1999 07-13 BSIDE 3
De Weerd: And any written comments that were submitted.
MacCoy: And you had something Tom?
Barbeiro: If I may, I would like to add to Commissioner De Weerd’s recommendation
that we include a limited number of students and that once the school reaches that
number of students that they come before the Commission again to ask for additional
conditional – an amendment to the conditional use permit. Perhaps we could have 100
students. Would that appropriate Commissioner?
De Weerd: I don’t see the reason for it.
Barbeiro: I see that once we reach 100 students or so, and we have more development
in that area at the point where we reach 100 students that the other developments and
the neighbors will want to comment on the expansion of the school.
De Weerd: So you’re saying when they reach 100, which is what they’re trying to
achieve the first two years, they have to come back?
Barbeiro: Yes.
De Weerd: Okay, well if I don’t get a second then you’ll have a chance to put that on
there.
MacCoy: She’s not accepting it in other words.
Borup: Second.
MacCoy: So, we have a motion presently and would you kindly restate that right now
so that we are presently involved –
De Weerd: Well I just moved to recommend approval for the conditional use permit for
a private school by Capital Christian Center to include all verbal and written comments
by staff.
Borup: And I seconded that.
MacCoy: All in favor?
De Weerd: Just for a matter of discussion, I think with the traffic and the parking
concerns that this school is going to have to get rather big first of all to not
accommodate parking, but secondly I do think that in every elementary school situation
because of the varied hours of people’s normal workdays and I would stress normal, it
does impact the traffic. I would be naïve to say it wouldn’t but not overly so. I
understand what you’re trying to get to Commissioner, but I just think that you know
limiting it to 100 is what their application is for if you say 500, I could understand that.
Just for FYI.
MacCoy: Good point. So far we’ve got a motion and a second on that one. Any other
discussion to go before we make a vote? Okay, all in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: 2 AYES, 1 NAY.
8. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO
OPERATE A THRIFT STORE—BY THE SALVATION ARMY—EAST OF 1ST
STREET AND SOUTH OF FAIRVIEW (4308 W. STATE STREET).
Borup: The letter I received said there would no hearing on this. It was worked out with
staff. This was a permitted use. Is that correct?
MacCoy: I was going to go into the next thing I was going to say was right to Shari and
say where do we stand? But having by the agenda here, I have got to announce what
we’re doing here. They’re operating a thrift store by Salvation Army east of 1st
Street
and south of Fairview, and having made that statement I would like to go to Shari
because in the paperwork, you made a statement.
Stiles: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, I have met with the Salvation Army, Captain Tom
Peterson. There was some concern when they initially asked for permission to use this
building, what some of those uses were. It was very vague, the letter we received
asking for a certificate of zoning compliance, could have included any number of
services and for that reason we requested them to submit a conditional use application.
In subsequent meetings with them, they have agreed to limit their use to the retail side
only. They will be a thrift store. They will not be providing indigent services. It’s not
going to be any kind of a mission there. It is strictly a store. As part of their certificate
of zoning compliance and our agreement to offer an occupancy for the building, we
have asked that the items listed in our memo of July 9th
, 1999 be incorporated. We will
be working with them. It is going to be I imagine a lot of work with them to try to get that
site up to ordinance requirements as far as the handicapped parking. We met with
them with the building inspector today. He believes or he is going to make sure that it
meets ADA requirements. They understand the signage will be subject to review and
that the sewer and water assessments are subject to review. They will be providing
landscaping. It may be that they have to bond or put up some cash or a letter of credit
for that landscaping because some of the property to the south of that is also
considering some building permits and will have to bring their site up to ordinance
requirements. For that reason, we ask that this application be withdrawn and that staff
will work with them for their certificate of occupancy.
MacCoy: Very good. Have you had agreement with the Salvation Army to withdraw
this?
Stiles: Yes, they were more than happy to withdraw it.
MacCoy: Okay based on this then, the communication between you as part of the city
and they as the new applicant, can we just go ahead and just drop this at this moment?
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, it was posted as a public hearing though.
MacCoy: I know it was. I’m trying to find out how this kind of conversation went on,
because I think since it was posted as a public hearing, we’re compelled and I’ll ask the
attorney, but I think we’re compelled to continue this thing on through the public
hearing. Mr. Attorney?
Aylsworth: If it was posted as a conditional use permit, you should probably allow
public hearings.
MacCoy: By the legal part of this, we’ll continue on. Thank you Shari for your
comments though because we’re going to need them. Is the applicant or a
representative of the applicant here today? Seeing that, it’s still an open public hearing.
Anybody here in favor of this that would like to make a statement on the record?
Anybody here willing to make statement that is opposed to this for the record?
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, just one comment before we close the public hearing.
MacCoy: Well we haven’t got that far yet, but go ahead.
De Weerd: Well it doesn’t look like anyone is here for this.
MacCoy: I’m going to say since there’s nobody here, I’m bringing it back to the
commission here anyway.
De Weerd: I guess my only question for staff is when you work with the applicant, are
they going to screen the drop off site? Is there going to be some kind of screening?
