporate this letter. One of the things I
indicated we would do for Builders Masonry they submitted a letter indicating they were
concerned about the compatibility of an elderly center in the proximity to their business.
We are about 1/5 mile away from Builders Masonry, a little over 1100 feet away. Because
of their concern and I understand their concern I wrote a letter to Builders Masonry
indicated that at our expense we would construct a sound barrier wall on our south
property line, our extreme south property line which is right next to the railroad tracks. I
have a copy of their letter, a copy of my response and then a copy of their second
response which indicates that we are moving in the right direction and they feet that given
some time we should be able to work this out as Tong as we respect their business and we
certainly do. We feel really good about this project and hope that you approve it. It is a
substantial project for our family and substantial project for the City. We are ready to
proceed if we get approval. I would be happy to answer questions.
MacCoy: On your property you said (inaudible)
Forrey: No in fact that was another item Builders Masonry brought up. They were worried
Meridian Planning 8 Zoning Commission
March 12, 1996
Page 15
that if we developed the front five acres that we would then move more residential closer
to the rail road tracks and closer to their business. I stated in writing and I have it in here
that we would not do that. In fact I would ask you in a development agreement to put a
restriction on us that this would be the end or limit to this use. The rest of that would be
business uses, office and business park on the balance of the property between this and
the rail road track.
Hepper: Where would the access to that office and business park come from?
Forrey: A continuation of Penrith Avenue and possibly the neighbor to the east is
developing a business park and we have talked about a possible stub street coming out
of that business park and linking up with Penrith Avenue.
Hepper: So Penrith would not be a private drive?
Forrey: No, public, it would be 58 feet right of way. That is something that the Highway
District asked we do and we agreed to that, all public.
Oslund: The whole site there then is one continuous site (inaudible) involved with this one
facility? You are going to have a public street that bisects that?
Forrey: Yes
Oslund: I appreciate the fact that you are working with Builders Masonry Products, if you
intend to put in seven acres of what would most likely be a transitional use between this
and them I guess I fail to see what that wall is going to do? When you come back some
day in the future standing at this site you wont' even see (inaudible).
Forrey: I have to answer this way, the conditional use process is a good process because
it allows people to raise a concern and it gives the applicant a chance to address the
concern. Builders Masonry raised a concem I think I have addressed. They are concerned
that sound will penetrate from their site into our site and so I have said I am willing to build
a sound barrier wall even though this is about 700 feet away from the nearest living unit,
700 feet south it is a negotiation process. I think we ought to look at. I firmly believe in
good cooperation and balanced development so 1 am willing to do that and I have stated
it in writing. I know that someday it will lose its effectiveness.
Oslund: An alternative would be to and having designed noise barriers before for highway
projects it seems to me, now I am getting involved in your project and I am just telling you
this to tell you what I think. A wall along this development closer to this development
would make more sense in terms of mitigating noise and it would also be compatible with
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 12, 1996
Page 16
the future because it might be a good idea to have a wall between this development and
what ultimately will be a business use.
Forrey: I absolutely agree and would prefer to do that. My meetings with Builders Masonry
said they would prefer to have it closer to them right at the rail road tracks. That was
something that we agreed we would consider?
MacCoy: (Inaudible)
Forrey: Well right now the estimate that I have is $25,000 so I really would, I don't know.
I don't want to have to go put that in first before I build any buildings. 1 would like to be
able to build that with the first phase and not have to build it first and then get the building
permit. I would like to get it at the same time of the building permit for building A is
accomplished.
MacCoy: You don't' know what it is made of?
Forrey: It says in the letter that we are looking at four different materials and we have had
an engineer look at it for us a double pane wood insulated wood, insulated fiberglass,
insulated metal or cinder block. Those are the four options that we are looking at.
MacCoy: (Inaudible) following Greg's
Forrey: And visual as well, sound and visual.
MacCoy: Following Greg's viewpoint which I agree with, would you consider on you south
edge of doing more in the way even though you have the barrier wall at the rail road tracks
the separation between this and the rest of our property there would you consider more
trees, more shrubs or mounding which would give you another a secondary barrier if you
please?
Forrey: Yes we certainly will, I would prefer to move that sound wall right up to the south
edge if Builders Masonry could live with that I would like to do that.
MacCoy: (Inaudible)
Forrey: If you read your letter
MacCoy: We haven't had a chance to so far.
Oslund: I don't know maybe I am missing something but we are approving the project and
i •
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 12, 1996
Page 17
the Council is approving the project what is their connection. If we approve something
different than what they like is that a problem for you?
Forrey: No it is just that they are a neighbor and I want to get along with them.
Oslund: I really, in terms of, if the idea is to mitigate the noise for the folks that are going
to live there I don't really feel song far the people over at Masonry, noise is a way of life
that is not what we are interested in. If the object is to reduce their noise exposure then
to me either a berm or a wall needs to be as close as we can get it to them the receptor
to be most effective.
Forrey: That is my preference too.
MacCoy: (Inaudible)
Shearer: Heavy trees back by that rail road track would probably help kill an awful lot of
sound.
Forrey: We have irrigation there as well, we have an irrigation line back there. So that
entire south has the Grouper lateral, so it is possible.
Hepper: Wayne, what is one the east and west of your project?
Forrey: That is tilted, looking up is also looking to the east. So right up next to Pine Street
where you see the dimension 110.70 and 64.30 that is a single family home owned by Mr.
and Mrs. Collins, it is that nice single level brick home that you see on Pine. On the north
side is Maws Addition Subdivision and Danbury Fair Subdivision. On the west side are
existing homes, some of them are on one acre lots and some are on two and three acre
parcels. It is residential on the west side. Then, behind the Collins home along our east
boundary is property owned by Yanke Company and they are proposing a business park
in that area.
Hepper: What is the zoning on that?
Forrey: Light Industrial.
Hepper: Do you see any way that your project could cause an impact on their, cause them
to do additional things to their property so their industrial zoning wouldn't impact yours?
Forrey: No and I have discussed that with Mike Ford and they shouldn't be required to do
anything different than the ordinance allows. We should be buffering not them. We agreed
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 12, 1996
Page 18
to that.
Hepper: I wanted to make sure that you are putting in sufficient buffering to buffer yourself
from an industrial zone that is next door not requiring them to do it when they come in.
Forrey: No I understand you ask Gary Lee of JUB we have had that discussion, they
should just do everything they can to have a nice business park and not worry about the
back lot line we will take care of that. It is a little hard to see maybe on the copy you have
but some of that is the Snyder Drain easement and our license agreement we already
have permission to landscape that with grass and flowers but we want trees along there
so that is going to require a second license agreement which we are working with Nampa
Meridian so I can put that buffer in there and use that easement. We will do that
(inaudible).
Hepper: Is there some way of wording that in the findings or something that you would
(inaudible) give up the right to contest any noise that might be generated by a next more
industrial zone or you enter into this with full knowledge that there is an industrial zone
next door and you won't complain about it.
Forrey: Absolutely, we intend to have an office and then business on the south part of our
property that is compatible so yes we absolutely agree to that.
Hepper: Any other questions? Thank you Wayne, this is a public hearing is there anyone
else that would like to testify?
William Humphrey, 939 East Pine, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Humphrey: I have some concems as far as the ditch, if I may use this graph over here,
you have an area there that is the creek enhancement area along Five Mile Drain ditch
there, my concerns are, I have been in contact with the ditch company, Nampa Meridian
irrigation and to my understanding there is a 50 foot easement there that the ditch
(inaudible) what your plans are. Are you going to use that easement or are you going to
stay outside that easement or and also to the back of the (inaudible) people that are
involved in the lodging there (inaudible) rise and fall according to the weather. I do have
some concems about that as far as the people, elderly people accessing the creek, it wuld
be a safety hazard in that aspect. My other concems are that the fact that the Grouper
Lateral that runs along the property line there also that is a 20 foot easement or setback
there and at this present time the ditch company has been cleaning that lateral and for the
past 15 years or longer they have been putting dirt on my property as well as the
neighbors property. I wondered if that was going to continue orrf you are going to take part
in that dirt being distributed. (Inaudible) probably those are my most concerns there I just
• •
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 12, 1996
Page 19
wondered what the stand was on that as far as the enhancement area now. To my
knowledge I have talked, I have entertained the thought of building on my own property
there and as far as the ditch company is concerned 50 foot from the middle of that ditch
is just about in the middle of my property there, easement. So that kind of eliminates me
building there. I am just kind of wondering where we are at on that. Those are pretty much
my concerns if you can address that I would appreciate that.
Hepper: Okay when we get done we will give Wayne a chance to come back up and
address those. Anyone else? Okay Wayne would you like to address that?
Forney: Thank you, building A is the and also Building B are the closest buildings to the
Grouper Lateral, it flows along the West boundary from the rail road tracks north of Pine
Street. I am aware of the easement, a portion of the Five Mile Creek easement in the
northwest corner of the property and Building A and B are not within those easements. I
purposely kept those buildings away. In the license agreement that we have we have been
informed that we can grass and sod those easements. The license agreement says we are
not to plant trees of it we do they can be taken out by backhoes. So we went to Nampa
Meridian Irrigation District and said we really need to plan trees in there to dress that up
and make that an amenity. The creek can be very beautiful right there so we want to make
it safe but also visually very nice to the residents. Not access to the Creek like the waters
edge but a nice bench and a pathway far enough that it is safe but also just relaxing just
to sit there. Now under that condition Nampa Meridian said you are going to put a park
bench in our easement and some trees and an asphalt pathway and we said yes and they
said well you need a second license agreement and you need to accept the liability if we
go in and have to do any work and we are willing to do that. My letter mentions that and
we have an attorney preparing that language right now. It is in our best interest to improve
that creek not to upset the Grouper lateral in any way, that feeds the pressurized irrigation
in Danubury Fair, it is the same water we will take our pressurized irrigation off with our
water right. So we will protect and maintain the Grouper lateral, we will work with the creek
and subject to that license agreement with Nampa Meridian. We are not proposing any
buildings in that easement.
Hepper: Is there a maintenance road down there on one side of the ditch?
Forney: Yes and it is on our property, a portion of it is.
Hepper: Would you be covering up that maintenance road with sod?
Forney: Yes we are proposing to do that but t hey will still be able to use it. We will work
that into the landscape the concept there. They will have access but they will be driving
over sod. So we are going to make sure the Grouper lateral stays nice and clean and
r
• •
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 12, 1996
Page 20
(inaudible) we are not going to ignore it and just put it out of mind and tet it be messy, we
have to work with those amenities. That is our concept, it might change because the
irrigation district, they are kind of tough to deal with, but we are going to try.
Hepper: Any other questions? Thank you, this is a public hearing is there anyone else that
would care to testify? if not I will close the public hearing, this requires findings.
Shearer: Mr. Chairman I move we have the Attorney prepare findings of fact and
conclusions of law for this project.
MacCoy: Second
Hepper: It has been moved by Commissioner Shearer, seconded by Commissioner
MacCoy to have the attorney prepare findings of fact and conclusions of law
Oslund: Can we have some discussion on that before we take a vote? We can have
discussion on a second right. I guess instead of waiting until the next meeting I would like
to see in the conditions that barrier be placed at the property of this development rather
than way over there by the rail road tracks. That would the only thing I would like to see
in there
Crookston: The south boundary of this project?
Oslund: That is correct, and maybe, I don't recall what the distance was or the width of that
landscaped area but in addition to that wall possibly a six foot wall combination with a
berm or something.
Hepper: Do we need to amend the motion? Okay, we have a motion and a second, all
those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #11: PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED FROM FEBRUARY 13, 1996: REQUEST
FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR BALLANTYNE-TROUTNER BUSINESS PARK BY JIM
BALLANTYNE:
Hepper: Is there a representative?
Wayne Forrey, 3045 Thayen Place, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Forrey: Mr. Chairman and members of the Commission, Jim is a good friend, met him
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 12, 1996
Page 21
many years ago. He has owned this property in Meridian since 1971, it is on West Franklin
Road, if you visualize Hoff Lumber or Hinckels McCoy, Meridian Veterinary, it is right
across the street from Hoff Lumber nestled between Hinckels and McCoy and Meridian
Veterinary clinic and then it goes south about 40 acre ownership. I think you are familiar
with this property, about, it has been about 8 months ago we came before the Planning
and Zoning Commission. Let me back up, you may recall the Troy Green proposal where
this was planned to be a mobile home park and that was ultimately denied by the City. Jim
rethought how to develop that ground, we came before the City with a business park
concept of limited office and C-G commercial general zoning. The Planning and Zoning
Commission passed on a favorable recommendation to the City Council for annexation.
We got in front of the City Council and they felt good about the project but they said it is
not our policy to see a preliminary plat before we will take final approval on annexing new
ground into the City. So the City Council said go back and start with a preliminary plat
which we did during Christmas time and submitted in January and now we are on the
agenda for a preliminary plat. For discussion purposes it is referred to at the Ballantyne
Troutner Business Park. I also have a letter with a map attached let me hand that out. Let
me show just a couple quick slides so I can acquaint you with this area. This is looking
west on Franklin Road, off to the right you see Hoff Lumber and in the foreground is
Meridian Veterinary clinic. We are just now starting to get to the Ballantyne property as
you look west. The Master Roto Rooter is on Franklin and Jim's property is behind the
Mater Rooter property, this property fronts on Franklin and Jim has the 37 acres
immediately behind this property, it is pretty common to see there on Franklin Road. This
is his frontage on Franklin Road, it is 238 feet wide, it currently has that for sale sign on
it and I am standing right now in about the parking lot of Hoff Lumber at their administrative
office looking across the street to the south. In the background you see those metal
buildings and some construction equipment that is the Hinkels and McCoy contractors
yard. That fence you see now and that power line there that is the common property line
between Jim Ballantyne's ground and the Hinkels and McCoy. This is where we would
plan the entrance into the business park right across the street from the Hoff Forest
Products. When we came in for annexation there was some discussion with the Planning
and Zoning Commission and with the City Council about a 50 foot access easement
through the Norm Fuller property coming out to Meridian Road. We have adjusted that
easement with Norm Fuller's input and approval so that this is actually where that 50 foot
easement is. I am standing on Meridian Road and directly behind me is the access road
to Godfather's Pizza it is Thomas property they are currently developing right now. So
future connection all lines up and all of that has been taken care of. It is shown on the plat
that way. Here is a copy of the plat that you have, up at the top there is the entrance off
of Franklin Road coming into the park. The Eight Mile Lateral courses diagonally through
the property, we propose to relocate that lateral. It is a major expense but it opens up the
interior and makes a very nice business park. We are right next to Franklin Square
Subdivision, we have planned a 35 foot landscape strip next to Franklin Square
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 12, 1996
Page 22
Subdivision to be permanently landscaped. Those folks that are familiar with Pennwood,
it currently dead ends but we are proposing that it extend and this is the little street on the
south here coming out of Franklin Square subdivision and coming east into Jim
Ballantyne's property. Corporate Drive which is shown and generalized here on the
bottom of the plat, is a future road that the Highway District is planning in Meridian. So this
property is going to be part of that Corporate Drive extension with at least two access
points. The easement that you see going out to Meridian Road that is the 50 foot
easement through Norm Fuller's property that we have adjusted and it lines up with the
Thomas property over to East 1st Street by Godfather's Pizza. We propose that Barret
Street not go through that we put a hammerhead turnaround right there that is based on
input from the neighbors that didn't want Barret to go through. Some neighbors probably
don't want Pennwood street to go through and it really doesn't matter to Jim Ballantyne but
the Highway District has told us that they want Pennwood to make a connection into this
property and ultimately south down to Corporate Drive so that you can come out of
Franklin Square Subdivision and over to Meridian Road without going north up to Franklin,
that is the way you have to do it now. So it opens up better access. Most of those lots are
about 7/10 of an acre to about one acre, that is the size that we are finding a lot of interest
in. In fact lot 1, block 1, right at the top by the entrance of Franklin Road, right across the
street from Hoff Lumber Jim has already sold that property and he has used a one time lot
split in the County and that is going to be the new Meridian office of the United States
Department of Agriculture, the new USDA office building that is going to set a real nice
tone coming into the business park. All of block 4 which is the property next to Franklin
Square subdivision and all of block 5 we are proposing to be zoned L-O limited office as
a transition to that neighborhood. The balance of the property would be zoned C-G and
would be for business use, office and office warehouse. We have addressed all of the City
comments in the letter, there is a map in there as well, reduced copy of the plat. I would
be happy to answer any questions. Jim Ballantyne is here as well if we have some
questions for Jim he can help answer.
