1998 02-10MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 10, 1998
The regular meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission was
called to order by Chairman Jim Johnson at 7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mark Nelson, Byron Smith, Keith Borup.
OTHERS PRESENT: John Prior, Gary Smith, Will Berg, Jodi Fife, Jennifer Bell,
Janet Ford, June Webb, Kasha Lawrence, Wendell Lawrence, Doug Campbell,
Gary Skeen, Dennis Piper, Dean Fife, Mark Lloyd, Gary Smith.
MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING HELD JANUARY 13, 1998:
MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING HELD FEBRUARY 4, 1998:
Johnson: First item on our agenda is to approve the minutes of the meeting held
January 13, 1998. You have the minutes, are there any corrections, deletions or
changes to these minutes as written?
Smith: I have a couple Mr. Chairman. Page five, bottom of the page there's a
typo last paragraph, first line in that paragraph it says one more item, it should
say one more time. And then page thirteen, bottom of the page last paragraph
under Smith it should have stopped or you had discussed and then the next
statement was made by the applicant I believe, one of the applicants, she just
said that they were going to be building a home and she wondered if I had any
objections to her watching some children in that home in fact I think that was one
of the neighbors that said that. Page fifteen, fifth paragraph, under Smith last
sentence, between the words "personally" and "that" there should be "think"
inserted there. It should say "I personally think that is too many". That's all I had
there.
Johnson: Mr. Borup, you had something?
Borup: I think he caught the ones that I'd noticed earlier. Just a couple of quotes
with the wrong person (inaudible) to them. I think that was the ones on the
thirteenth that I was looking at.
Johnson: Anyone else? I'll entertain a motion for approval with corrections then
please.
Smith: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion that we approve these minutes
with the corrections as noted.
Nelson: I'll second that.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
February 10, 1998
Page 2
Johnson: Motion is seconded to approve the minutes as written and corrected.
All in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All aye.
Johnson: Next item is to approve the minutes of the special meeting held
February 4, 1998. Any changes, corrections, deletions to these minutes?
Smith: I have none.
Nelson: I have none.
Borup: I have none.
Borup: Mr. Chairman, I move we approve the minutes of the February 4th
Planning & Zoning special meeting.
Smith: Second.
Johnson: The motion is seconded to approve the minutes for February 4, 1998.
All in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All aye.
Johnson: Before we get into the listed items on the agenda I want to make a
short announcement on a couple of items because some of you might be here
for these particular applications. Items five and six we have a request from the
applicant to withdraw the application, so we won't be hearing that this evening.
That is the Fuller Scott Investment Company and the Meridian Greens
applications. Secondly, we also have a couple of requests, however they're not
from the applicant, for items nine and ten. Nine and Ten is Eagle Partners LLC,
this is the property off Eagle Road near the interchange and the requests are
basically identical in that ACHD and the Idaho Department of Transportation still
have not acted upon or decided the proper location of the site they would want
for traffic signalization there at that busy street. We have noticed the public, if
the public would like to stick around the applicant is also here and has indicated
that they also would like to have this deferred to a later date and at this time if
Ms. Joanne Butler is here we could take that written request. We're doing this in
the interest of time so these are late items on the agenda so people don't have to
wait around unless they want to.
Butler: Thank you Mr. Chairman. Joann Butler, 607 North 8th
Street. I haven't
finished –
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
February 10, 1998
Page 3
Johnson: -- Let me formally open the hearing then if you're going to make a
statement. I thought you had given us something in writing.
Butler: Oh I'm sorry, thank you. And I will give this to you in writing I just had not
finished, but you're correct that we will request a deferral, once again we are
behind ACHD who is hearing this matter tomorrow night. I know Meridian is
trying to get this off their checklist as well but ACHD keeps deferring this to thirty
days plus one, or so it seems in terms of the scheduling. That's a concern for us
because we know it could get into a constant stalemate here with you not having
the information from ACHD. I will make the request that in just talking to one of
the neighbors that has been interested in this project asked that you keep the
public hearing open until a date certain. We'd ask that the Commission actually
have a special meeting in two weeks time to hear public testimony on this matter.