Stiles: They have agreed that there will be no drop off site. They’ve agreed that that is
not a good location to have a drop off site, so if people are going to donate goods, they
will have to be there during operating hours and bring it into the store. There won’t be –
they end up taking more trips to the dump than they get out of donations at those sites
when they leave it open like that.
De Weerd: Okay, thank you.
MacCoy: All right, commissioners, do you want to close the public hearing?
De Weerd: I would move we close the public hearing.
Borup: Second.
MacCoy: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, what kind of action are we supposed to do on this if it’s been
withdrawn?
Borup: At this point, we don’t have an application. There’s nothing to act on, is there?
MacCoy: Well that’s what I’m going to ask the attorney because to deny this is not the
thing. They’ve already had the agreement to withdraw it, so what do you want to do
now?
Aylsworth: It might be prudent just to continue or table the conditional use permit
application until you actually get an application for a permitted use or a request to
withdraw the application from the applicant themselves.
MacCoy: That’s a good point. That way that covers us and it covers the thing legally.
Okay, you just closed the public hearing. Do you want to reopen the public hearing and
then make it a continued public hearing and then move on?
De Weerd: Or we could just table it and then they can officially withdraw at the next
scheduled –
MacCoy: All right. Do you want to do it that way?
Borup: Yes.
MacCoy: Is that okay?
Aylsworth: Yes, that’s just what I explained.
MacCoy: Okay.
Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman, would that prevent the Salvation Army from opening their store
if they wished to open it perhaps tomorrow? It would not, okay. Shari acknowledged
that that would not (inaudible).
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, I would move that we table the request for CUP by the
Salvation Army until – do I need a date certain? Until August 10th
. That’s just going to
be a housekeeping issue. Right?
Borup: Put it on the consent agenda.
De Weerd: Yeah, can we put that on the consent agenda? Okay. We need a second
on my motion.
Borup: Second.
MacCoy: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
9. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF 2.0
ACRES OF LAND FOR OFFICE USE (I-L ZONING) FOR JACKSON’S FOOD
STORES—NORTH OF FRANKLIN ROAD & EAST OF EAGLE ROAD.
MacCoy: Since this is an annexation and zoning, Shari, what do you have for us?
Stiles: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, this is for a property out in Commerce Park
Subdivision. Albertson’s would be down here, Coor’s is here, Idaho Truck Specialties is
here. On the front portion of this lot is the Sherwin Williams, and then the Jackson’s
Food Stores has their warehouse facilities, some office and warehouse facilities right
here. They are proposing two buildings on one lot. They go back behind the Sherwin
Williams. We have made our comments that hopefully you have in your packets. The
one thing we didn’t mention, well as far as the comments in our packet, I believe those
could be easily accommodated. I talked to Dale Benning, the architect. This site can
easily accommodate those changes. One thing we didn’t include in our comments that
based on the user, I particularly want to make sure we include this is a restriction on
signage that there be some kind of monument type sign only on the lot no more than 50
square feet. You know a typical office park type of sign and particularly no flashing
lights.
MacCoy: Thank you very much.
Stiles: I guess I’ll put up here – is there any question what’s there? Ron Van Auker
owns this property here, this is where the new middle school site is. Pine Street will
eventually come down and connect with Emerald in this location. The Crossroads
Subdivision, the Family Center here, most of this is not built out yet. We have Elixer
Industries over here and industrial park over here. I don’t believe I took any copies of
the elevations for transparency, but here’s the basic site plan.
MacCoy: We have the elevations in our packet anyway.
Stiles: Commercial Street here, the existing Sherwin Williams and then their office
building back behind there. There is the issue of the Settlers Canal that runs through
here. I don’t know what Settlers expects to be done with that. If we can get some
documentation that it will require over a 48 inch pipe, perhaps the City Council will
waive that requirement for the tiling. Bruce, do you have anything to add? And we
would just ask that it be recommended for approval for the annexation and zoning. I
have covered the annexation and zoning really and the conditional use permit, and
would like my comments to be included in the next public hearing, but our comments
that we have submitted with the addition of restriction on signage and that’s all we have.
MacCoy: Okay thank you, and Bruce you didn’t have anything you wanted to add to
that?
De Weerd: Shari, where’s the retention area or drainage?
Stiles: Maybe Dale Benning could address that as part of his – it doesn’t show any
drainage area. I would imagine they would have some subsurface pits. They realize
that they will have to retain it on site to meet our standards.
De Weerd: Okay, thanks.
MacCoy: Is that it Shari? Is the applicant here then or someone who is speaking for
the stores?
Benning: Dale Benning, I’m the architect for Jackson’s Food Stores. I’m at 1590
Shenandoah in Boise. I could start with if there’s any questions that anybody has, I
would be glad to answer them. I could begin by answering the on site retainage –
MacCoy: Commissioner De Weerd has already raised a question, so you might want to
start with that one.
Benning: The area that is delineated is the dark dotted shaded area up by the Sherwin
Williams builiding and then running across along the east side of the store.