Oslund: Question for you, the signalized intersection that you are showing, the T
intersection of 5th Street and Franklin, you say that is right at the entrance to Hoff?
Forrey: No, it is not, the current entrance to Hoff is a little bit east of the way we show the
entrance to this property right now. There is a power line in the way in order to move it on
the Hoff property. When ACRD widens and improves Franklin Road to 5 lanes which is
the plan here that power line is going to be removed or relocated. So our conversations
with Idaho Power, ACHD and Hoff have been that we would line up this road the entrance
road within five feet of the Hinkels and McCoy property and then Hoff would have a good
access at that same location. They are going to have to make some adjustments on their
property but it is through a graveled area, their current parking lot for staff it is not going
to damage a lot of their paving but it is going to have to relocate that power pole. So down
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 12, 1996
Page 23
the road I think we will have good access with Hoff on one side and Ballantyne Troutner
Business park on the other. Some day probably a signal right there. Our traffic study right
now the traffic study has not been completed we are on tech review agenda for this Friday
with the Highway District and Pat Dobie is completing the traffic study. When Corporate
Drive is put through this area most of this traffic is projected to go south to Corporate Drive
and out to Meridian Road. So today without Corporate Drive we would need a traffic signal
on Franklin by Hoff. But when corporate drive is in the traffic study says that signal may
not be warranted so we are not proposing a signal at this time. We are contemplating that
Corporate drive is going to extend through and that helps solve the traffic. To confirm then
are you saying that Hoff will adjust their driveway location
Forrey: Yes
Oslund: So that it is opposite what is a T intersection (inaudible)
Forrey: Yes, in order to line up that is correct.
Oslund: What is the 50 foot access easement, what is that exactly?
Forrey: When Jim Ballantyne bought property from Norm Fuller years ago he bought
property that is along the lateral, kind of the interior of the property. When he bought that
from Norm they negotiated a 50 foot access easement out to Meridian Road. That is the
intent and purpose of that easement. We have since adjusted that easement north about
32 feet to line up with the Thomas property on the other side of Meridian Road, that was
at the request of P & Z and City Council during our annexation public hearings.
Oslund: So that access easement would serve lot 15 only?
Forrey: Look at the revised plat Commissioner, it is on the back of the letter that I handed
out. The City staff asked us to make revisions to the plat and we have done that, so you
are now looking at the plat that complies with City staff comments.
Oslund: (Inaudible) that is all I have.
Hepper: Would these be under conditional use permit?
Qst~d:'Yes, as stated in the letter and it is also stated in the annexation application that
any use developing in this project would be under conditional use permit procedures. But
we are not requesting planned development, it is a business park with everything
conditional use permit.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 12, 1996
Page 24
Hepper: But any of those lots that back up to Franklin Square would come back to
Planning and Zoning for conditional use permit review for compatibility and everything
else?
Forrey: Yes as office uses, that is correct.
MacCoy: Let me clarify something you said that Lot 4 and 5 would be (inaudible)
Forrey: Block 4 and Block 5
Oslund: Did ACHD have any opinion about the 50 foot access over to Meridian?
Forrey: They have asked us to use I think it is I forget the citation I think it is on the plat
C3-NP-50 standard, it is a 3 lane collector no parking within a 50 foot right of way. They
are saying that as long as there is no parking it is signed that way then it can fit the amount
of traffic within a 50 foot right of way.
Oslund: (Inaudible) access to Meridian Road and
Forrey: Yes they do even with Corporate Drive, at this point they are telling us to put a
road through there. It is very possible that future development may change that but that
is the direction we have been given by the Highway District as of today.
Hepper: Any other questions? This is a public hearing is there anyone else that wishes
to testify?
Susan Kelly, 604 Pennwood, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Kelly: I apologize my comments are not formal, they are pretty much just informal from
what I have heard. I just want to state that my husband and I are the property that adjoins
this property that is about to be developed. We live on Pennwood Street. t personally am
very opposed to a major basically interstate that is going to come through that property.
When you open that area up and it becomes Pennwood it is going to become a
thoroughfare in front of our home. It is not set up, it is a residential street, it will become
like Franklin. Everybody that comes off the Boise interstate, I-84 will come through
Pennwood to get to the following subdivisions therefore Franklin will become almost non-
existent our house will become a major interstate in front our own ways. I would like you
to research that and took at that. I would like you to know that we are not opposed to a
development in there. We are opposed to a development to break open on Pennwood
Street. I do not feel the whole subdivision is set up to take that amount of traffic involved.
I also am in question about the 35 foot landscape strip. In spite of that if they break
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 12, 1996
Page 25
Pennwood open we are still going to have that major (inaudible) As it is right now we have
a lot of traffic that comes to the end of that street that knows not where to go and therefore
has to tum around in our yard and go bads the other direction. So I really would hope the
committee would look at that that it is not a good choice to break open Pennwood Street.
Seriously I am not opposed to them doing development I just do not feel that Pennwood
Street is very good (inaudible). We also are very concerned we are very long time
residents we are very concerned that the value of our property is going to go down as I am
sure you would understand. Anybody that lives on a major thoroughfare nobody wants
to move in and buy their properties. Thank you.
Hepper: I have a question, does Pennwood street in your subdivision connect to any of the
other subdivisions is that a thru street or does that only?
Kelly: Pennwood dead ends at our house and it adjoins this property.
Hepper: What about on the other end of Pennwood?
Kelly: We are the dead end of Pennwood and Pennwood has been adjoined to the other
subdivision that was put to the west of us. So we are the older part of the subdivision, we
have been there quite some time.
Hepper: Okay, but Pennwood to the west does continue through?
Kelly: Yes it does and I can see why it would be a major factor in why they want to open
it up although it is not good for the residents on that street. Anything else? Thank you.
Hepper: Anyone else that wishes to testify?
Jim Ballantyne, 10250 Whispering Cliffs Drive, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Ballantyne: I just wanted the residents on Pennwood to know that I sympathize with their
concern and the Pennwood Extension there is not our idea but it is the idea of ACHD. If
the traffic studies and the quality of the subdivisions, quality of life in the subdivision to the
west is affected by Pennwood and rf you should decide that street should in fact be
blocked we would support the neighbors in that decision. Thank you.
Hepper: Any questions? Thank you? Anyone else?
Lawrence Rackham, 305 West Franklin Road, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Rackham: I was at the last hearing and I haven't seen anything addressed to the
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 12, 1996
Page 26
comments made there according to the canal and the set aside the canal that would both
be against the property that I own there and the safety factors involved should be
addressed there. Which also goes adjacent to the back of an apartment and the safety
factors involved there. On the west side of the complex just north of the street that comes
in off Meridian Road is an apartment complex that has families in there. With the potential
and the future plans that I might have for the property on Franklin Road that is to the north
of the canal almost straight through from the 5th Street section depending on what we put
on that property it would be necessary for the safety factors for that canal barriers or
whatever to be kept in mind so that it would be a safe and the canal I don't think has been
a problem in the past, it is located away from the perimeter of the property. It has been
out in the center, the idea of moving it to the border of that property closer to surrounding
properties as opposed to being isolated in the middle of that piece of property is something
that needs to be addressed.
Hepper: Okay now it is the Eight Mile Lateral that you are referring to?
Rackham: That is correct.
Hepper: As the canal?
Rackham: Correct
Hepper: You don't agree with the relocation of the lateral?
Rackham: Well my question is what safety factors are being implemented in relocating it
first off? What impact would that have on the properties that it borders now that it did not
before this movement.
Hepper: We will have Wayne answer that. Depending on the size of that lateral if it is
small enough it would have to be tiled.
Rackham: It is too large for that. The piece coming off of Meridian Road that you see
behind the bowling alley is probably, Wayne what 12 (inaudible), 5 feet deep.
Hepper: Is that the one that is just south of the bowling alley.
Rackham: It crosses there, diagonally now and would be as proposed to make a 90
degree bend behind the apartment complex and go along behind the apartment complex
to the comer of the lot and then make the 90 degree bend bordering the other properties
there a mobile park and some other commercial buildings.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 12, 1996
Page 27
Hepper. We will have Wayne address that. (End of Tape)
Brian Hoff, 420 W. Franklin Road, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Hoff: Members of the Commission, we would just like to go on record as saying we are
concerned about that access way that we had been presented before. We do have an
access through there and the drive way does line up onto Franklin Road. It was proposed
to us that there would be a signal light there at some point and we want to make sure that
signal light is where our access is currently. We met with Wayne and Jim Ballantyne,
looked at some of the barriers of moving that access. We feel like there is some fair sized
problems doing that. So we just want to make sure that is taken into consideration that we
do have adequate interest there now and would like to maintain that.
Hepper: Any questions?
Oslund: I do, I guess then, Wayne made it sound like that Hoff was agreeable to moving
their entrance, is that not the case then?
Hoff: I think that we would entertain that we have not agreed to anything at this time. There
is a barrier right now with that power line. The last time that we met we thought that maybe
we could go east of that power line I mean further west and that was just only an option.
We know that we can't go east we have some other barriers, an office building there.
Going west would split our property where that parking lot that we have now and actually
split some Franklin Road property.
Oslund: Can you back up a second and tell me where and maybe you don't know, where
you entrance is in relation to where they are proposing to put an extension to this street?
Hoff: Wayne might be able to help me, but I think it is almost exactly the center of that leg
that goes out. That is one of the problems from their standpoint is it splits their property.
Forrey (Inaudible) Hoff access, the Highway District has asked that we push SW 5th the
new street as far west as possible right up next to the Hinkley and McCoy and that
conflicts with where Hoff would like it. So we have to work that out and especially with a
power line in there.
Hoff: Our other big concern is if there is a light there at some point we have about 300
people that go in and out of there each day. If you have a light that is off set of that
entrance safety considerations and just access is a problem.
Oslund: I think that is a critical issue it has to be addressed, I believe 300 I drive on that
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 12, 1996
Page 28
road everyday going to and from work and (inaudible)
Hoff: And truck traffic too so if we did move that entrance we would have to move that
entrance atl the way back to the plant to keep from having to tum and go in and turn again.
Hepper: Anyone else wish to testify? Gary at our last meeting I think there was a question
about whether you had received all the written comments you need, is everything
{inaudible) that you need?
Smith: Mr. Chairman, we just received the comments tonight from the applicant, are those
the ones you are referring to?
Hepper: Well I don't know, 1 think at the last meeting it was mentioned that there were
some comments from you and Shari that you needed some answers to. Apparently you
just received those tonight.
Smith: Yes, the applicant has addressed the comments that we made at our review stage.
Hepper: Have you had a chance to review those?
Smith: 1 just read through them I haven't compared them with what our comments were so
I can't
Hepper: You are not really sure.
Smith: I can't really address them.
Hepper: Have you heard, have you had a chance to contact ACRD and see if they have
any comments?
Smith: No I haven't, Karen Gallagher was here this evening and she said that all the rest
of the items on the agenda are needing traffic study information before they will make any
comments on the project.
Hepper: Wayne would you like to readdress us?
Forrey: Mrs. Kelly's comments are very good, those folks have lived there with a dead end
street for many years and now the Highway Districts wants to see an extension, kind of
what Erv Olen was talking about earlier tonight about transportation planning. So we have
been told for good transportation planning put a road through there and it could hurt the
neighborhood. From the Highway District standpoint you could take right at the end of
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 12, 1996
Page 29
Penwood today, evidently in the area where Mrs. Kelly lives and you could I believe get
all the way to Linder Road interior through subdivisions. So the, there is Ten Mile Creek
I think that separates subdivisions in that area and there is no bridge. So on the south side
of Ten Mile Creek through new development you will be able to use Waltman Lane and
some others to get from Meridian Road over to Linder in the future. On the north side of
the creek there is no provision except to go out to Franklin Road. So the Highway District
says we would like to have some type of internal linkage between Linder and Meridian
Road. They indicated to us that Pennwood is that road. But as Jim said tonight if the City
and the neighbors feel that is inappropriate we would support that. It is only shown on the
plat because the highway district asked that it be shown. It doesn't help the business park
in any way other than another access point for emergency vehicles, it does that. We have
also shown it as a 50 foot right of way not 60 feet, not to make it a collector type road. Mr.
Rackham's comments again good comments. That canal is a major issue and Jim
Ballantyne is in the process of hiring an engineering firm right now to evaluate that. We
have met with Nampa Meridian Irrigation District some of their concerns were those 90
degree bends that are going to take major structures to take the water hammer effect as
that water turns. So there is going to be major expense in relocating that canal plus
fencing. The irrigation district requires substantial fencing for safety as well as to delineate
their easement. The canal today is open and directly on the south side of Hope Arms
apartments it goes from the bowling alley on the south side of Gem Avenue right across
the street and right on the south side of Hope Arms today. We would just be adding more
canal and that is a safety concern so we would be looking at the fencing requirement
there.
Hepper: Would that be fenced on both sides?
Forrey: Yes the irrigation district has indicated it would be fenced on both sides. Brian
Hoff is absolutely correct about the thorny problem we have to work out. I see the answer
coming in the reconstruction of Franklin Road. When those power lines are up for
relocation we have got a fresh chance to look at how those roads line up and also today
we don't have the benefit of the final ACRD tech review and Commission action. We go
this Friday for tech review with ACHD, so we are going to have to sit down. The Highway
District has said to us we are not to damage Hoff and we don't want to, they are first and
we don't want to put a damage on them or disrupt their business. So we have got to work
that out. 1 see us doing that with ACHD and the Franklin Road improvements. Does that
help?
Shearer: Is that tech review Friday is that a public meeting?
Forrey: Yes it is.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 12, 1996
Page 30
Shearer: So these individuals that live there could go down and testify?
Forrey: I don't think the Highway District notify people. I think they notify the engineers
and the applicants, it is a public meeting and yes it starts at 9 o'clock.
Shearer: Well if they have concerns about that street going through they should be down
there to protect their interest.
Forrey: Yes
Shearer: Those are the people that really make the decision on this.
Hepper: I think that is it, we will close the public hearing. What do you want to do?
MacCoy: Mr. Chairman I recommend that based on the material that was given us this
evening plus the ACHD material which has not been reviewed and still has to be decided
upon that we table this issue until our next meeting which is the April 9th meeting.
Oslund: Second
Hepper: We have a motion by Commissioner MacCoy and second by Commissioner
Oslund to table this meeting until our next regularly scheduled meeting which is April 9th,
all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #12: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF
APPROXIMATELY 14 ACRES TO I-L FOR OLSON-BUSH NO. 2 SUBDIVISION BY R-2
DEVELOPMENT:
Hepper: Is there a representative of the applicant?