No matter whether ACHD make its input or not we think that ACHD has had
several months to deal with this and has chosen not to get that information to
Meridian. So we would ask for a special meeting in two weeks time. Keep the
public testimony open and I'm sorry I don't that date off hand, and I will put a
written request in.
Johnson: Well two weeks is the twenty -fourth. We can't give you an answer
tonight on that specific date because I need to make sure we have a quorum
there. I know Mr. Berg's going to be gone and – but we could certainly consider
that request.
Butler: Thank you and I will provide this written request as well.
Johnson: Thank you. That was an informal request at this time. We haven't
opened the public hearing yet. We're going to do that but chances are there will
be no presentation and there's no need for anyone to wait around unless they
really want to. Unless you have something that you have to testify on tonight
because you're not going to be here at a later date I can certainly understand
that. Okay back to the regular schedule.
ITEM #1: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR INCLUSION OF A DRIVE THRU WINDOW
ON THE WEST END OF A NEW ADDITION TO EXISTING CHERRY WOOD
RETAIL CENTER BY W. ROY BROWN & RICHARD BROWN – SW CORNER
OF CHERRY LANE AND LINDER ROAD:
Johnson: We have Findings and Facts prepared by the City Attorney. We have
two Findings and Facts prepared and the reason for that is because of what took
place at our last meeting where we voted not to move it forward and didn't follow
proper procedure because we still need to make a recommendation to the City.
Is that a pretty accurate explanation Mr. Prior?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
February 10, 1998
Page 4
Prior: That is.
Johnson: So what is your pleasure with the prepared Findings of Fact that we
now have before us?
Nelson: I have a question for you Mr. Chairman. As I was not here last month
apparently this issue is met with some debate I guess it is safe to say. So now
we have two to choose from and then we have to pick which one we want to go
through, approval or denial, but my question is from the P & Z standpoint are we
looking for reason not to approve an item or reason to approve? Does that make
sense?
Johnson: Yes that makes sense, I don't know if I can answer that. I think the
reason two are prepared, and the City Attorney can help me out on this, is
because we have a different make-up tonight on the Commission than we had
the other night, and our vote was two to one and we didn't go through the proper
procedure of proceeding with recommendations to the City, and even if we do
that tonight we still have to give a recommendation to the City. The Findings of
Fact and Conclusions that have been prepared are virtually identical, is that not
true?
Prior: That is correct, and just for a clarification in your own mind and for some
of the other folks out there, the Conditional Use Permit – this is just a preliminary
step at this point – what the P & Z Commission will do is they will either approve
the Findings of Fact and there will be a recommendation with each of the
Findings of Fact and whether that's a recommendation to approve your
Conditional Use Permit or deny your Conditional Use Permit the next step it goes
to is City Council where there will be another opportunity for more testimony and
some of you folks who have submitted letters to the City Attorney's office. Those
letters would not be part of the public record and they cannot be considered with
this Conditional Use Permit. They can be considered by the City Council and
they will be forwarded to the City Council, but at this point we're just looking for
the Commission – you would just vote for an approval or a denial of the Findings
of Fact and whether you are going to make a specific recommendation to the
City Council. Does that clarify anything for you or not?
Johnson: That helps me, does that help you?
Nelson: Yes, thank you.
Johnson: Any further discussion?
Borup: Yes Mr. Chairman. I think we – I got maybe a little different feeling than
Commissioner Smith but I wonder if it may save some time with a little bit of
discussion. I'm not completely comfortable with the whole thing. My (inaudible)
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
February 10, 1998
Page 5
to approve it with some specific conditions. But if it looks like that's not going to
pass then I would opt to defer that and continue on. Or, is the proper method to
go ahead and make the motion and see what happens?
Nelson: Well from what I heard in the previous meeting, previous to the last -- I
guess our January meeting -- December meeting -- my personal opinion is to
deny but if I lived in the area I would like to have an ice cream facility there and
it's just that I don't think the neighborhood real open to that and also it appears to
me that it's almost an afterthought in the whole design of the area. They
developed that entire commercial area with a drive- thru and all that in mind I
think it would be a much smoother thing so to me it just seems like kind of an
afterthought and that the stacking just isn't quite there.