MacCoy: Do you want to go over and point to it and use the mike up there?
Benning: We already have the storm water retention area for the Sherwin Williams
building which was developed from here forward. This is already in place. This is the
lawn area. Because of the shallow groundwater conditions, this was what the
engineering required to retain – determined it was the way to retain the water on site, so
this is already in place. So is this landscaping here, and this is the edge of pavement
right along the back of the building, back of Sherwin Williams right here. All of the other
area that’s shown like this is also the storm water retention proposed for the office
warehouse building. It goes along that side and across the back and across here, and
there’s also landscaped areas all along through here and in the back where the trees
and shrubs are. Shari made the comment about the signage and I believe if you have
exterior elevations in your packet there, they show a low profile monument sign that’s in
front of the building and that’s what is –
MacCoy: I was hoping that is what it was going to be.
Benning: That’s it.
MacCoy: Anything else?
Benning: No, I would just like to answer any questions.
MacCoy: Any questions of the Commissioners?
Borup: Shari had mentioned about the irrigation ditch. Do you have any comments on
that?
Benning: We will work with the irrigation district there. We’ve already been in touch
with them and we have our survey at this point that shows exactly where that width is,
the banks and easements and things so that we can begin addressing any concerns
that the irrigation district has. I think just from looking at it, I think it’s too big to tile. But
that’s what we’re going to evaluate and –
Borup: I may have misunderstood, but I thought her concern was on the right-of-way
and if the design accommodates the existing right-of-way.
Benning: Yes, it does. There is the existing right-of-way plus the easement for the
access to the irrigation ditch. The property line is shown there from the back property
line over to the ditch is actually about to the bank of the ditch right now is about 35 to 40
feet so they already have access to it without requiring any easements.
Borup: Okay. That’s all I had. Thank you.
MacCoy: Anybody else? Okay, thank you very much. Again this is a public hearing.
Anybody here would like to speak in favor of this project? Seeing nobody, anybody
here would like to speak in opposition to this project? Seeing nobody on the other side,
Commissioners?
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, I would move to close the public hearing.
Borup: Second.
MacCoy: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
MacCoy: What’s your decision for annexation and zoning?
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman I move that we approve the annexation and zoning of 2.0
acres for I-L zoning and to include staff comments.
Borup: You say you move to recommend approval?
De Weerd: Uh-huh.
Borup: I second that.
De Weerd: If I didn’t, I meant to.
MacCoy: Any discussion? All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
10. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR PUD
TO ALLOW OFFICE BUILDING CONSTRUCTION ON ADJOINING SITE FOR
JACKSON’S FOOD STORES—NORTH OF FRANKLIN ROAD & EAST OF
EAGLE ROAD.
MacCoy: This is again a public hearing. Going to staff, Shari do you have any
comments you want to make on this now?
Stiles: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, just to incorporate the testimony from the
previous public hearing.
MacCoy: Okay, thank you. Does the applicant want to come back and make his
statement along the same general line or add to it or whatever.
Benning: Dale Benning again. The comments, general requirements and site specific
requirements that are listed here have all been addressed and are incorporated into the
site plan that we have here. We will provide the exact calculations to show the
landscaping and paving and the requirements that follow this. We exceed all those
requirements as it is shown at this time with the only thing that is not indicated on that
plan that would bring us into compliance with the site specific requirements is the non
combustible fence along the back property line by the ditch and that’s if it is not tiled. I
don’t think it will be. I think it’s too big.
MacCoy: Any questions for him at this point?
De Weerd: Just what kind of fence that would be.
Benning: Chain link.
De Weerd: And I see that this road going along your north border, does that then go to
the next property over since Jackson’s owns that as well?
Benning: Oh, yes. That wraps around to the back of their property, yes.
De Weerd: Will that landscaped area also continue over?
Benning: What we have proposed now, it stops right where it’s shown right there.
De Weerd: And that fence would also stop right there? I have nothing further.
MacCoy: All right, thank you. Again does anybody here have any comments in favor of
this project at this moment? Seeing none, is anyone here that’s willing to have any
opposition noticed report? Seeing none, commissioners?
Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman, I move we close the public hearing.
Borup: Just a question for staff. The adjoining properties around that, how much of
that street is annexed at this point?
Stiles: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, if that zoning map we have over there is correct,
this piece Idaho Truck Specialties, Coors, and I believe Albertson’s has all three of
these lots. Those are the only lots within that subdivision that aren’t annexed.
Borup: That are not.
Stiles: Right.
Borup: So where is the contiguous property? That already is up there.
Stiles: And also this is and all of these are and all of these.
Borup: But the property to the north is already annexed.
Stiles: Yes.
Borup: Okay. And the other Jackson’s property is annexed?
Stiles: This lot right here is annexed, yes.
Borup: Thank you.
MacCoy: Any more questions before we close the public hearing or discussion?
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, I move we close the public hearing.
Barbeiro: I second the motion.
MacCoy: Any discussion? None, all right all in favor?