Dave Roylance, 4619 Emerald, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Roylance: Mr. Chairman and Commission members my name is Dave Roylance, I am a
civil engineer, land planner representing the applicant. This project is located near the
intersection of Franklin and Eagle Road, just north and west of that intersection. Bounded
on the north by the Union Pack Railroad tracks. The project contains 14.4 aces and has
nine lots. We think it is supported by the Comprehensive plan. We propose central sewer
and central water and ACRD approved public streets. With that can I answer any
questions?
Meridian Planning i><Zoning Commission
March 12, 1996
Page 31
Hepper: Any questions? Have you seen the comments from the City Engineer?
Roylance: Yes I have
Hepper: Do you have any problem with any of those?
Roylance: No I don't.
Hepper: Item number, on the site specific comments item 6, 60 foot wide stub street needs
to be extended toward Franklin Road are you aware of that?
Roylance: We have that shown on there now and
Hepper: That is a revised plat?
Roylance: It is and we just got that to the City this morning, we got the comments I believe
it was Thursday afternoon and made that change and resubmitted today. I think what we
will do however is pursue a variance to that. For now we have shown it this way but I think
we will file a variance and see how that goes.
Hepper: Do these lots come under a conditional use designation?
Roylance I think it was either this project or the following one Porky park, I saw that as a
comment from Shari and I wonder, is that typical for the City. I guess I have to ask the
question if this is rezoned and annexed.
Hepper: In the past it has been especially where there are other uses adjoining those lots.
It is up to the Council I guess to decide but typically that is what we have been doing to
try and preserve the compatibility make sure that whatever goes in is compatible with the
other property there that is not necessarily zoned the same way.
Roylance: Even if you had a building program that was a principle permitted use within the
zone, you still typically require a conditional use permit?
Hepper: Now as I understand it we have been haven't you Wayne?
Crookston: I am not exactly sure where the property is Dave, is this near Crossroads
Subdivision?
Roylance: I am not sure of that, Franklin Road and Eagle Road, here in the lower right
had corner that is the intersection of Franklin and Eagle. North is to the top of the page
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 12, 1996
Page 32
and Union Pacific Railroad, I will point it out. (Inaudible) Just as a clarification we are not
necessarily objecting to a conditional use permit on every lot, I guess I just need a
clarification so there is no misunderstanding later on.
Hepper: Those lots to the south those are Rural transitional, typically (inaudible) different
zoning designation to be conditional use to be (inaudible). I don't know it is whatever you
guys want to do. We will go ahead and get the rest of the comments from the public and
then let these guys discuss it. Any other questions? Anyone else wish to testify on this
project?
Guy Valentine, 2770 East Franklin Road, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Valentine: I have a visual aid, could I put that over here on this board? To give you an
idea (inaudible)
Hepper: If you submit this it becomes property of the City.
Valentine: Yes I would like it to be the property of the City. This over here are pictures of
the proposed Olson Bush No. 2 on the left, it is very picturesque and on this side is Olson
Bush No. 1 and that is what they have already started and now they want to put another
site right next to No. 1. If it is going to look anything like this we property owners up here,
there are several homes up here we are going to have to spend our days looking down at
these storage yards that are not screened, the parking lots that are not paved, parking lots
that are not screened and if you come to my house and look out my deck at some of these
things they have you can see, this here is from Eagle Road all of these things here and
Eagle Road and Franklin Road are entryway corridors into our fine City. There has been
absolutely no screening and no landscaping and this is what is required in the
comprehensive plan in the policies and also in the zoning and development ordinances.
I know that Olson Bush No. 1 development is not the subject that we are talking about
tonight but this is going to happen not only in Olson Bush No. 2 but they are talking about
on the other side of Eagle Road, Porky Park which is about 6 times bigger than these two,
well four times bigger than these two altogether and that runs right along Franklin Road.
So what I am getting at is we have a really problem with developing here and I would like
to just mention some things that I have. I have a letter to the Commission that I would also
like to enter into the record.
Hepper: Now Olson Bush No. 1 is that in the City limits?
(Inaudible)
Valentine: Do you want copies of these now?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 12, 1996
Page 33
Crookston: Are those for Olson Bush or Porky?
Valentine: (Inaudible)
Crookston: If you desire you can submit them for this hearing and then just ask to have
them copied in the record for Porky if that is your desire, that is totally up to you.
Valentine: I would like to have them submitted for both. As concerned residents and
citizens 1 would like to represent my family and a few of my neighbors, we have purchased
our property primarily for the view. We want to protect our vested rights to the same level
of qualities or higher qualities that our environment afforded since we purchased our
property. Please do not allow an eyesore to live and grow in our beautiful community. You
mentioned the Crossroads Subdivision, yes Croosroads Subdivision is right near this and
also St. Luke's hospital in Meridian the new facility that they is within a 1/4 mile of this
Olson Bush No. 2 which sets behind Olson Bush No. 1. It is a very beautiful area, it is a
beautiful intersection, it is a thriving area of community and single family residences. We
would like to keep it nice, we don't want to stop development but if they are going to do
a project let them do it completely and as best that they can according to the ordinances
and comprehensive plan and just plain common sense. It is a very scenic area, yes Olson
Bush No. 1 is not the topic this evening however if you look at the development today you
will understand that we are concerned and opposed to any further development unless
and until this mess is cleaned up. We have submitted pictures of Olson Bush No. 1 and
the proposed site of Olson Bush No. 2 for your review and for the record. As you can see
Olson Bush No. 1 has not preserved the aesthetics of the area and severely damaged it.
The visual pollution is degrading to the neighborhood and degrading to the community as
a whole. We believe that most residents of the single family dwellings along Franklin
Road and within vision of these developments will not tolerate further development that
poisons our view of the sky and mountains and does not enhance our quality of life. This
type of insensitivity could be stopped cold with the help of concerned citizens and the
Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council. Would you want to look at that
garbage everyday for the rest of your life? Most of these folks that live in those homes
along the rim they are older folks and they are soon going to be retiring. So they are going
to spend a good portion of their day looking out their window and I am sure they want to
look at something that is landscaped and screened. Now with Olson Bush No. 1 under
their belts these same folks (inaudible) degrade our beautiful area with Olson Bush No.
2 and Porky Park No. 1 developments. What (inaudible) do these folks offer to the
community (inaudible) and to the single family residents that overlook these developments.
They have submitted protective covenants that are apparently used for the Broadway
Place Subdivision as a guarantee of their intentions. We want to know why they do not
submit covenants that were used for Olson Bush No. 1? Were no covenants prepared and
rf not why were no covenants prepared? On the other hand if protective covenants were
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 12, 1996
Page 34
prepared for Olson Bush No. 1 why does the development look like a junk yard and why
are the conditions of the covenants not being enforced. Do the conditions of those
covenants permit such nonsense? If there were covenants prepared for Olson Bush No.
1 we want these developers to produce them for public review. Under subsection 9-605
I of the City of Meridian zoning and development ordinances protective covenants may be
prepared and recorded as part of the subdivision. However, the provisions within the
protective covenants are enforceable through civil action and local government units shall
not be required to enforce these provisions. I think that consequently the covenants will
not give the community and the residents of the single family dwellings that will be looking
directly over these developments the kind of assurances that we must be given concerning
our vested rights. Specifically we are requesting guarantees from the developers and
owners of all three developments. We request that these guarantees be in the form of a
recorded written commitment to the Commission and or the City Council and that the
developers and owners will develop establishments that are Gean, quiet and free of noise,
visual pollution and hazardous or objectionable elements per the goal statements and
policies of the comprehensive plan, the zoning and development ordinances and per the
reasonable request of the community. And in particular the residents of the single family
dwellings and property owners that are directly affected. I find it odd that there is no
mention of the single family dwellings, the Meridian Academy school, the Snyder lateral
in the surcounding land uses description and I have a copy of that in the back of your letter
there that was in the application file. I would like to know why the seven single family
homes that are along Franklin Road rim are not mentioned (inaudible) annexation of R2
development property his or her actions should be highly scrutinized because they fail to
provide the Commission and the community with significant information. Specific issues
that we request (inaudible) at this hearing and in their written commitment to the
Commission include but are not limited to number one, the goal statements and policies
of the comprehensive plan listed below. Number two, zoning and development ordinances
listed below. Number three, the definitions listed below, and number four the concerns of
any citizen of Meridian in particular the residents of the single family dwellings and
property owners that are directly affected. I won't go through everything in this but 1 will
skip over some things. Number one the goal statements and policies of the
comprehensive plan, I would like them to address the economic development policy 1.3,
the land use goal statement which states all land use development in the Meridian will be
considered an asset to the community and not detract from our quality of life. Policy 1.10U
states that land use development must promote the design of a attractive roadway
entryway areas into Meridian will clearly identify the community. In particularly residential
policy 2.3U which stated that land use development must protect and maintain residential
neighborhood property values, improve each neighborhoods physical condition and
enhance its quality of life for residents. Also, industrial policy 3.4 states that industrial
uses adjacent to residential areas should not create noise, odor, air pollution and visual
pollution greater than levels normally associated with surrounding residential activities.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 12, 1996
Page 35
Eastern Eagle Road, light industrial review area policy 3.14 and 3.16 U states the
character and type of light industrial development should be harmonized with the
residential uses in this area and land uses within the Eastern light industrial review area
must be clean, quiet and free of hazardous or objectionable elements. I have particular
concern with issues raised in the community design section. The appearance of the City
reflects a great deal about the community and the people who live in it. "Appearance also
greatly determines whether or not the community is perceived as a progressive and active
environment and can play a very strong role in the economics of the area. A town that is
attractive will continue to draw shoppers, visitors, businesses and residents." Nearby there
there has been talk of a power mall just within I guess a mile of there on the other side of
the freeway. If there is not a power mall going in there, there are three other corners right
there at Overland and Eagle that are going to be developed eventually into something I
don't know what. On down the road toward Fairview there is talk of another, on the other
side of the Crossroads development there was talk of another shopping mall of some kind.
All around us is beauty and then you come to this industrial area, this right in the middle
of all of this beauty and we are not paying good enough attention to that in my opinion at
this time. This, the community ident~cation policy 1.4 states that major entrances to the
City should be enhanced and emphasized. Unattractive land uses along these entrances
should be screened from view. The entryway corridor section states that entryway
corridors or arterial roadways entering the community that introduce both visitors and
residents to Meridian. City designated gateway arterials include Franklin Road east and
west entrances and Eagle Road north and south entrances. Entryway corridors are a
communities front door. It is acknowledged that the corridors trees or lack thereof,
commercial signage and site character provide the first and often times the lasting
impression of the entire community. Strong messages are delivered to the travelling public
and to local citizens alike. The communities economic vitality, its willingness to ensure the
safety and well being of the citizens, its degree of concern for the natural environment and
the respect citizens have for one another are but a few of the messages. Therefore the
entire community and most specifically its governing bodies have the right and the
responsibility to guide development and redevelopment that occurs along entryway
corridors. These words are not mine I am taking them right out of the policy of the
comprehensive plan and the zoning and development ordinances. I cannot say things this
well, but they do a pretty good job. The entrance corridor goal statement under which
policy 4.4U states that we need to encourage landscape setbacks for new development
on entrance corridors. The quality of environmental goal statement policy 5.1 U states that
we need to preserve the aesthetic natural resources of the Meridian area. Policy 5.2U is
ensure that all new development enhances rather than detracts from the visual quality of
its surroundings especially in the areas of prominent visibility. Number 2, the zoning and
development ordinances.
Hepper: Excuse me, is there any chance you can highlight some of these things.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 12, 1996
Page 36
Valentine: I will make it quick, I will get to the meat and potatoes.
Hepper: This letter gets rather lengthy.
Valentine: It does, it is going to take a lot years of my life staring out over continued
senseless destruction of our community and also there are going be a number of visitors
coming to our community travel up and down Eagle Road and Franklin Road and for a lot
of years to come. They are going to be looking at the decisions we make tonight and so
I want to make sure that everybody understands what, I know you are not familiar with the
area but I am because I am there every day and I look at it and I know. It is a very vital
economic area in my opinion.
Hepper: I guess I have kind of a quick question, there is a comment here from Shari Stiles
that Olson Bush No. 1 needs to be annexed to the City, so apparently it is not part of the
City right now. So apparently that was done by the Ada County Planning and Zoning and
the Ada County Commissioners.
Valentine: The whole thing needs to be annexed or just part of it? The Yanke part?
Hepper: Well the application for Olson Bush No. 2 is within the City limits, Olson Bush No.
1 is in the County. So it kind of seems to me like you are scolding the wrong set of people.
Valentine: Welf no I am not, because in your recommendations to these developers you
state that since Yanke owns several lots that also needs to be annexed into the City also
and he is the major contributor to the eye sore over there.
Hepper: But if there are restrictive covenants that have not been enforced or met maybe
the County should be the ones to see that those have been.
Oslund: I would like to say something, I think the point he is trying to make is the same
people that did one are applying for two and he is questioning their credibility and I hear
that loud and clear. I don't think we are trying to say cut it short we have heard enough I
think when you are telling somebody something you kind of sold us we are going to look
at it so if you could summarize.
Valentine: Okay, I will summarize,
Hepper: 1 think that we will all read the balance of this letter (inaudible).
Valentine: I know you will, I want to just say that our concerns (inaudible) but are not
limited to the following. The preliminary plat for Olson Bush No. 2 subdivision that we
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 12, 1996
Page 37
received via, I will skip over that, certified mail indicates that the Snyder lateral does not
boundary the development. The Snyder Lateral however is the west boundary and lies
adjacent to the south of the development. This adjacent portion of the Snyder Lateral
would also boundary the development on most of the Southern portion had they purchased
more than 14 plus or minus acres from James and Mildred Barnham. WE believe that the
subdivision is arbitrarily or art~cially laid out to avoid being adjacent to the Snyder Lateral
to which it would naturally include. We also believe that the subdivision is arbitrarily or
artificially laid out to avoid being adjacent to the seven single family dwellings between
which a transition yard would be necessary for protection and beautification. Both the
community as a hole and we residents of the single family dwellings in this area of
immediate impact stand to lose a substantial portion of our quality of life as a result of the
developer's avoiding the Snyder Lateral and a necessary transitional yard. (Inaudible)
require a buffer strip or zone along the entire southern and western borders of the
development. This will protect the seven single family homes from possible undesired
characteristics of the industrial development. A buffer strip will also help to protect the
aesthetics of Franklin Road and Eagle Road entryway corridors. We also request the
Commission to require the remaining area south of the this development up to and
including the Snyder lateral to be reserved and designated as a transitional yard. This area
would be a buffer between conflicting land uses and would also protect the aesthetics of
the Franklin Road and Eagle Road entryway corridors. We request that the Commission
require the associates involved with the development of Olson Bush No. 2 to cover and
enclose with (inaudible) Snyder Lateral (inaudible) at their sole cost. Students from the
Meridian Academy and employees and visitors of both Olson Bush developments and
nearest residents of single family dwellings will be increasingly attracted and directed
toward contact with the potential hazard. We request the Commission, I will skip over that,
we request that the Commission require Olson Bush No. 1 developers owners and
associates to clean up and screen their junky development to demonstrate they deserve
to expand before any other development applications are approved. That means pave
parking lots and screen them, screen their storage yards or move them inside or better yet
take them to their own back yards and put them there. We want the principles involved
with this development to provide the Planning and Zoning Commission and or the City
Council with a written commitment regarding the above issues and how they intend to
implement or not implement those issues. We also request that the Commission ask the
developers to have conditional use permits for all of these lots. In conclusion we would
like to say that we are not against developing our area. However we require community
concern developments such as the New St. Luke's Meridian center which is 1/4 mile away
from Olson Bush No. 1 and 2 and Porky Park. We understand that St. Luke's will develop
vital land into soccer fields for the community until the land is needed for other uses. This
type of world class community consciousness is what we require of the developers of
Olson Bush No. 1 and 2 and Porky Park developments. They call it Porky Park, will they
make it look like a park or a pig sty? That is all I have to say.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 12, 1996
Page 38
Hepper: Questions? Thank you.