Borup: Well they could redesign the building with the drive-thru window in the
back and allow for stacking, I mean that's their choice.
Nelson: And that may prove to be wrong, I didn’t have quite the concern on the
stacking, my concern was on the noise communication system. The information
we have looks like – it may need to be reviewed by an engineer – but it looks like
that is not necessarily a problem. My other concern was the buffering with the
drive-thru going through there I felt maybe it needed some additional buffering
fence that what is presently on site. The applicant made reference to a letter that
he wrote to the City saying they wouldn't approve that but I've not been able to
find a copy of that letter so that doesn't really help us a lot. But that would be the
conditions – my tendency would be to approve it with some conditions on the
speaker system and the buffering and the other could be I guess add some
additional (inaudible) on the stacking which would mean a redesign of the layout.
Prior: Just for a clarification, the Commission needs to keep in mind that any
changes that they make or any conditions that they set are not deemed as
material changes in the design that was submitted by the applicant. You're within
your powers to set conditions at these folks or any Conditional Use Permit has to
follow in order to be granted a Conditional Use Permit but you have to be careful
that some of the conditions you set are not deemed material changes in the
design that was submitted by the applicant because that would be something
that he/she may not have taken into consideration in proposing their plans to the
Commission. So as far putting a drive-thru on the back of the building I would
deem that a material change. Adding considerable buffering, some of the other
things that you folks have spoken of may not be deemed material change but
you really need to be careful.
Johnson: Well, the material changes occur from time to time and when they do
it's just going back and starting over and those material changes that I'm most
familiar with occur at the City Council level and at that time the City Council
requests a new Findings of Fact Conclusions of Law as a result of that.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
February 10, 1998
Page 6
Sometimes that's the only process left available to you is to start over with the –
if there are material changes, is you have to take additional testimony pertinent
to those changes, and that's what you're saying basically.
Prior: That's correct.
Johnson: Any further discussion?
Borup: Let me just get clarification from Commissioner Nelson. Are your feeling
still the (inaudible) same?
Nelson: Most of the buffering is the fencing and in this case the – it's not so much
that the drive-thru concept bothers me – but like the fencing and all that, at this
time that's owned and maintained by the neighborhood who really needs to be
protected. Whereas if this was a development up front where they paid for all
that and they were maintaining it and I don't know I guess I could be swayed
either way but my tendency is nay.
Smith: Mr. Chairman I might just add my thoughts for benefit of Commissioner
Nelson. I am concerned about the stacking. I am concerned about the vehicular
circulation on the site. I'm not against the concept of a drive-thru or the
expansion of this retail function at this site. However I just don't feel that site as
designed is a good design and it has some safety concerns for me and that is
the reason for my citing on the cite of a denial so that's about it for me.
Johnson: Okay we need to bear in mind that everything is really in place legally,
that the only thing we're looking at here is a Conditional Use request for a drive-
thru window. Some of the other things that were brought up in the meeting are
important but they're really not relevant.
Borup: So are we ready for a motion?
Smith: Mr. Chairman, I don't know how I'm going to make the motion. I'd like to
make a motion that the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby
adopts and approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions which make a
recommendation to deny their Conditional Use Permit.
Nelson: Second.
Johnson: We have a motion by Commissioner Smith and is seconded by
Commissioner Nelson to conclude in accordance with the Findings of Fact that
the application for Conditional Use Permit be denied. Roll call vote on that
please.
ROLL CALL VOTE: Borup – yea, McCoy – absent, Smith – yea, Nelson – yea.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
February 10, 1998
Page 7
MOTION CARRIED: All yea.
Johnson: Is there a decision recommendation you wish to pass on to the City of
Meridian?
Smith: Mr. Chairman, the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby
recommends to the City Council of the City of Meridian that it deny the
Conditional Use Permit requested by the applicant for the property described in
the application however should the application be approved the applicant shall
satisfy 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 water and sewer requirements, the fire and
life safety codes, uniform fire code, parking requirements, and the paving and
landscaping requirements and all ordinances of the City of Meridian. The
Conditional Use should be subject to review upon notice to the applicant by the
City.
Nelson: Second.