Brad Miller, 3084 East Lanark, Meridian, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Miller: 1 represent the R2 development, I work for Ronald Van Auker. Mr. Valentine has
presented some inaccurate information. Olson Bush No. 1 was not developed by R2
Development, Olson Bush 1 was developed by Mr. Olson and Mr. Bush. We purchased
14 acres from Mr. Olson and Mr. Bush. Another thing that Mr. Valentine who by the way
called me, I have spoken to him on the phone three or four times and he told me he was
a strong supporter of the project, one of the two to speak in favor of it and maybe he did.
But the other thing he didn't point out here he didn't point out the north side of Lanark
which shows the building that we have developed, which there are only 3 lots on Lanark
that are in the City limits. The corner piece which is on the northwest comer which is
vacant right now and the tan building with two gray stripes around it. I think that if you went
over there and looked at that you will see that is a fine looking building and a fine looking
property. I also suggested to Mr. Valentine that he go and look at some other
developments that we have, I gave him a number of different developments. I told him to
go over to TK Avenue at Federal and Broadway where Big O Tire is, B & D Foods,
Mountain States Microfilm, JoAnn Fabrics, Idaho Candy, Gem Distributing, (inaudible) and
a new building we just did for Hertz equipment rental. I think that you would find those are
fine developments through there and you would be proud to have those in your backyard.
The eyesore that he is talking about across the street has nothing to do with us, Olson and
Bush sold off those lots individually. 1 know of no CC&R's that exist on the property. I
looked through our ownership records when we purchased the property and I see no
CC&R's. So the parcels are all individually owned. So it has nothing to do with us, nothing
to do with the 14 acres at the end of the street. We appreciate the concerns that Mr.
Valentine and the neighbors have and if they will look at some of our other developments
they will see that they are fine looking developments and quality construction, quality
tenants and I don't know of any junk that we have in any of those buildings that
suggested he go take a look at. If there are any questions I would be happy to address
them.
Hepper: Questions? Are you going to have CC&R's in your phase?
Miller: Absolutely, we submitted those and said that they are going to be the same as we
have done on the Broadway West subdivision in Boise. I suggested that Mr. Valentine go
over and take a look at those and apparently he hasn't.
Hepper: Would those require fencing of any construction areas or yards?
Miller: Absolutely, screened fencing.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 12, 1996
Page 39
Hepper: Paved parking areas?
Miller: Absolutely, and that is all included in the zoning ordinance for light industrial zoning
and we intend to fully comply with.
Hepper: What about the yards themselves will they be paved?
Miller: We pave all of our yards yes.
Hepper: The storage areas in the back of the buildings will be paved?
Miller: Every storage area that we have currently is paved yes.
Hepper: And this one would be the same?
Miller: Well one of the things to consider is we don't know who is ultimately going to move
into those buildings which will be constructed there. Our anticipation is that we will
subdivide that property build the buildings and lease the buildings out. We will continue
to own the buildings which we do in most of our developments. At some point we may sell
one or two of the buildings off but we also have a high incentive to keep it a nice looking
area since we actually are the property owners.
Hepper: Would the restrictive covenants require the storage yards to be paved?
Miller: I think that is part of the zoning ordinance as it is. I can't say right now if our current
CC&R's for the Broadway has that in it. I am not opposed to that at all.
Hepper: I think inherently where they are sitting up so high that they really have a birds
eye view looking down on the backs of those buildings, so there is some real potential
there for people to keep the front of their building looking nice and the back is where they
store their stuff and of course that is right where these people are looking. So I think there
needs to be some incentive there to try to get these tenants or property owners to try and
maintain that. Certainly screened fences would be a part of it and paving to keep the
weeds down. Any other questions?
(End of Tape)
Valentine: I would just like to respond to some of the accusations that Brad Miller made
against me personally. I spoke to him on the phone and I did tell him that yes I would like
to support his development and I asked him about the trash that is not being screened out
there and he told me that he tended to look right though it. It is not a matter of building a
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 12, 1996
Page 40
building and put a few of your things in the back and no screening them they haven't built
buildings, instead of building buildings on that lot they have streamed their stuff all over
the place. He says that he has nothing to do with that over there, I think we all have
something to do with that. If not he than who does have something to do with that, it is his
neighbors, it is a direct, well it is a direct, it is a neighborhood, what more can I say. Thank
you.
Oslund: I have a comment to you, it sounds like we have two issues. One is we have a
development that we are looking at and apparently they are not the same owner. We can
handle that at P & Z. We have an issue with some existing properties that are maybe
violating the zoning ordinance I don't know. There is an enforcement officer with the City
that addresses those types of things, trash in yards and junk all over. Except that is the in
the County so you will need to, we are kind of in a tough spot and 1 don't know what the
County has in terms of enforcement.
Valentine: Did they buy that whole are all of those buildings from Olson Bush No. 1?
(Inaudible)
Valentine: Had you bought previously and sold it off to them?
(Inaudible)
Valentine: Okay, but there is absolutely no screening of anything.
Shearer: That is in the County, we don't have anything to do with the County.
Valentine: It is right next door.
Shearer: t sympathize with you it is a mess.
MacCoy: Mr. Valentine before you run away there, I think it is only fair that you did a fair
job here I think a good job of presenting your case. You understand it very well and I think
we all agree with what you had to say about wanting to live in a nice community and have
a good entrance way. You have heard us from the standpoint that there is County and City
involved in this thing. 1 think the (inaudible) highlighted that behooves us to at least look
into that to see what the County would do and I think you are deserving of an answer for
that. So thank you for your time.
Valentine: I can expect one then probably then.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 12, 1996
Page 41
MacCoy: I think we will (inaudible)
Valentine: Call me anytime, thank you.
Bill Tonkin, 2660 East Franklin Road, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Tonkin: I just wanted to affinn the comments made by Mr. Valentine and point out that five
of the 7 property owners that overlook the property are here tonight. I am certainly not
going to repeat everything he said, but I rea-ly think you understand the problem and that
we are merely reacting to something that has occurred and we certainly don't want it to
occur again and I am sure you don't either. We appreciate your time.
Hepper: Thank you, is there anybody else that wishes to testify?
Carl Schnebty, 2690 East Franklin Road, was sworn by the City Attomey.
Schnebly: I would like to take and reiterate the same expressions of Mr. Valentine and I
realize that we are on the verge of a lot of expansions and so on but 1 certainly don't agree
with this proposal as stated. t furthermore feel if it is approved we are going to have a lot
of rubbish. I know that here some time ago that the Meridian garbage collectors wanted
to make a distribution area at the end of Pine Street which I believe you all remember that.
I am afraid something like this is going to happen, it don't make any difference what we do
and I am certainly not in agreement in any way of having that kind of a unit put down there
and therefore I appreciate the fact that you people have and your determination will be in
our hands I know. Therefore I would like to say that I am not in agreement with this.
Hepper: Thank you, is there anybody else that wishes to testify? Okay, Mr. Roylance?
Roylance: Thank you 1 will be brief here. I think we support exactly what the neighbors
said, we also can't endorse that although this developer didn't create that and it is in the
County. That is not at all what we are trying to represent here. In fact, maybe one of the
best ways to control that exact thing is annex it, bring it into the City and put your own
rules on it and you can do that. You can do that in a development agreement and that is
a requirement of this project is a development agreement and that is the perfect instrument
to include all of those kinds of protection and controls. It can also do it at the design
review stage and when the building permits are issued all of that can be a condition that
you screen this, do this. In fact Shari Stiles, no. 3 in her letter calls for 35 foot of setback
on eagle Road and Franklin. So a lot of these things that these people spoke either are
addressed or can be addressed in tools that you already have. If it is in the County you
can't control it. Thank you.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 12, 1996
Page 42
Hepper: Thank you
Dale Fletcher, 2730 East Franklin, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Fletcher: I agree with Mr. Valentine there but I am a little confused here. I thought we were
in the County, we did we become in the City?
Crookston: This is a request to be annexed.
Fletcher: That is what I thought, somebody stated that we were already, you have the
County and the City going together here. As far as 1 know right now we are in the County.
Shearer: Yes (inaudible)
Fletcher: Okay, thank you very much.
Hepper: Anybody else wish to testify?
Oren Mayes, 5768 Marcliffe, Boise, was sworn by the City Attomey.
Mayes: I moved out on Franklin in 1963 and lived out there for 30 some years. Most of
that property along that rim of Franklin road was developed for subdivided off about the
time I moved out there. Then the people when they bought it same I knew when I bought
my farm that from the railroad to Franklin Road was almost even those days was declared
industrial property. There was no question it was going to be industrial property. So when
they built their home they knew they were going to build above an industrial park someday
it was going to happen. That is all I have to say, that these people are complaining when
they knew there was going to be an industrial park below them, it is kind of ironic at the
most.
Hepper: Thank you, is there anybody else that wishes to testify? Seeing none I will close
the public hearing.
Shearer: Mr. Chairman, I move we have the attorney prepare findings of fact and
conclusions of law for this project.
MacCoy: Second
Hepper: Mr. Shearer has moved that we prepare findings of fact and seconded by
Commissioner MacCoy, all those in favor? Opposed?
• i
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 12, 1996
Page 43
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Hepper: This will be sent on to our City Attomey and then will be back for our next meeting
to see what kind of restrictions the City attorney, what kind of legal issues might be
involved with it.
ITEM #13: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR OLSON-
BUSH N0. 2 SUBDIVISION BY R-2 DEVELOPMENT:
Hepper: Okay, we will open the hearing, do we have a representative, Mr. Roylance?
Dave Roylance, 4619 Emerald, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Roylance: Can I just say that all of the things I said at the other one be incorporated into
this public hearing I don't' know that I need to add anything. With that are there any
questions?
Oslund: I have a question, probably the most basic, where did you get the name Porky
Park?
Hepper: We aren't there yet.
(Inaudible)
Hepper: Thank you, is there anyone from the public that wishes to testify on this?
Guy Valentine, 2770 East Franklin Road, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Valentine: I would just like to have everything that I said before be entered into the record,
are there any questions?
Hepper: Thank you, does anybody else wish to testify or comment? Seeing none we will
close the public hearing.
Shearer: Mr. Chairman, I move that we table this until the next meeting when our findings
of fact and conclusions on this project come back.
MacCoy: Second
Hepper: That is to a date certain of?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 12, 1996
Page 44
Shearer: April 9th.
Hepper: Okay, we have a motion by Commissioner Shearer, and seconded by
Commissioner MacCoy to table this request until April 9th, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
FIVE MINUTE RECESS
ITEM #14: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR PORKY
PARK SUBDIVISION NO. 1 BY RON VAN AUKER:
Hepper: Is there a representative of the applicant?
Dave Roylance, 4619 Emerald, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Roylance: Mr. Chairman and Commission members as mentioned my name is Dave
Roylance I am a civil engineer and land planner representing the applicant. This
subdivision Porky Park is located at the NE intersection of Eagle and Franklin Road. It
contains 19 building lots and has 63.88 acres approximately. We propose central sewer,
central water, Ada County Highway District public streets built to their standards. The
project is in the City limits and as I understand it is already zoned Light Industrial and
General Commercial I think in portions of it. So we believe this is an appropriate use for
that zone. Apparently we are already in the City limits. Can I answer any questions other
than the name?
MacCoy: Do you have any answer for your name?
Roylance: Yes sort of, I don't know rf it is an answer but Ron Van Auker has kind of an odd
sense of humor which I can associate with. I just asked him what do you want to call this
we need a name and he looked right at me and said Porky Park and then laughed, 1 said
really and he said yes. I am hoping it is not referring to me but I don't know.
Oslund: Does he intend to market it with that name or just to file a plat with that name?
Roylance Well he did Donkey Park and he marketed it that way. I guess if that is
objectionable to the City, that is the answer I got that is exactly what happened. So, I said
we are going to be fielding a lot of questions and a lot of people on why is it called this.
I don't know if it is going to be a serious concern or more of a tongue in cheek but it is
going to come up a bunch, can't we just give it a name of something else and move on.
He said keep it at that.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 12, 1996
Page 45
Oslund: I would appreciate a sense of humor if it wasn't on the gateway to the City. Well
personally I can't speak for the City on the whole but me personally I would like to see a
better name. 1 think it kind of flies in the face of what the intention is here and that is to
produce quality development and try to improve the quality of the City. With a name like
that on the gateway more than a 1/2 mile from a quality development like the hospital there
think it would be great to see the name changed.
Roylance: I will take that back to him, it was meant to be disrespectful to the City or
anybody it was kind of a joke I think.
Shearer: (Inaudible)
Roylance: I will talk with him I don't think he is all that hung up on necessarily calling that.
If it is objectionable we can understand that and change it.
MacCoy: I wish you would take Greg's comments seriously though because his comments
are very true. Most of us probably all of us feel that way.
Roylance I will do that, I will take that right bads to Mr. Van Auker, 1 am pretty sure that we
can get that changed. I, for awhile 1 went along with it and then I left them on the desk for
quite some time with that name on it called and gave him three or four chances to change
it. I think he was just busy and didn't take the time to do it. We will take it serious and I will
take it up with Mr Van Auker. I am sure that we can get it changed.
Oslund: Tell him we laughed at first and (inaudible).
Crookston: Just a comment it could be worse.
Shearer: Do we have four commercial lots on the corner is that (inaudible).
Roylance: I am not exactly sure where the zone changes but as I understand it somewhere
along Franklin. I think part of that if not all of that is commercial and I believe as it joins
the railroad fracks I believe that is industrial and exactly where the dividing line is I am not
sure.
Hepper: Have you seen the comments from Shari Stiles and the City Engineer?
Roylance: Yes I have, I was just reviewing them again. I don't think we have any problems
with any of those requirements.
MacCoy: I raised the question about the exit out of your Lot No. 2.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 12, 1996
Page 46
Roylance: We propose providing access to that lot through an easement on one of the
adjoining lots. We don't' yet know which one. tt has been our experience on these
industrial parks that a lot of times one person will come in and buy two lots and the whole
problem goes away. I wilt go to the map, (inaudible) as the property develops and as the
users of the building and the foot prints and all of those things are known that is how we
tend to take care of that is through an easement for the adjoining lots and there are three
to choose from.
MacCoy: (Inaudible) otherwise there is no access.
Roylance: I think maybe the place to say that would be on the final plat, it might not be
resolved assuming we go to final plat and we get approved, it might not be resolved by the
time we present the final plat but we can put a note on the plat that access to Lot 2 would
be provided by a 30 foot access easement impacting either lot, 3, 4 or 5 or whatever and
then I think that would cover it.
MacCoy: I would accept that, something has to be on there because you already had a
note on No. 4 (inaudible)
Roylance: We can take care of that like I said if that is acceptable.
Oslund: Has this gone through the ACRD tech review?
Roylance: No it is just about to, both of these projects are about to get on their agenda. We
think it will (inaudible) preliminary discussions with them prior to preparing this but it has
not been to their tech review yet.
Oslund: In those preliminary discussions did they talk at all about the number of accesses
on Franklin Road? I am concerned that you have (inaudible) fairly close to the Eagle Road
intersection.
Roylance: I didn't go myself so I don't know if that was discussed or not. If they deem that
to be inappropriate we will just have to change pretty much flat and simple. I think the firs#
one is just east of Eagle Road is probably okay. They might come to the conclusion that
the other two are not needed in which case we could call this (Inaudible).
Oslund: Once you get the final plat for this, what is the intent in terms of developing, you
are going to sell the raw parcels off or are you going to develop similar to. This is a
different owner than R-2?
Roylance: This is Ron Van Auker and maybe Brad can correct me if I am wrong, but
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 12, 1996
Page 47
typically what Mr. Van Auker does, I have done a lot of work with him over the years, he
finds a tenants that wants a building and then he builds a building and then leases it to
them but he maintains ownership usually and controls it.
Osiund: You said that you have no problem with any of Shari's comments including item
6 which would require a conditional use permit?
Roylance: Maybe I am looking at the wrong one here. 1 guess the same comment as
before, I don't know necessarily that I am opposed to it. Maybe it is good that you brought
that up, again I am questioning, if we propose a building that is a principle permitted use
within the zone typically conditional use permit isn't' required. At least that has been my
experience. So I would wonder why we would here unless it was a use that was only
allowed under a conditional use permit. It would see awkward to come in, it seems to me
that is why you have zoning, you say okay here is the zoning, under that zoning as a
principle permitted use you are allowed to do these 15 things. If we do those 15 things
typically you don't do a conditional use permit. Is that right?
Oslund: From my point of view, my concern is that and that is why 1 asked what is going
to happen with these parcels because we lose a little control, we have no way of having
somebody come back and to give you an example. If you were to cut this up and create
10 commercial lots and then sell those lots and then all that would be required is a building
permit application after that point there is no way to control in a material way.
Roylance: Don't you have a design review process?
Oslund: It is not going to come back to P & Z though.
Shearer: P & Z doesn't get it back staff does. If it comes to P & Z (inaudible).
Oslund: The public has no way of testifying about the specific issues that might come up.
This one, Porky Park we haven't heard the public speak there may be people here with
concerns in a similar way across the road there. That is my concern, I don't know that we
can use a conditional use permit in this case. But that is the situation at least I find myself
in. Once we sign this off we don't even know who these users are going to be and you say
the owner typically retains the land in his ownership (inaudible).
Roylance: Typically, he doesn't always do that, but that is typically his style of doing
things. It does seem awkward quite frankly to ask for a conditional permit on each and
every lot if it is an allowed use in the zone. I want to be cooperative by nature but to me
I would have to oppose that. That sounds (inaudible) on the other hand I think you can
deal with those issues in a development agreement, I think that is part of this. I haven't
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 12, 1996
Page 48
done it myself because I am not an architect I am an engineer I don't get involved that
much in the building part of it as far as getting the permits, is there not a design review
process when somebody comes in with a building and they want to get a building permit
doesn't the building department look at the landscaping requirements, the screening and
all of that and you can instruct staff as to what to do as those buildings come through. It
would seem to me that you do have the controls already.
Crookston: We do have some controls in the building process, if it is an allowed use we
don't' have conditional use requirements unless the owner or developer agrees to that.
And of course if they wanted to do a planned development than that does require a
conditional use permit.
Roylance: We are not presenting that and the reason is we don't know the building
program yet so we can't go with a planned development. We would rather work with you
on the issues. After we hear from the public here if screening is required in certain areas
I think we would rather deal with those issues head on and incorporate reasonable things
into the development agreement, that would be our desire.
Hepper: Any other questions? Thank you, Anyone else wish to comment?
Guy Valentine, 2770 East Franklin Road, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Valentine: Everything that I said before about Olson Bush development No. 2 f would like
to have my letter entered into the record and my pictures entered into the record. 1 would
like to say that there are a number of people that live across Franklin Road and from this
development. If you do not require this developer to have conditional use permits than
these people are not going to have a chance to speak where their lives are concerned in
the future. If what they propose to do at the time they want to develop these things is okay
and kosher than there should be no problem for the hearing for the conditional use permit
it should be a nice smooth process. So what I am asking for is to give these folks the
guarantees that they deserve and require them on this project to obtain conditional use
permits for whatever they intend to do. That is all I have to say, are there any questions?
Thank you.
Hepper: Thank you, anyone else wish to comment?
Pat Nations, 4010 East Franklin Road, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Nations: I kind of agree, I do agree with most of Mr. Valentine's concerns. I have a major
concern since my property lines the entire length or width of their subdivision. I have a
residential home there and I have a horse business there. My concerns are that the noise
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 12, 1996
Page 49
and everything is going to be really tremendous for my animals. I have a breeding farm
and I would like to, well let's see here, I am also representing Mr. Kenny Ellis who lives
down the street and the Carson's that own the property next to me. But my concern is that
I would like to propose and ask to have, I am not against the subdivision at all but I want
to cushion it against my property and my business. What I would like to do is first of all I
would like to request an 8 foot wall from the tracks all the way to the front of my property
along the side. That I would like to have between 6 to 8 feet from my property landscaped
and with a sprinkler system to take down and cut the weeds and to make it pretty and keep
fire from coming there. The reason I am concerned with that is because when Mr. Mayes
owned the property next to me he kept it plowed, there were never any weeds, there were
weeds but he kept the fire hazard down. Right now the weeds go past the fence, if any of
that catches on fire my animals have had it. It is a big concern for me, I may be in County
still and they are in City but it is still a concern to me and my animals and my house which
is very close to that fenceline too. This fence I would request it to be, it an can bermed
partway and then fenced but I would like not to be wood, I would prefer it not to be wood
rather. Because I want it to be a safety for my animals, it will have to be maintained and
everything if it is wood. So there would have to be a different alternative to that. Let's see,
we need turn out lanes into the subdivision so the traffic does not back up into my property
or back up to my property in front of the road there where I go into my property. I would like
it to go both directions, a turn out lane. I would like it put in the record that I would like
setbacks from the back lot lines that will be sufficient enough to ensure my privacy. I also
would like to ask that I want the noise restriction so as not to disturb my brood mares and
my mares with babies particularly in the evening to the mornings. I would like to sort of put
a noise restriction on where the night shift work is of loud nature that is not of loud nature.
I also would like to know what the intent is of the drainage ditch in the back that goes
along, I don't know what the name of it is but it goes along the back side on our side of the
property it is where the railroad tracks are at. A lot of the people, there are not that many
of us, but a lot of us their animals drink from that. Our concern is if you stop your
subdivision right there which is what it is, what would they put in this ditch that might harm
our animals down the road, we don't know. We would want to make sure that it is taken
care of so that our animals don't die from the pollution that could go into it. I am not
against this subdivision I just want it to be pretty and a nice entryway. It does say a lot for
our homes in there and there are a few of us that still have farm homes there. My
business is very important to me, I do work for Micron so I have a second source but my
horses are very important. I do want to conserve and try to keep anything from realty
interfering with them. That is all I have to say, do you have any questions?
Hepper: Thank you, anyone else?
Lyle Bear, 3975 East Franklin Road, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 12, 1996
Page 50
Bear: I have property just across the south side of the of Mr. Van Auker's. I just want to
go on record stating I have no problem with the development going in there. I have lived
there about 6 years and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that corridor was going
to be developed. My only concem is if Mr. Van Auker was going to develop all of that and
maintain ownership I would have no problem because I have seen some of his
developments and he does a fine job. My concern is if he sells some of these parcels off
what control do you have on what is being put in there. That is all I have.
Hepper: Anybody else? 1 will close the public hearing.
Shearer: Mr. Chairman, I move we have the attorney prepare findings of fact and
conclusions of law on this project.
Crookston: Oh, I would probably like to but this is a plat.
(Inaudible)
Shearer: I withdraw my motion.
Oslund: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion that we table this particular item until the 9th of
April pending the comments from ACHD.
MacCoy: Second
Hepper: Okay we have a motion from Commissioner Oslund and second by Commissioner
MacCoy to table this until April 9th, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Shearer: Before we continue on 1 wonder if we could have Mr. Roylance or one of the
owners on these last two projects bring forth their covenants for these that they are going
to draw up for these plats for our next meeting so we can review them.
(Inaudible)
Shearer: Okay they have already been submitted, we will get a copy of them then. Thank
you.
ITEM 15: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A
GROUP DAY CARE BY CRYSTAL MARTINEZ:
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 12, 1996
Page 51
Crystal Martinez, 1432 W. Carlton, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Martinez: Okay, I wanted to address some of the conditions that Shari, I was just handed
this tonight so I wrote a couple of things down. I have never done this before so if I am off
track interrupt me. On here she puts one of the conditions of this is maximum of twelve
children less if determined by the Fire Department and this includes my own children. I
want to know, I have a fourteen year old daughter I want to know if that includes children
up to a certain age or under a certain age limit or if there is some kind of?
Crookston: I believe it only pertains to children who are 12 or younger, I would need to
look at that but I think that is true.
Martinez: That is fine, I will also, I want the City of Meridian to realize that I will be applying
for a State license and through the State and talking to Jim Rabbit and Shari they have
directed me and Diana Rich out at Department of Health and Welfare have all told me that
when I apply for my State license because I am applying for a group day care here in
Meridian that they are one in the same and no difference. So a State license will require
me to also have a center license which would require me to be allowed through the State
to have 13 plus children if I wish to. Now I want to know what kind of conflicts this has with
the group day care as far as, I have heard from Jim and Shari it is not conflict. So I want
to make sure that is on record and that there is something done about that if that is true
the case I would like to know about that.
Crookston: There is a conflict, to my knowledge anyway. It is my understanding if you have
a State license they count the children at, there are 12 or under there at let's say 8:00 in
the morning and come back and check again at 5:00 so long as there are only 12 children
the State doesn't care. The City of Meridian says those 12 children cannot be different
children so that means you couldn't have 12 at 8:00 and they change and some kids go
home and then you accept other kids that might be as far as Meridian ordinance is
concerned that might mean 18 children.
Martinez: I understand that part of it, but that is why I am saying I have had this
conversation back and forth and I don't even know this is the appropriate style to discuss
it in but with Jim Rabbit and Shari both and this Diana Rich, that didn't' seem right to me
either so that is why I am bringing that up because I want to make sure I am doing
everything legal and everything in the proper manner as far as the City of Meridian is
concerned. I want to make sure that if a center conditional use permit is what I need to be
applying for than that is what I need to be applying for because that is what I intend to do.
Not at this time, I am not doing that right now but if indeed I want to come back and do that
after I get my 12 children in my day care facility then do 1 need to reapply because I asked
Mr. Rabbit this and he said that I would have to come up with another X amount of dollars
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 12, 1996
Page 52
to redo this again when in all reality my main intention was to do this, but he said there
was no difference. So it makes it really difficult on me to have to redo this all again.
Crookston: I understand and I very much appreciate your questions because I think it is
very appropriate to have answers. We went through this 7, 8 or 9 years ago and what the
City had done which is the way our ordinance reads that they count the total number of
children in there during the day. It doesn't matter whether, if you have 12 kids at 8:00 and
there are 12 different kids at 5:00 per Meridian's ordinance you have 24 kids.
Martinez: I understand that and you have made that pertectly clear. I just want to make
sure that my questions are answered after this. I feel like I am kind of being mislead in a
way so I want to make sure I am getting those questions answered. The second thing that
Shari puts on here is to secure and maintain an Idaho State License a day care facility
license. Now, if that day care license is pending does that allow me in the City of Meridian
to operate with 5 or few children until licensed or do I then operate from 7 to 12 until
licensed, what is my conditional use permit play in that?
Crookston: You would have to have in order to have any number of children that is less
than six you would have to have I can't remember the name of it, an accessory use permit
but it is for five or less kids.
Martinez: The State doesn't require you to have a license I know that for five or fewer and
as far as I was told again was five or fewer children you are not required other than to pay
the $80 for the conditional use permit for the five of fewer children.
(Inaudible)
Martinez: Is that the accessory use permit, so anyway, so I want to know what I can do
from here so I can start operating and I can start doing this as this is going (End of Tape)
certificate of occupancy prior to obtaining and meeting all requirement of the Meridian Fire
Department. I don't know what that means, certificate of occupancy what, I am sorry?
Crookston: That is a permit that is, let me back up for a minute. Are you going to operate
out of your home and you already live in your home, you would just have to get a
certificate of occupancy to be able to use the home as a day care. The building
department here can do that.
Martinez: Okay, it says provide screen to adjacent residential properties to lessen impact
of noise, now does that screening include just my normal fence? I am wondering are we
talking walls here, what do I have to put up?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 12, 1996
Page 53
Crookston: Well Crystal 1 don't know, 1 think that the building department you should ask
that.
MacCoy: Before you leave that question, I was out at your place and took a look, one of
the question I had here, do you plan to rebuild that fence or strengthen it.
Martinez: I just moved in six months ago, I purchased the house six months ago and I think
you will find if you ever drove by the house prior to that you will find that several changes
have already been made to the property. Yes I do plan on making it look a lot nicer.
MacCoy: I talked to Shari maybe that is where her question came from, I said the fence is
in the state of needing some repair work.
Martinez: Right, and I have property bordering all sides of my, except for the front of
course. So I already talked to my neighbors about because they are required to pay for
hall and I am required to pay for half and it would be a three sided bill basically one fence
down this way, one in the back and one fence this way. The only other thing I have here
for you guys is off street parking, I lied I have a couple things, off street parking does that
mean just strictly my driveway RV parking type area or is that I want to make sure where
I am telling parents to drive up what exactly does that pertain to as far as off street as for
at the (inaudible).
Hepper: That would be the driveway in front of the garage? Have you got a two car
garage?
Martinez: I have a one car garage and RV parking on the side.
Hepper: For one?
Martinez: Well there are four vehicles that can fit, actually two in my driveway, and two in
the RV parking, it is long enough for two complete vehicles to fit. So I have four actually
parking spaces, I park my car in the garage.
Hepper: How many can park side by side?
Martinez: Two. I have a pool in my backyard and that is addressed in number 6 in Shari's
thing. She suggest that I put an automatic lock (inaudible) I want to let you know this, I
don't know if all of you have children or grandchildren or whatever but I will tell you right
now I have a two year old girl and she sees me do something once or twice and she has
figured it out. To me myself personally I would not feel with an automatic locking gate
knowing that I just have to press a button or unlock it in some way, shape or form where
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 12, 1996
Page 54
my two year old could do it just as easily. I think the best opportunity for children not to
get into my fenced pool area is a master lock with a key, the key put up high enough where
the children cannot reach it, where I hang all of my keys. I think that would be the best
option right there. Children are very bright, very smart, very intelligent so I think they will
figure that one out real quick.
Shearer: How high is your fence?
Martinez: It is four feet high all the way around the pool. There is one area where it is six
feet high because I have a deck all the way around my pool and that area that is six foot
high is from the ground up but it is at four feet high level.
Shearer: Those automatic locks are not good unless you have about a five fence fence
and put it up high where kids can't reach it.
Martinez: When you are talking about taking care of kids that are like before and after
school age too they are tall nowadays they are not short so they can reach those things.
The other thing, number 7 I am willing to comply with that as far as keeping up with my
water payments and all of that. I don't have any other questions, I went through everything
else (inaudible) I am song I made that kind of lengthy I was just told that. I guess in front
of the wood stove, the Fire Department made a comment that I need to have a screen in
front of it, I do have a screen but it is a removable screen it can fall over or whatever. It is
a wood stove, I have never used nor do I plan on using it. Again I have a two year old and
there is that hazard of her touching it and burning herself. Other than that, that is the end
of my comments as far as this goes. If you have any questions I would be free to answers
those if you would like.
MacCoy: I have a couple more, what are your hours of operation?
Martinez: My hours of operation I am going to try to operate for those parents that are
having awkward hours, basically from 5:00 A.M. in the moming until 6 P.M. in the evening.