Johnson: We have a motion and a second to pass recommendation on to the
City Council stated by Commissioner Smith. All in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All aye
ITEM #2: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT FOR A RETAIL SHOPPING CENTER BY TOM BEVAN – 2030 W.
FAIRVIEW AVENUE:
Johnson: This is a continued public hearing, so the public hearing is opened. If
the applicant here would like to address the Commission at this time, state your
name please.
Bevan: Tom Bevan.
Johnson: I can't recall Tom whether you were sworn last time or not but we need
to do that if you weren't.
Prior: Sir would you just state your name and spell your last name for the record.
Bevan: Tom Bevan, 4202 North Marcliffe, Boise.
Prior: Would you raise your hand. Do you promise, swear or affirm that the
testimony you give will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
February 10, 1998
Page 8
Bevan: Yes.
Prior: Proceed sir.
Bevan: Thank you. Good evening Commissioners, I would like to request that
this part of the hearing be continued until next month. We have almost all of our
items finished but we didn't get them to you in time so I'm sure we can do it at the
next meeting if that would be agreeable to you.
Johnson: Okay thank you. Any questions of Mr. Bevan?
Borup: Yes Mr. Chairman. I was just curious on what additional items that you're
still working on. On a new site layout, or on the building designs or –
Bevan: Yes. We changed the design once and then we were talking with a cross
agreement with our neighbor the Econo Lube and the auto parts store and as we
talked to them we came to the conclusion that working with them I think we can
open up the area a little more and maybe get rid of some of the stuff in between
us so it flows a little better. So we're a little late in getting an agreement with
them which we now have, well conceptually anyway, nothing in writing, but then
their design people and our design people kind of got together and we
redesigned it. So that's what we're working on now.
Borup: Okay that makes sense, thank you.
Johnson: Anyone else?
Smith: Just a comment. Mr. Bevan I'd just like to commend you on working with
your neighbors and coming up with a better design solution, I think that's
commendable.
Bevan: Thank you Commissioner.
Johnson: Okay this is a public hearing, is there anyone else that would like to
address the Commission on this application? Seeing no one then I'll entertain a
motion for continuing this public hearing to a date certain, our next meeting
would be March 10th
.
Borup: Mr. Chairman, I move that we continue this public hearing to our next
regular meeting on March 10th
.
Nelson: Second.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
February 10, 1998
Page 9
Johnson: We have a motion and a second to continue the hearing by Mr. Tom
Bevan until our next scheduled meeting of March 10, 1998. All in favor?
Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All aye.
Johnson: Do you have a question Mr. Bevan?
Bevan: No.
Johnson: Okay, alright thank you.
ITEM #3: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR REQUEST
FOR A REZONE OF .36 ACRES FROM R-4 TO L-O BY KEITH & CATHY
THURGOOD – 236 W. CHERRY LANE:
Johnson: You have the Findings of Facts before you, is there any further
discussion, any corrections or deletions?
Nelson: I have none.
Smith: Mr. Chairman, page three item seven. It's a little confusing how it was
written. I'm just going to read it: Commissioner Smith noted the Thurgood's plan
on residing in a portion of the building on a temporary basis. Commissioner
Smith wanted to know how long they anticipate residing in the building, Mr.
Thurgood noted within a year to a year and a half. I don't know if that means they
plan on leaving within a year to a year and a half but it's not written that way.
Johnson: I think they were talking about using it as a residence, is the way I
remember that conversation. Isn't that the way you remember it?
Smith: That's the way I remember it, just the way the last sentence is worded it
should probably be reworded to say something like "Mr. Thurgood noted that
they would be moving within a year to a year and a half" and I would like the
Findings changed to reflect that.
Borup: I'll second that.
Johnson: Do we have a motion for approval with those changes or are we
through with our discussion?
Smith: Mr. Chairman the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of the City
of Meridian hereby adopts and approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions
as corrected.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
February 10, 1998
Page 10
Borup: Second.
Johnson: Motion is seconded to approve the Findings with the corrections so
stated. Roll call vote:
ROLL CALL VOTE: Borup – yea, Smith – yea, Nelson – yea, McCoy – absent.
MOTION CARRIED: All yea.
Johnson: Recommendations for the City Council gentlemen?
Smith: Mr. Chairman, the Meridian City Planning and Zoning Commission hereby
recommends approval of this rezone requested by the applicant for the property
described in the application with the conditions set forth in these Findings of Fact
and Conclusions of Law and that the property be required to meet the water and
sewer requirements, the fire and life safety codes, the uniform building code and
other ordinances of the City of Meridian including that all parking areas shall be
paved.
Nelson: Second.
Johnson: The motion is seconded to pass that recommendation on to the City
Council as stated by Commissioner Smith. All in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All aye.
ITEM #4: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONLCUSIONS OF LAW FOR REQUEST
FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A DAY CARE CENTER BY JODI
FIFE – LOT 33, BLOCK 4 OF BEDFORD PLACE SUBDIVISION NO. 2:
Johnson: Discussion regarding the Findings of Fact as prepared by our City
Attorney.
Nelson: I have a question Mr. Chairman. Once again since I wasn't here last
month, it looks like these Findings of Fact recommends a denial.
Johnson: As prepared they do.
Nelson: It's my personal preference to recommend day cares in neighborhoods
and it also looked like the day care in question had a good schedule since I do
have kids in these age groups. One thing I didn't notice that the age groups were
really defined as to how many of which, and I didn’t notice exactly how infants
were separated from the others. I guess my question is a comment from the
group as to why this was denial outside of just the total number of kids they were
going to have there, was that the main problem?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
February 10, 1998
Page 11
Borup: For me it is.
Nelson: Because that was the only real issue I saw is I wouldn't mind at all
having a day care next to my home but the comments by some of the other
people that spoke that a home day care not necessarily a commercial enterprise.
My question is what is a good recommendation to someone who might want to
revise this in the future, as far as numbers?
Prior: You need to keep in mind that under our Planning and Zoning Ordinance
there are three classifications and those are available to all the folks if they want
to look at the classifications and what constitutes a particular type of child care
business. There's day care centers, child care centers, group childcare centers,
and there's three classifications, basically the only criteria is the number of
children in each. As the Findings of Fact illustrate there are some issues with the
Comprehensive Plan and there are some issues with our Planning and Zoning
Ordinance. Those are all things that were taken into consideration in the
Findings of Fact and obviously you've read all of those. That is the basic criteria
however but not the only criteria.
Nelson: Okay, thank you.
Borup: Mr. Chairman, I address Commissioner Nelson's comments. My initial
inclination was to approve it again. I think that's something necessary in a
residential neighborhood but I think the concern with most of those who testified
was the number of children. And my inclination still would probably be towards
approval except for the fact that the applicant, and Commissioner Johnson
pointed this out, but it's in at least three different situations stated that they have
no intention of having more than twelve children. They seemed to state that quite
strongly and if they don't plan on doing that and don't want to do that I'm not sure
why the approval needs to be to do that. If they had stated more strongly that
they felt to have a reliable business that it was necessary or something along
that line then – that's kind of my dilemma a little bit. I don't know that we have an
option of -- their application was for thirteen or more – I don't know that we have
– I don’t think we do, and maybe I need to get some clarification on that, do we
have the option of approving it with the maximum twelve, or do they need to
reapply?
Johnson: Well the application is for over thirteen, thirteen to twenty-four, and I
think we have to address the application.
Borup: As written.
Johnson: I don't think we can materially change their application with a condition
limited to twelve. Maybe that doesn't suite their business needs so they may
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
February 10, 1998
Page 12
want to relocate somewhere else. That's my personal opinion, we shouldn’t be
doing that. What do you think Mr. Prior?
Prior: No, that would constitute especially under our Planning and Zoning
Ordinance there are three classifications for day care centers. That would
constitute a material change. The testimony was clear that it would be between
thirteen and twenty-four, that's what the applicant submitted. We have to follow
the application. We have to take a vote on that application. It's absolutely
important that we do that. If it's going to be approved, it's going to be approved
for thirteen to twenty-four children. If it does not get approved and the applicant
wishes to make any changes that's their option to make those changes.
Nelson: Well then, I don't know if the applicant is here or not but –
Prior: They're present.