I have talked to all of my neighbors about these hours, most of them work pretty much
those hours early in the moming, a lot of people are working 12 hours shifts now at Micron
unable to find day cares that will open up early enough and there is a substantial need for
that kind of hours.
MacCoy: Do you plan to have any handicapped children under your command there?
Martinez: I don't plan to have any handicapped children, I think it is going to be
endangerment my house is not equipped for it first of all.
•
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 12, 1996
Page 55
MacCoy: I noticed when I was there you had a, a dog was there, is that your dog?
.Martinez: I have a dog, I have a Berman shepherd, she has been obedience trained, she
gets along well with children. There is a kennel strictly for Louie to stay in. She is not in
harm of any of the children and they are not in harm of her. Matter of fact she stays in my
fenced pool area until summer hits and then she goes in the kennel and I do have a
separate fenced kennel area and I have marked that off in my drawing that I believe you
all have received of my property.
MacCoy: I just noticed the area that you indicated as kennel (inaudible)
Martinez: On the side of the family room. There is a fence that goes in front of that with a
padlock on it also.
MacCoy: The day I was there he was in the regular play yard and then the kennel looked
like it had a lot of debris.
Martinez: Yes she left me behind quite a bit of junk wooded stuff. So I have tried to haul
it all off little by little but because I don't own a truck and I am single I have to depend on
my brother to pick it up for at his convenience.
MacCoy: That is all I had right now.
Crookston: I am sorry Mrs. Martinez, I do not have the application right in front of me what
is the address of your property?
Martinez: 1432 West Carlton.
Hepper: What is the age range of the kids you will be watching?
Martinez: I am going to go from zero to 11 years old and I will only have one infant per
adult. I plan on hiring somebody else to help me also as another adult. So I am going to
go from zero to 11, 1 will have before and after schools kids because I am walking distance
from Meridian elementary.
Hepper: Do you feel that a four foot fence around the pool is adequate height to keep kids
of that age out.
Martinez: 1 feel that a fence with an adult out there is adequate to keep any child out. li
they are being supervised and the children will not be allowed outside without supervision.
I think that is only proper.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 12, 1996
Page 56
Hepper: So whenever there is only one child out in the play area there will be an adult out
there?
Martinez: I plan on having activities so number one there will never be a case where there
will be one child outside strictly because I am one adult and I can't be everywhere at one
time. So the activities will be structured in a sense that everybody will eat lunch at the
same time, everybody will be watching a movie at the same time you know type thing
except for my infant of course and that type of thing.
Hepper: Any other questions?
Crookston: Are you going to have an assistant or an employee?
Martinez: Yes, I plan on hiring an assistant, as a matter of fact Tammy White is here with
me tonight, she has run a day care for eight years out of her own home years ago. She
is quite experienced and I have known her since we were 7 years old so this would be the
person that 1 plan on trusting in my home with the kids.
Crookston: And you would always have this system whether it is Tammy or someone else?
Martinez: I plan on doing that yes. I know that one of the provisions is that you have to
have, I think Jim told me that separate parking for that person.
Hepper: Okay, thank you very much.
Crookston: Let me just, sorry, I think your questions are great, I wish more people that
were going to do this would ask those questions, thank you.
Hepper: Okay, this is a public hearing, does anyone else wish to comment?
Shirley Marino, 1037 Washington Place, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Marino: I live right behind where the day care so my whole back side of my fence is her
back yard. 1 have never spoken to her so I don't know that the only thing that she had
going on. Day cares are noisy no matter if you have four kids or twelve. I didn't want my
back yard to become a day care and that is exactly what it would be because of all the
children there and my back yard. It is all single family homes in there, I didn't' think it was
set up for businesses I consider this a business. I think that will down my property value,
I have lived in my home for 23 years I don't plan to move out of it, I like Meridian. But if I
ever chose to I would like the option given the value that my home should be and 1 think
a day care in my back yard practically I think would lower that. Carlton Street is a street
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 12, 1996
Page 57
that is nobody really has to travel it if they live on it. If you put a day care there then you
have a lot more traffic on there that you normally wouldn't have to have for a residential
area. I have noticed in the last few days because after getting the letter and realizing what
was really going on over there that there is not supervision in the backyard when there are
children out there. Now that is only the few times I have seen them I an not constantly
looking over there but the times before I go to work and such. My concern also was the
four foot fence because the children were playing with a ball one day and it hit over into
the pool area and the dog happened to pick it up. So they were sticking hands in and
petting the dog and it didn't seem to bother them at all, but I thought that was a concem.
I told you those are my few concerns I hope you will think about them for (inaudible).
Thank you.
(Inaudible)
Hepper: Let's wait and see if anyone else has any comments. Anyone else?
Martinez: I just wanted to address some of her concems and she hlas some very valid
concerns. Number one her fence line does not, I am correct in assuming that you live right
along my back fence line and there is a fence that comes here so your whole backyard is
half of my back yard. It is a 6 foot high fence so I can barely see the top of her house, I am
not quite sure how she has seen into my bads yard because the fence is like this there are
no holes, As far as the comments, like I said I don't want to hinder any of me neighbors.
I am a very friendly person I have never met this person however but I would be happy to
address any of her concerns on a regular basis if she were to ask me about those
concems that she has. First of all I don't plan on moving out of there either I plan on living
there quite a while and I would just like to say that if she works those normal business
hours that most people work than. she will not be home during that time. I am not sure if
she is a single parent and stays home with her kids or whatever the concern is. I would be
happy to work with those in any way, shape or form. 1 don't plan on making a loud noisy
thing back there, (inaudible) so I think they need a place to go that is safe and protective.
Thanks.
Hepper: Okay, anybody else? Seeing no one I will close the public hearing. We need
findings on this.
Shearer: Mr. Chairman, I move we have the Attorney prepare findings of fact and
conclusions of law on this.
MacCoy: Second
Hepper: Okay, Commissioner Shearer has motioned and Commissioner MacCoy has
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 12, 1996
Page 58
second that we have the City Attorney prepare findings, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #16: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A
LEARNING CENTER FOR 50 STUDENTS BY MILLSTREAM PROPERTIES:
Charles Haacke, Salt Lake City, Utah, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Haacke: I am here to propose a project and I have some permitted tenants already
involved that being H & R Block an administrative office. The reason why I bring this up
even those this is a conditional use for the teaming center is it affects the size of the
building. I have another layout of the building. I don't know if you guys received copies
of the site plan from Shari Stiles but there are two phases shown, one and two. Here I
have both phases together, the top portion of 6900 feet is basically your phase 1 showing
that he had a first. The reason why I am addressing this is the learning center, one of the
things brought up by Shari Stiles was if we did phase 2 how many more students we are
going to be bringing on and it would be (inaudible) we would basically move the learning
center and the administration to the second phase. Move H & R Block to the front and
have the other offices for lease, insurance offices or other permitted uses. Backerboard
doesn't travel well on the planes, 1 apologize for that. The school basically stresses
achievement as far past as the students can achieve on their own. One of the things that
Shari brought up was wanted to know age groups, number of students. We actually have
offices right now in Nampa where there are 35 total students. Five of them being in a
beginning class and age ranges of 5 to 8 years old. Junior classes in the ages of 9 to 12
there are 10 students and 20 student seniors ages of 13 to 17 years old. She also
expressed a (inaudible) for the existing tenants we are proposing 20 employees, that being
almost a quarter H & R Block is actually a seasonal office. During the tax season, January
1st to April 15th we have seven to ten employees there and that reduces down to zero
after April through December. The administrative offices we have (inaudible) working the
non tax season and up to four during the tax season at that location. So at the maximum
load 35 of that being 20 students and just to express that 20 students are dropped off and
picked up very few are of age to even be driving. Any questions?
MacCoy: I went out and looked at the site (inaudible) I think the area is a good area for
you to be into it is a location that I think is well suited to what you want to do (inaudible).
Looking at your layout I thought it had good possibilities. I raise the question, do you plan
to have any handicapped children in this building?
Haacke: We currently don't have any handicapped children in Nampa and don't plan on
advertising for them. I understand buildings the new buildings that everything needs to
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 12, 1996
Page 59
be handicapped accessible as far as my knowledge. We don't plan on it.
MacCoy: If you had to you could retrofit later which would be costly.
(Inaudible)
Haacke: (Inaudible)
MacCoy: By the way have you looked at her sheet that she has?
Haacke: I have, I didn't know if you wanted me to, being as late as it was, express each
issue but I plan on meeting each and every one of the drainage and fencing requirements,
fire related issues, bringing it all up to UBC standards.
MacCoy: I had requested information on external security lighting because I felt that type
of facility you had and the location that you need that for sure for your own safety as well
as (inaudible). You just told us how many (inaudible) on your phase one.
Haacke: Yes, what was the question for phase one?
MacCoy: Any youth during phase one (inaudible).
Haacke: Basically I will only do phase one if conditional use on the learning center is
denied. Then the learning center will be omitted and H & R Block the administrative will
be there and the rest will be tenants. So I will have the foot print of phase 1 irregardless
of the conditional use.
MacCoy: What kind of building material do you plan to use?
Haacke: I am planning on having it stick framed, type 5, one hour with 5/8 inch gypsum
board, stucco and the upper areas is (inaudible) with steel rib roofing, glass front and
various glass around the perimeters.
MacCoy: I would assume that (inaudible) your refuge area was not fenced before.
Haacke: We presented that on the site plan being on the east of the project and have kind
of, the reason why you didn't get this is we kind of, the more we thought about it it made
sense to do the full phase if we have conditional approval and move that around towards
the rear and close that in, cinder block enclosed fence type enclosure, 6 feet tall to visually
secure.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 12, 1996
Page 60
Hepper: Would the street to the end of your property be paved?
Haacke: Are we talking about 4th Street West? Currently that is unpaved, I am not sure.
I do most of by building in Salt Lake and along Wassatch front and I am pretty sure that
second hand ADA will probably require us to pave the whole side and even possibly curb
and gutter I have heard.
Hepper: You haven't gotten your comments back from them?
Haacke: t haven't put in for a building permit and (inaudible) based on not completely
obtaining the blue prints depending on the phase one or two.
Hepper: I am pretty sure the highway department will require you to pave that to the end
of your property, probably have curb gutter and sidewalk.
Haacke: I have heard that expressed but haven't had any.
Hepper: I guess that is all we have then.
MacCoy: What does PHP.HP stand for on your drawing? You haven't got a key that
shows (inaudible) property line and so on.
Haacke: I was trying to go through that myself, I am not sure if we can't rectify that with all
the other concerns of Shari Stiles. Something to do with the property lines, I know there
was something that came up with the church having a right of piece going through that 4th
Street West and we rect~ed that situation with them. That may have something to do with
that. I know that some faxes have been sent back and forth between Shari Stiles and I
know they have rectified that right of way issue.
Hepper: Any other questions? Thank you, anyone else wish to comment?
Rory Lowe, 1607 West 4th, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Lowe: Just two questions that we had written down that the Council didn't ask was we had
one on hours of operation for the school, just want to know when their sessions ran. And
the other thing was we were just wanting to know what the landscaping was going to be
like on West 4th. That is all I had.
Robert Polk, was sworn by the City Attomey.
Polk: I am concerned about it being kids piled on that side of the street or will they be
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 12, 1996
Page 61
running across the street or what? Just a few questions like that. And the paving of the
streets, will the City pave the opposite side on our side of the property?
Oslund: That would be up to ACRD.
Crookston: The City would not.
Oslund: More than likely ACRD would require this applicant to pave only half of the street
and we don't know how wide that street is until we get their comments back.
Polk: Okay (inaudible)
Hepper: Is there anyone else from the public? Mr. Haacke, would you like to address
those comments?
Haacke: Just to hit on the hours, we are actually 3 days a week, Tuesdays, Wednesdays,
and Thursdays from 8 to 12 p.m., so four hours three days a week. As far as
extracurricular activities children are just there for their studies, they are not out on breaks
outside running around other peoples's properties. They are watched pretty close in that
regard, we do have a break room designed in there for that but we keep them such a short
time and the break is such a time period that it doesn't give them a lot of time to cause any
problems. Landscaping I don't have any definite plans but I plan to meet the UBC code
percentage of landscaping and plan on having a long and harmed islands with bushes and
trees to buffer and make it a pleasant property not an eyesore to look at whatsoever. As
far as paving goes whatever Ada County Highway Department requires us we will comply
with whether it be half way or both sides we will work with them.
Crookston: The City of Meridian requires paving on the lot and your parking areas and
things like that.
Hepper: This school is it an altemative public school or is that in addition to public school?
Haacke: It is an alternative, it does qualify for an alternative program.
Hepper: So the students who go to your program probably would not go to a public school
this would be their main source?
Haacke: That is correct, many of them do attend extracurricular activities at public schools
in addition to this but as far as academics.
Hepper: But for four hours a day 3 days a week.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 12, 1996
Page 62
Haacke: That is correct
Hepper: And that is enough to do it?
Haacke: Yes, the first time I heard about this I was very speculative about it, reservations
about the project. But students that are graduating from there, certificates are actually
having 10 points higher GED equivalent tests. There are some really positive results
coming out of these students, really promote them to achieve outside of the classroom.
Hepper: What did you say the hours were?
Haacke: Eight to twelve Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday.
Hepper: A.M. or P.M.?
Haacke: A.M., have I addressed all those questions?
Hepper: Yes, thank you. Is there anyone else? Seeing none I would close the pubic
hearing.
Shearer: Mr. Chairman, I move we have the City Attorney prepare findings of fact and
conclusions of law.
MacCoy: Second
Oslund: Discussion, we don't have any comments from ACRD.
(Inaudible)
Crookston: Depending upon when we get them.
Oslund: I would like to offer an alternate (inaudible). We have no clue what ACHD wants
on this at this point.
Shearer: I would like to amend the motion for the attorney to prepare to include the ACHD
findings when they arrive.
McCoy: Second
Crookston: If they arrive on or before (inaudible) Thursday the 5th, 4th.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 12, 1996
Page 63
Shearer: In way of discussing that the ACHD really has nothing to do with our conditional
use. Our conditional use is for the school, ACHD's findings will be binding on the building
permit when he goes for a building permit on this thing therefore we really don't need
ACHD material for this conditional use because it has nothing to really do with this
conditional use.
Oslund: Wayne do you have an opinion that you would like to share?
Crookston: I will share an opinion, you may be exactly right Jim but it is nice to have the
ACHD findings and make them a requirement for the conditional use, the annexation or
whatever.
Shearer: It is going to be required for the building permit anyway.
Crookston: Butrf you have them (inaudible) then they are written down and the applicant
then knows what is required what the City is requiring which with ACHD they are exactly
the same thing as what ACHD is requiring but it is just nice to have them written down so
the applicant knows he has to meet those.
Shearer: The problem 1 see Wayne is that the architect will not submit to ACHD until he
gets his plans done and he can't, he doesn't want to do plans for a building that he can't
build because we don't approve a conditional use. This is not a subdivision or a site
situation it is going to be a building plan.
Crookston: It is up to the Commission, I will do whatever you people direct.
(Inaudible)
Shearer: I would like to withdraw my amendment to my motion.
MacCoy: Second
Osl~hd: We have an original motion by Commissioner Shearer and second by
Commissioner MacCoy to have the City Attorney prepare findings of fact and conclusions
of law for this item, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #17: SEVENTH DAY ADVENTIST SITE PLAN REVIEW:
Hepper: Is there somebody here that would like to discuss that with us?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 12, 1996
Page 64
Doherty: My name is Ed Doherty and I am the Building Chairman for the project. I just
came here tonight to find out when we are going to get our permit. That is about it.
Hepper: I don't know talk to the Building Inspector I guess.
Doherty: I was wondering what this site plan review had to do with, are you going to
approve the site plan?
Hepper: I don't know that is something that really falls upon us does it?
Oslund: You are asking the same question that we are asking, what is this all about?
Hepper: We are basically asking why are we looking at it. Gary?
Smith: Commissioners typically the site plan comes in with the building plans and we
review, the Public Works Department reviews the site plan, Shari Stiles review them and
all of those comments are sent back to the Building Inspectors from whence the plans
came and any comments that are on the plans as result of those reviews are returned to
the architect for changes, revisions, additions. I believe the Fire Department gets a copy
of the plan, Shari gets a copy, the Water department gets a copy, my department gets a
copy and the plans are sent out for the building plan check by an outside plan checker and
all of that review information then comes back to Daunt Whitman our Building Inspector
then he sends it back if there are comments and revisions needed they go back to the
architect for revision. So I really don't know when we saw this on the agenda we were a
little surprised as to why it was there.
MacCoy: Do you want our drawings back or do you have enough of them right now?
Smith: Do I want your drawings back?
MacCoy: We all have sets of drawings.
(Inaudible)
Smith: I thought perhaps at first that it was a design review issue, that is why we didn't
comment, Public Works didn't comment. Because we will do our regular site plan review
when it, as part of the building permit process.
Oslund: I believe the ordinance does say at one time I read it all the way through it did say
that technically P & Z is supposed to get site plans back for this review. We have never
done it before at least since I have been here, two or three months.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 12, 1996
Page 65
(Inaudible)
MacCoy: We had the discussion in the workshop and we said we were not geared for that
type of (inaudible)
Oslund: The ordinance does say they should come back to P & Z after you get your final
plat basically your construction drawings (inaudible).
Crookston: I don't believe I did write that.
(Inaudible)
Oslund: That this was something I was talking to Will to, sorry about that Will, if we are
going to review stuff like that well I am not sure that we need to but if we are I think it
should only be on the turns of (inaudible) conform with what was approved. Clearly stuff
like that is getting through, I hear stories all the time about a guy comes in and gets
something approved and goes out and builds something totally different.
(Inaudible)
Oslund: I am not saying it is our problem but it has to be fixed.
Hepper: That is what our new enforcement officer is supposed to be doing, checking on
those things.
Shearer: (Inaudible)
Hepper: I guess what I get out of all of this is we don't even need to see this.
(Inaudible)
Doherty: Well I came in at 8:30 knowing it wasn't going to get done before that. So you
gentlemen have nothing (inaudible).
Oslund: Just tell them we approved it.
(Inaudible)
Hepper: Have you already turned your plans in?
Doherty: We already turned everything in we are just waiting for final approval.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 12, 1996
Page 66
(Inaudible)
Doherty: We tumed in our application and plans bads in October. That is why I came here
tonight to find out if you gentlemen knew anything that we could do to help hurry the
project along.
(Inaudible)
Crookston: There are some ordinances in the development code that says that the
Planning and Zoning Commission has the ability to approve or deny, I would just have to
look back at the ordinance to see what it said.
(Inaudible)
Hepper: Have you been in touch with the Building Department?
Doherty: We have our contractors keeping in touch with them several times a week.
(Inaudible)
Doherty: I am sorry, November we turned in our permit and we tumed in our plans. We
were hoping to have gotten started on this at the end of February. (Inaudible) we had our
ground breaking a week ago Sunday.
(Inaudible)
Crookston: I would have to go back and look. It was annexed years ago.
Berg: (Inaudible) if this body has to check it or approve it if that comes to the case we
should probably schedule a special meeting and get it done for them.
(Inaudible)
Oslund: Do we need a motion on this?
Hepper: No I don't think so it is just (inaudible).
Shearer: I move we adjourn.
(Inaudible)
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 12, 1996
Page 67
Oslund: Second
Hepper: All those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 11:40 P.M.
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
APPROVED:
ATTEST:
WIL AM G. BERG, JR., CITY C RK
CITY OF MERIDIA
PUB~C MEETING SIGN- SHEET
~~
~~ ~.:~,~`'J l~ :lib
MAR 1 "l 1~'~~i
CITY CDF ~tE'~:IIy1A1
-Oo~U
CITY OF MERIDIA
PUB~C MEETING SIGN- HEET
~C)rIVEi)
MAR 1 2 fS~6
CITY OF MERI~lAt~
~~ ~~ ~ ~ A 1 n ~ ,t a-vt.~~ 2s X - I -~ l I F~ (o
,... - ~ - -
MERIDIAN PLANNING 8 20NING COMMISSION MEETING: MARCH 12.1996
APPLICANT: ROGER ANDERSON AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: 6
REQUEST: REQUEST FOR VACATION OF EASEMENT
AGENCY COMMENTS
CITY CLERK:
CITY ENGINEER:
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR:
CITY ATTORNEY: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
CITY POLICE DEPT:
CITY FIRE DEPT:
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT:
MERIDIAN POST OFFICE:
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT:
ADA COUNTY STREET NAME COMMITTEE:
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH:
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION:
SETTLERS IRRIGATION:
IDAHO POWER:
US WEST:
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION:
YQ
L
~I~~~~
~ ~
I'
~~
~~
All Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
BEFORE THE MERIDIAN CITY PLANNINO AND ZONING COMMISSION
ROOER L. ANDERSOR
APPLICATION TO VACATE SEWER ARD WATER EASSMENT
75 W. TAYLOR STREET
FUTUR-IDA SUBDIVISION
SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 12, T.3N., R.1W.
MERIDIAN, IDARO
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
The above entitled matter having come on for public hearing
February 13, 1996, at approximately 7:30 o'clock p.m. on said date,
at the Meridian City Hall, 33 East Idaho Street, Meridian, Idaho,
and the Applicant appearing through hia representative, Jerry
Ellis, and having heard and taken oral and written testimony, and
having duly considered the matter, the Meridian Planning and Zoning
Commission makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. That notice of the public hearing on the vacation of the
sewer and water easement was published for two (2) consecutive
weeks prior to the said public hearing scheduled for February 13,
1996, the first publication of which was fifteen (15) days prior to
said hearing; that the matter was duly conaidered at the February
13, 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.
VACATION OF EASEMENT\ANDERSON Page 1
2. That this property is located in the Futur-Ida
Subdivision in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 12, T.3N., R.lw., Boise
Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, and is owned by Sundance Investments
Limited Partnership.
3. That the Applicant requests a vacation of the sewer and
water easement which easements were reconfigured on this particular
property; that both water and sewer lines were relocated on the
site so as not to conflict with the expansion of the building being
occupied by the Friedman Bag Co.
5. That the property is currently zoned I-L, Light
Industrial District.
6. That the Light Industrial District 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 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.
7. That Bruce Freckleton, the Assistant to the City
Engineer, the Police and Fire Department and the Nampa & Meridian
Irrigation District, submitted comments and such are incorporated
herein as if set forth in full.
8. That comments from the Planning and Zoning Director,
VACATION OF EASEMENT\ANDERSON Page 2
Shari Stiles are forthcoming and shall be incorporated as if set
forth in full, if received.
9. That there was no public testimony objecting to the
vacation of easements.
10. That proper notice was given as required by law and all
procedures before the Planning and Zoning Commission 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 and of
Idaho Code, Section 50-1306A have been met.
2. That the City of Meridian has authority to vacate
easements pursuant to Idaho Code, Section 50-1306A and Section 11-
9-611A, Vacations and Dedications, of the Revised and Compiled
Ordinances of the City of Meridian.
3. That since the Public Works Department has approved plans
and construction for the relocation of the existing sewer and water
mains of the proposed site and the legal descriptions and
supporting documentation for the vacation have been reviewed and
approved by the Public Works Department, and since there is no
objections to the vacation of the easements, the easements should
be vacated.
VACATION OF EASEMENT\ANDERSON Page 3
APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
The Meridian City Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts
and approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions.
ROLL CALL
COMMISSIONER HEPPER
COMMISSIONER OSLUND
SHEARER
MacCOY
VOTED
VOTED ) C ~"
VOTED ~ ^~
VOTED °_ G-
CHAIRMAN JOHNSON (TIE BREAKER)
DECISION AND
VOTED
The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends
to the City Council of the City of Meridian that they approve the
vacation of the sewer and water easement at 75 W. Taylor Street.
MOTION:
APPROVED : ~_ /f ~1
DISAPPROVED:
VACATION OF EASEMENT\ANDERSON Page 4
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING: MARCH 12. 1996
APPLICANT: ANGELA MILLER AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: 7
REQUEST: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A GROUP DAY CARE
AGENCY COMMENTS
CITY CLERK:
CITY ENGINEER:
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR:
CITY ATTORNEY: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
CITY POLICE DEPT:
CITY FIRE DEPT:
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT:
MERIDIAN POST OFFICE:
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT:
ADA COUNTY STREET NAME COMMITTEE:
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH:
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION:
SETTLERS IRRIGATION:
IDAHO POWER:
US WEST:
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION:
- ~~I~
~ (~
r°~~ ~~,~
~~~P JQ ~
~"~~
~ Materials presented at public meetings shall become properly of the City of Meridian.
BEFORE THE MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
ANGELA M. MILLER
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR GROUP DAY CARE
1285 CRESMONT DRIVE
MERIDIAN, IDAHO
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The above entitled matter having come on for public hearing
February 13, 1996, at the hour of 7:30 o'clock p.m., the
Petitioner, Angela M. Miller, appearing 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 February 13, 1996, the first
publication of which was fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing;
that the matter was duly considered at the February 13, 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 which is currently.
under construction; that the property is currently zoned R-8
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW\MILLER Page 1
Residential; that in the ZONING SCHEDULE OF USE CONTROL, Section
11-2-409 A., Residential, Group Child Care Home is listed as a
conditional use in the R-8 District and therefore the R-8 District
requires a conditional use permit 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:
(x-tt( 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 property is located in MIDTOWN SQUARE
SUBDIVISION, Block 5, Lot 12, an R-8 single-family residential
subdivision; that it is one block to the south of Cherry Lane.
6. That the intention of the Applicant is to operate a group
day care for six (6) to twelve (12) children; that the hours may be
flexible from 6:30 a.m. until 7:00 p.m. a few days in the week and
from 7:00 a.m. to 5:30 or 6:00 p.m.; that the Applicant stated that
she'd like to have the children gone by 6:00 p.m.
7. The Applicant testified that she was previously licensed
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW\MILLER Page 2
in Boise for twelve (12) children; that the Applicant is not aware
of any opposition and that she has contacted her one neighbor and
they are in favor of this application; that the house is currently
under construction and will have a large fenced yard; that a swing
set and some Fisher Price play equipment will occupy the. backyard
and Ms. Miller agrees to pay any additional fees for sewer, water
and trash; that the Applicant has a two car driveway which will
access the drop off and pick up of the children as well as her
home, which is located at the end of the Crestmont Drive; the use
should not see a lot of traffic.
8. The Assistant to the City Engineer, Bruce Freckelton,
submitted comments which are incorporated herein as if set forth in
full herein; 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 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 the site-specific requirements; that sewer and water to this
facility would be by means of existing service lines; that
assessments for service will be reviewed during the building plan
review process.
9. 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; the
total number of children cared for during the day, and not the
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW\MILLER Page 3
number of children at the facility at any one time, is
determinative; that Applicant should also instruct parents dropping
off children to turn around in the driveway and avoid using the
cul-de-sac as a turnaround to minimize impact on additional homes;
that signage/advertising should not be permitted; that all fire and
life safety codes shall be complied with; that the Applicant shall
secure and maintain a child care license from the Idaho Department
of Health ~ Welfare, acquire a certificate of occupancy, and
furnish evidence of both to the City of Meridian; that this permit
may be reviewed annually.
10. Central District Health Department, Meridian Fire
Department, Meridian City Police Department, and the Nampa &
Meridian Irrigation District submitted comments and they are hereby
incorporated herein.
11. Commissioner MacCoy submitted statements regarding this
application and they are hereby incorporated herein as if set forth
in full; that a fence type and height with child proof gate locking
devices be in place to comply with Meridian City Codes; that the
home is to have code approved smoke/fire detectors in place prior
to approval and accepting children; that the hours of operation be
stated; that safe entrance and exit of vehicles dropping off and
picking up of children and that adequate lavatory facilities per
existing codes and ordinances shall be required.
12. That there was no other testimony given at the hearing.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW\MILLER Paqe 4
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
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 facilities, 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
FINDINGS OF FACT AND. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW\MILLER Page 5
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
of Meridian and 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 is designed and constructed to be
harmonious in appearance with the character of the
general vicinity; that if the conditions set forth herein
are complied with the use should be operated and
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW~MILLER Page 6
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 nor should it 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
connected, but Applicant may have to pay additional fees
for the use.
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. If the conditions
involve a use, activity,
conditions of operation
person, property or the
excessive production of
glare or odors.
are met, the use should not
process, material, equipment or
that would be detrimental to
general welfare by reason of
traffic, noise, smoke, fumes,
h. That sufficient parking for the proposed use will be
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 to minimize adverse impact on other
development, it is recommended by the Planning and Zoning
Commission that the following conditions of granting the
conditional use be required, to wit:
a) The hours of operation shall be restricted, as stated by
the Applicant, from 6:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
b) The children, if outside, be maintained in the fenced
area, as required below.
c) That the Applicant shall meet the State of Idaho Health
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW\MILLER Page 7
and Welfare requirements for staff to children ratio.
d) That there shall be fencing, gates, and locks for the
outside play area such 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 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 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, but an adult shall be with them at all times if
the child or children are waiting to be picked up.
e) That the Applicant shall hold and maintain a State of
Idaho Day Care License for a group day care.
f) That the conditional use should not be restricted to a
period of authorization but may be reviewed annually upon
notice to the applicant for violation of any of the
conditions as has been done in other day care conditional
uses and other conditional use applications.
g) That the conditional use, pursuant to the Zoning
Ordinance, shall not be transferable to another owner of
the property or to another property.
h) That the Applicant must meet the requirements of the
Central District Health Department and the State of Idaho
Department of Health and Welfare.
i) That the Applicant shall meet the requirements of the
City Engineer's office, including the re-assessment
agreement, 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 above conditions are concluded to be reasonable
and the Applicant shall meet these conclusions.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW\MILLER Page 8
11. That 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 Concluaions.
ROLL CALL
COMMISSIONER HEPPER
COMMISSIONER OSLUND
VOTED
VOTSD~
COMMISSIONER SHEARER VOTED a~~
COMMISSIONER MacCOY VOTED {_e/
CHAIRMAN JOHNSON (TIE BREAKER) VOTED
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 the
Findings of Fact and Concluaions of Law or similar conditions as
found justified and appropriate by the City Council and that the
property be required to meet 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
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW\MILLER Page 9
review upon notice to the Applicant by the City.