Nelson: I would encourage them to try again with a reduced number. Then
there's no further comment. Motion to approve the Finding of Fact and
Conclusions of Law to Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts
and approves these Findings and Conclusions of Law.
Smith: Second.
Johnson: We have a motion to approve these Findings of Fact and Conclusions
of Law as prepared by our City Attorney. This is a roll call vote:
ROLL CALL VOTE: Commissioner Borup – yea, Commissioner Smith – yea,
Commissioner Nelson – yea, Commissioner McCoy – absent.
MOTION CARRIED: All yea.
Johnson: Is there a decision or recommendation to forward to the City Council?
Nelson: Mr. Chairman, the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby
recommends to the City Council of the City of Meridian that they deny the
conditional use permit requested by the applicant for the property described in
the application.
Smith: Second.
Johnson: The motion is seconded to pass a recommendation of denial on to the
City Council. All in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All aye.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
February 10, 1998
Page 13
ITEM #5: TABLED JANUARY 13, 1998: REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT
FOR MERIDIAN GREENS UNIT NO. 4, 20 LOTS BY FULLER SCOTT
INVESTMENT CO. – NE OF MERIDIAN GREENS UNIT NO. 1:
ITEM #6: TABLED JANUARY 13, 1998: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR MERIDIAN GREENS
UNIT NO. 4 BY FULLER SCOTT INVESTMENT CO. – NE OF MERIDIAN
GREENS UNIT NO. 1:
Johnson: Item numbers five and six are withdrawn to repeat my earlier
statement, by the applicant. And we have a letter to that affect which is part of
the record. The letter comes from Don Carnahan who's a public engineer
addressed to Shari Stiles Planning and Zoning Administrator on behalf of Fuller
Scott Investment Company for the Meridian Greens Unit No. 4 we would like to
withdraw the application for the referenced projects sincerely that's the extent of
the letter. We'll move on to item number seven. Do we need to take any other
action on that or is that sufficient?
Prior: In regards to item number five –
Johnson: -- should we have a motion to accept the application withdrawal or that
necessary?
Prior: I don't think that's necessary.
ITEM #7: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR REQUEST
FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
BY STEINER DEVELOPMENT – NW OF CHERRY LANE VILLAGE NO. 1:
Johnson: You have these Findings of Fact before you, are there any comments,
any corrections, deletions or additions to the Findings of Fact as prepared by the
City Attorney? No one has any comments, perhaps someone has a motion?
Smith: Mr. Chairman, the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby
adopts and approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions. I'd like to make a
motion to that affect.
Prior: Just a point of order, we need to make a motion.
Smith: I'd like to make a motion that the Meridian Planning and Zoning
Commission hereby adopts and approves these Findings of Fact and
Conclusions.
Nelson: Second.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
February 10, 1998
Page 14
Johnson: We have a motion and a second to approve the Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law as prepared by our City Attorney.
ROLL CALL VOTE: Commissioner Borup – aye, Commissioner McCoy – absent,
Commissioner Smith – aye, Commissioner Nelson – aye.
MOTION CARRIED: All aye.
Johnson: Recommendations for the City Council.
Smith: Mr. Chairman, the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby
recommends to the City Council of the City of Meridian that it approve the
Conditional Use Permit requested by the applicant for the property described in
the application. The applicant shall satisfy 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
water and sewer requirements, the fire and life safety codes, uniform fire code,
parking requirements and the paving and landscape requirements and all
ordinances of the City of Meridian. The conditional use should be subject to
review upon notice to the applicant by the City.
Borup: Second.
Johnson: Motion is second, pass that recommendation on as read by
Commissioner Smith to the City Council. All in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All aye.
ITEM #8: TABLED JANUARY 13, 1998: REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT,
48 LOTS FOR THE VILLAS AT THE LAKES SUBDIVISION BY STEINER
DEVELOPMENT – NW OF CHERRY LANE VILLAGE NO. 1:
Johnson: This is a preliminary plat and does not require Findings and Fact but
requires a recommendation. -- Yes it was tabled because we had to deal with
item number seven, which we've just done.
Smith: Mr. Chairman I'd like to make a motion that we recommend approval of
this preliminary plat to the City Council.
Borup: Second.
Johnson: Motion is second to approve the preliminary plat for item number eight.
All in Favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All aye.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
February 10, 1998
Page 15
ITEM #9: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND
ZONING OF 4.13 ACRES TO C-G BY EAGLE PARTNERS LLC – NW CORNER
OF EAGLE ROAD AND MAGIC VIEW DRIVE.
Johnson: I will now officially continue the public hearing which is still open on
item number nine and ask if anyone here in the audience would like to testify on
that. We have requests from the applicant and two interested parties to defer this
until ACHD comes forward with a recommendation for traffic signalization. Is
there anyone here on this application? Yes sir, you need to be sworn, as it is a
continued public hearing.
Prior: Sir will you state your name and address and spell your last name for the
record please.
Skeen: Gary Skeen, 333 N. 13th
.
Prior: Do you promise, swear or affirm the testimony you give will be the truth,
the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Skeen: Yes.
Prior: Proceed Sir.
Skeen: Good evening, I represent Idaho Power Federal Credit Union we're one
of the applicants on the property, we'd like you to consider the rezoning and
annexation of the property and the joint development with Eagle Partners. I'm not
sure where the rest of our group is this evening.
Johnson: Well I may have run them off when I prefaced the meeting with the fact
that we probably wouldn’t be acting on it this evening. They'll have ample
opportunity at our next meeting – we may have a special meeting if it fits into the
time schedule to handle this specific item because it is one of several interests.
Skeen: Yes I know there are several parties involved.
Johnson: We just don't feel as a Commission that we can do a lot on it until we
find out where the lights in the streets are going to be. That's kind of key central
to the whole issue and it's out of our control since we have no control over the
streets and highways.
Skeen: And that's controlled by ACHD, right?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
February 10, 1998
Page 16
Johnson: ACHD has to work in conjunction with the Idaho Department or
Transportation to determine the site location for the traffic light. It's a state
highway.
Skeen: Okay that's all I have gentlemen.
Johnson: Okay, any questions?
Borup: Yes Mr. Chairman. I assume I'm going to have a chance for further but –
is the credit union of an interest to continue even if the Chevron station did not
continue, would the credit union be looking at going ahead or is that strictly a
joint development situation?
Skeen: I'm not really sure, possibly, possible not. We're controlled by a Board of
Directors and the Board of Directors really would determine whether or not we
would proceed with it.
Borup: Okay, thank you.
Johnson: Okay thanks very much. Is there anyone else? Seeing no one then, I'll
entertain a motion to continue this to a further date. I don't know if we're
prepared tonight to come up with a special meeting date, it's kind of up to you
guys.
Borup: Yes, Mr. Chairman that's one question –
Johnson: -- We can always change that later.
Borup: It sounded earlier like the applicant was interested in a date certain no
matter what the outcome of ACHD. My question was if ACHD does not make a
decision is it going to gain anything by having a special meeting?
Johnson: Well, obviously not. I'm sure that what – and I don't mean to put words
in our mouth – but I think what she was thinking is that a determination would be
made by then.
Borup: Right, that was what I initially thought and then I –
Johnson: Otherwise I can't see where it would be any different than this evening.
Borup: Can we make a dual motion then? I mean something – or can we discuss
right now if we're available in two weeks?
Johnson: Well we could do that. I think probably the proper thing to do is defer it
till our next regularly scheduled meeting and wait for a formal request to have a
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
February 10, 1998
Page 17
special meeting. Our special meetings for the most part, I don't recall any that
weren't, are responses to requests by applicants so that the process moves
forward. And that's what we have done as recently as the one for the City of
Meridian and the Plumber's Union.
Borup: Right, and that was a time factor. Here does not look like that may not
necessarily be the case.
Johnson: That's absolutely correct.
Borup: I move we continue the public hearing to our next regularly scheduled
meeting on March 10th
.
Smith: Second.
Johnson: I didn't get all that -- but it was a motion and a second to continue until
March 10th
. When we pick a date certain like that what it does is it does not make
it necessary for us to re-notice it and that's why we want to do it to a date certain,
so we have a motion and a second to defer it until March 10th
. All in favor of that
motion?