MOTION:
APPROVED:~_~
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW\MILLSR Page 10
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING: MARCH 12.1896
APPLICANT: KATHLEEN LAWRENCE AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: 6
REQUEST: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMR FOR A GROUP DAY CARE
A NCY
CITY CLERK:
CITY ENGINEER:
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR:
CITY ATTORNEY:
CITY POLICE DEPT:
CITY FIRE DEPT:
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT:
MERIDIAN POST OFFICE:
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT:
COMMENTS
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
ADA COUNTY STREET NAME COMMITTEE:
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH:
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION:
SETTLERS IRRIGATION:
IDAHO POWER:
US WEST:
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION:
_ ~ ~: ~~
r ~~ y
l~~ ~ ~ Jr, ~ ~~~y tf'~
/ti
b ~tt~~
a~P
All Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
BEFORE THE MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
KATHLEEN LAWRENCE
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR GROUP DAY CARE
889 N. FILLMORE WAY
MERIDIAN, IDAHO
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The above entitled matter having come on for public hearing
February 13, 1996, at the hour of 7:30 o~clock p.m., the
Petitioner, Kathleen Lawrence, appearing 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 February 13, 1996, the first
publication of which was fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing;
that the matter was duly considered at the February 13, 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
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW\LAWRENCE Page 1
1
and the Applicant is the owner of the property; that the property
is currently zoned I-L Light Industrial District; that in the
ZONING SCHEDULE OF USE CONTROL, Section 11-2-409 A., Residential,
Group Child Care Home is not listed as a conditional use in the I-L
District and therefore in the I-L District a conditional use permit
is not allowed as a permitted use or a conditional use for the
operation of a Group Child Care Home.
3. That the Light Industrial District 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 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.
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 property is located in CROSSROADS SUBDIVISION,
Block 5, Lot 6, which is zoned Light Industrial; that the land
where Crossroads Subdivision is located is all zoned I-L but the
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW\LAWRENCE Page 2
land was also later given the right to be developed in a planned
unit development fashion; that Crossroads Subdivision, an R-4 or R-
8 residential development was allowed to locate in the I-L zone
even though residences are not permitted in the I-L zone.
6. That the Applicant wishes to operate a group day care for
up to twelve (12) children in her home.
7. The Applicant testified that she has just moved into the
new built home on December 5, 1995; that a fence will be erected as
soon as the yard is fine graded; that the fence will be built with
six (6) foot 4X4 boards with hopefully a self locking gate; that
the 2 car garage will not be part of the day care; that the
Applicant stated that the hours of operation she would like to
have, be from 7:00 a.m. until 6:00 p.m.; that her preference would
be preschool age children, but will not be limited to just that age
group; that there will be no sign or outside lighting other than
what is allowed by the covenants of the subdivision; that the
driveway will be open for parking, and Applicant agrees to pay any
additional fees for sewer, water and trash.
8. That the Applicant is aware that the zoning is Light
Industrial.
9. The Assistant to the City Engineer, Bruce Freckelton,
submitted comments which are incorporated herein as if set forth in
full herein; that outside lighting shall be designed and placed so
as to not direct illumination on any nearby residences; that all
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW\LAWRENCE Page 3
signage ahall be in accordance with Meridian City Ordinances; that
off-street parking shall be provided in accordance with Section 11-
2-414 of the City of Meridian Zoning and Development Ordinance
and/or as detailed in the site-specific requirements; that sewer
and water to this facility would be by means of existing service
lines; that assessments for service will be reviewed during the
building plan review process.
10. The Planning and Zoning Director, Shari Stiles, may
submit comments at a later date which will be incorporated herein
as if set forth in full.
11. Central District Health Department, Meridian Fire
Department, Meridian City Police Department, Nampa & Meridian
Irrigation District, and the Sewer Department submitted comments
and they are hereby incorporated herein.
12. That Commissioner MacCoy submitted statements regarding
this application and they are hereby incorporated herein as if set
forth in full; that a fence type and height with child proof gate
locking devices be in place to comply with Meridian City Codes;
that the home is to have code approved smoke/fire detectors in
place prior to approval of accepting children; that the hours of
operation be stated; that adequate lavatory facilities per existing
codes and ordinances be required and be there at a site visit; the
vehicle drop-off/pick-up of children appears to be acceptable.
13. That there was no other testimony given at the hearing.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW\LAWRENCE Page 4
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
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 facilities, 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.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW\LAWRENCE Page 5
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 upon the basis of guidelines contained in Section
11-2-418 of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of
Meridian and 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 the conditional use permit shall be treated as being
conducted in an R-8 Residential District and not Light Industrial
since the land is developed and used as a residential subdivision.
8. 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:
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW\LAWRENCE Page 6
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 is designed and constructed to be
harmonious in appearance with the character of the
general vicinity; that if the conditions set forth herein
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 nor should it 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
connected, but Applicant may have to pay additional fees
for the use.
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. 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
person, 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 will be
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.
9. That since conditions may be placed upon the granting of
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW\LAWRENCE Page 7
a conditional use permit to minimize adverse impact on other
development, it is recommended by the Planning and Zoning
Commission that the following conditions of granting the
conditional use be required, to wit:
a) The hours of operation shall be restricted from 7:00 a.m.
to 6:00 p.m.
b) The children, if outside, be maintained in the fenced
area, as required below.
c) That the Applicant shall meet the State of Idaho Health
and Welfare requirements for staff to children ratio.
d) That there shall be fencing, gates, and locks for the
outside play area such that no children can leave the
property without an adult; no children shall be allowed
outside of the play area or the home without an adult
being present and with the child at all times; the fence
shall be maintained in good repair and the children, when
outside, shall stay in the fenced area and not be allowed
outside of the fenced area or the home, except for drop-
off and pick-up times, but an adult shall be with them at
all times if the child or children are waiting to be
picked up.
e) That the Applicant shall hold and maintain a State of
Idaho Day Care License for a group day care.
f) That the conditional use should-tte~-be restricted operate
only from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. and shall be reviewed
annually upon notice to the Applicant.
g) That the conditional use, pursuant to the Zoning
Ordinance, shall not be transferable to another owner of
the property or to another property.
h) That the Applicant must meet the requirements of the
Central District Health Department and the State of Idaho
Department of Health and Welfare.
i) That the Applicant shall meet the requirements of the
City Engineer's office, including the re-assessment
agreement, Planning Director, and other governmental
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW\LAWRENCE Page 8
agencies submitting comments.
10. 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 one
time.
11. That the above conditions are concluded to be reasonable
and the Applicant shall meet those conditions.
12. That it is recommended that if the Applicant meets the
conditions stated above that the conditional use permit be granted
to the Applicant.
APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND
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)
VOTED
VOTED ~P~:~.
VOTED f ~+-
VOTED (' °~
VOTED
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW\LAWRENCE Page 9
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 the
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law or similar conditions as
found justified and appropriate by the City Council and that the
property be required to meet the requirements stated in these
Conclusions of Law, 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.
MOTION: /
APPROVED :. l+ DISAPPROVED:
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW\LAWRENCE Page 10
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING: MARCH 12.1996
APPLICANT: AVEST AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: 9
REQUEST: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A CHEVRON CSTORE. FUEL
ISLANDS. CAR WASH AND DRNE THRU WINDOW
AGENCY
CITY CLERK:
CITY ENGINEER:
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR:
CITY ATTORNEY:
CITY POLICE DEPT:
CITY FIRE DEPT:
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT:
MERIDIAN POST OFFICE:
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT:
COMMENTS
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
~~ y
ADA COUNTY STREET NAME COMMITTEE:
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH:
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION:
SETTLERS IRRIGATION:
IDAHO POWER:
US WEST:
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION:
rq~~- ~~~
fl ~ ~ ~ ~N'
G~ ~Y
All Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
BEFORE THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN
CHEVRON C-STORE
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
LOT 7, BLOCK 1 OF AVEST PLAZA
LOCUST GROVE AND FAIRVIEW
MERIDIAN, IDAHO
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The above entitled conditional use application having come on
for consideration on February 13, 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, the Petitioner appearing through ite
representative, Larry Durkin, and the Planning and Zoning
Commission having heard and taken oral and written testimony and
having duly considered the matter, the Planning and Zoning
Commission makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. That notice of public hearing on the annexation and
zoning was published for two (2) consecutive weeks prior to the
said public hearing scheduled for February 13, 1996, the first
publication of which was fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing;
that the matter was duly considered at the February 13, 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
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - CONDITIONAL USE/CHEVRON
Page 1
annexation and zoning is described in the application, and by this
reference is incorporated herein; that the property is
approximately 4,000 square feet in size.
3. That the property is presently zoned C-G General Retail
and Service Commercial (C-G); that the specific use for the
property will be for a Chevron C-Store, providing a fuel island and
a car wash, in addition to a drive-thru window located along the
north side and generally accessed from the southeast, which
application requires a conditional use permit.
4. That the General Retail and Service Commercial, (C-G) is
defined in the Zoning Ordinance at 11-2-408 B. 11. as follows:
(C-G1 General Retail and Service Commercial: The purpose of
the (C-G) District is to provide for commercial uses which are
customarily operated entirely or almost entirely within a
building; to provide for a review of the impact of proposed
commercial uses which are auto and service oriented and are
located in close proximity to major highway or arterial
streets; to fulfill the need of travel-related services as
well as retail sales for the transient and permanent motoring
public. All such districts shall be connected to the
Municipal Water and Sewer systems of the City of Meridian, and
shall not constitute strip commercial development and
encourage clustering of commercial development.
5. That the use proposed by Applicant is a specifically
allowed conditional use in the Zoning Schedule of Use Control, 11-
2-409.
6. That the property is located in the northeast corner of
the Avest Plaza on Fairview Avenue just east of Locust Grove Road;
that the application complies with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan.
7. That Avest Limited Partnership is the record owner of the
above referenced property and has consented to the application and
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - CONDITIONAL USE/CHEVRON
Page 2
has requested this conditional use and the application is not at
the request of the City of Meridian.
8. That the Meridian City Planning Director, Shari Stiles,
the Assistant to the City Engineer, Bruce Freckleton, Police
Department, Fire Department, the Ada County Highway District,
Central District Health Department, and the Nampa and Meridian
Irrigation District submitted comments and they are incorporated
herein as if set forth in full.
9. That Bruce Freckleton, the Assistant to the City
Engineer, submitted comments; that any existing irrigation/drainage
ditches crossing the property shall be tiled; that any existing
domestic wells and/or septic systems within this project will have
to be removed from their domestic service per City Ordinance, but
wells may be used for non-domestic purposes such as landscape
irrigation; that a drainage plan designed by an architect or an
engineer shall be submitted for all oft-street parking areas; 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 City Ordinances; that off-street parking,
paving and striping, shall all be provided in accordance with City
Ordinances; that sanitary sewer service shall be to the sewer line
installed in Dixie Lane adjacent to the east; that water service to
the proposed site shall be to the existing water line installed as
part of the Avest Plaza Subdivision and that assessment fees for
water and sewer service shall be determined during the building
plan review process; that Late Comers fees will also be charged on
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - CONDITIONAL USE/CHEVRON
Page 3
installing the water and sewer mains to help reimburse the parties
responsible for installing the lines.
10. That the Planning and Zoning Administrator, Shari Stiles
submitted comments and they are incorporated herein as if set forth
in full as follows:
1. Any existing irrigation/drainage ditches crossing the
property to be included in this project, shall be tiled
by City Ordinance 11-9-605.M.; that plans will need to be
approved by the appropriate irrigation/drainage district,
or lateral users association, with written confirmation
of said approval submitted to the Public Works
Department.
2. That any existing domestic wells and/or septic systems
within this project will have to be removed from their
domestic service except that such wells are used for non-
domestic purposes such as landscape irrigation.
3. That prescriptive use of Dixie Lane must be continued
until access is no longer needed.
4. That a minimum of one (1) three-inch (3") caliper tree is
to be provided for every 1,500 square feet of asphalt;
that twenty-six (26) such trees are required and that a
detailed landscape plan be provided that includes sizes
of plants for approval prior to obtaining building
permit.
5. Parking stalls are to be a minimum of 19' long with
minimum 25' wide driveways.
6. That a Certificate of Occupancy must be received prior to
operation and must be approved by the Building, Fire and
Planning and Zoning Departments.
7. Coordinate accesses and roadway improvements with the Ada
County Highway District and fire hydrant placement with
the City of Meridian's Water Works Superintendent.
8. That illumination of the parking lot shall not result in
glare or spillover to adjacent properties or traffic on
Fairview Avenue.
9. That temporary fencing shall be provided to contain
debris prior to obtaining building permits.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - CONDITIONAL USE/CHEVRON
Page 4
10. That all conditions of the Development Agreement
previously approved for this parcel be complied with.
11. That the Ada County Highway District (ACHD) submitted
comments and they are incorporated herein as if set forth in full;
that some site specific comments include the construction of a 5-
foot wide sidewalk along Fairview Avenue and pavement tapers for
acceleration and deceleration at the loop road intersection with
Fairview; that the loop road shall be a maximum of 37-feet wide at
the intersection with Fairview; that a pedestrian/bike path along
the site's east boundary be constructed and the southern driveway
on the loop road shall be located a minimum of 50 feet north of
Fairview Avenue and shall be constructed as a 24-foot wide driveway
to be signed for a right-in/right-out only.
12. The Meridian Police and Fire Department Departments
Central District Health Department, and the Nampa and Meridian
Irrigation District submitted comments; that all such comments are
incorporated herein as if set forth in full.
13. That Larry Durkin, the Applicant's representative,
testified that this application included some modification to the
north property line of this projects Lot 7; that some of Lot 8 was
applied to Lot 7 creating a larger parcel for this structure.
14. Mr. Durkin stated that this project is a 4,000 square
foot building with your typical convenience items and food items as
well as the car wash and pampa; that on the northwest corner of
this structure will be a drive through facility for picking up milk
and things of that nature; that there will be a small sign in the
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - CONDITIONAL USE/CHEVRON
Page 5
center of the structure and that the lighting is consistent with
the overall lighting plan for the entire development. That Mr.
Durkin stated that he would be happy to add a condition that the
lighting by the same lighting program as the Fred Meyer parcel,
which he feels is already consistent with the non-glare type
lighting.
15. He also testified that the landscaping along Fairview
Avenue is identical of the overall front of the whole center; that
the landscaping plan will be aggressive, nice landscaping that will
carry to the east corner of Lot 7 without any change; that since
Lot 8 is to the north of this project and since a modification to
the lot line between Lots 7 and 8, there is a cross easement and
use agreement between Lot 7 and Lot 8; that these two properties
will share access points and since Lot 8 is the last vacant parcel,
the developer plans on building a facility that will be compatible
with Chevron C-store.
16. Mr. Durkin testified that the ground water on the site is
collected and automatically goes through a filtering system; that
the car wash is filtered many times a day and the holding tank
water is recycled and will go into the sewage system after it is
completely filtered through the system.
17. That was no other testimony given.
18. That proper notice was given as required by law and all
procedures before the Planning and Zoning Commission have been
given and followed.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - CONDITIONAL USE/CHEVRON
Page 6
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
conditional uses pursuant to Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code, and
Section 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 but the Zoning
Ordinance requires a conditional use permit to
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - CONDITIONAL USE/CHEVRON
Page 7
allow the use.
c. The use apparently would be designed and
constructed, to be harmonious in appearance with
the intended character of the general vicinity.
d. The property will have to be furnished sewer and
water service which shall be the responsibility of
the Applicant.
e. 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.
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, the Uniform Electrical Code, the
Fire and Life Safety Code, all parking and paving requirements.
6. That all conditions and requirements of the Assistant to
the City Engineer and City Planning Director shall be met and
complied with.
7. That a conditional use for a drive-through window must be
applied for and obtained.
APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT ARD
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
VOTED
VOTED' e°i
VOTED
VOTED e ~
CHAIRMAN JOHNSON (TIE BREAKER) VOTED
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - CONDITIONAL USE/CHEVRON
Page 8
DECISION AND RECOlQ1ENDATION
The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends
to the Meridian City Council that they approve the Conditional Use
Permit requested by the Applicant for the property described in the
application with the conditions set forth in the Findings of Fact
and Conclusions of Law.
MOTION: ~j
APPROVED/: ~ ~F^ DISAPPROVED:
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - CONDITIONAL USE/CHEVRON
Page 9