Borup: Not to defer but to continue? Isn't that what we're –
Johnson: -- Continue – till March 10, 1998.
MOTION CARRIED: All aye.
ITEM #10: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT FOR A CHEVRON C-STORE, MCDONALDS W/DRIVE UP
WINDOW AND IDAHO POWER COMPANY CREDIT UNION W/DRIVE-UP
BANKING BYEAGLE PARTNERS LLC – NW CORNER OF EAGLE ROAD AND
MAGIC VIEW DRIVE.
Johnson: Now continue this public hearing. Is there anyone here that would like
to comment from the public regarding this hearing? If not then I would
recommend that we take similar action on item number ten that we did with item
number nine.
Nelson: Mr. Chairman, I would like to motion that we continue the public hearing
until our regular scheduled meeting on March 10th
.
Smith: Second.
Johnson: Motion is second to continue this public hearing until March 10, 1998.
All in favor? Opposed?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
February 10, 1998
Page 18
MOTION CARRIED: All aye.
ITEM #11: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
FOR A FULL SERVICE RESTAURANT BY TRIPLE T INC. d/b/a SMOKEY
MOUNTAIN PIZZA & PASTA – NE ¼ NW ¼ SECTION 7, T.3N.,R1E:
Johnson: I'll now open this public hearing and invite the applicant or the
applicants represented to be sworn and come before the Commission.
Prior: Sir would you state your name and address?
Michener: Roger Michener, 2000 Mountain Cove Road, Boise.
Prior: And would you spell your last name for the record please.
Michener: Michener.
Prior: Do you promise, swear or affirm that the testimony you give will be the
truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Michener: Yes.
Prior: Proceed sir.
Johnson: If you just briefly want to tell us what you've got planned. I understand
there might be a change in the tenant.
Michener: Yes that's a possibility. We haven't finalized our lease with Smokey
Mountain – (end of tape) – whether they'll end up being the occupant we are
negotiating with two other very similar operations. Pete's Sandwich Shops and
uh – so we would like to proceed with the application if possible even though we
don’t have anything finalized with Smokey Mountain.
Johnson: Anything further? -- We probably have some questions though.
Michener: -- answer questions I guess.
Johnson: Questions from the Commissioners?
Nelson: Were there any staff comments prepared on this?
Johnson: Yes there are. There's a letter from Bruce Freckleton, Assistant City
Engineer, that's quite extensive dated February 4th
.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
February 10, 1998
Page 19
Borup: I did not get that in my packet.
Smith: Nor did I.
Johnson: I have a copy there. There's six items, perhaps Mr. Michener has seen
that letter.
Michener: I have not seen it either.
Johnson: You haven't seen it either.
Borup: One of the reasons I ask I wanted (inaudible) My only concern with what
information I had was parking and I didn't know if that was reviewed in light of the
type of business going in. – I mean has the landlord or talking with them was that
reviewed at all with the –
Johnson: -- Keith I can't answer whether –
Michener: As far as I know it was, it was my understanding that it was deemed to
be adequate.
Borup: Well by Meridian City parking standards or by what would be reasonable
for a restaurant of this type? That was really my question. And the other thing
that might be pertinent is hours of operation from adjoining businesses. If it's
daytime usage then nighttime there would be plenty of parking.
Michener: I'm sure right now that that will be the case because I do know who
the next door tenant is.
Borup: You say you do?
Michener: We do right now it's a finance company so I'm sure they'll be daytime
only. But the balance of the strip is not leased. I'm an owner of the project and I
can tell you that it certainly doesn't (inaudible) of anybody to get a tenant mix that
creates a losing situation. So we are cognizant of it and it's a good point. I think
our parking exceeds the requirements right now and in fact I think they're eleven
foot wide parking spaces considerable wider than are required, we have no
compact parking spaces on the site.
Borup: My plat is showing nine and ten (inaudible) the building.
The width of them?
Borup: Yes. In fact it's showing –
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
February 10, 1998
Page 20
Smith: -- It shows two compact spaces.
Borup: Everything I see is ten feet.
Michener: Yeah, they vary.
Johnson: It shows two compact unless you've changed that design.
Michener: I wasn't aware of any compact but there might be –
Borup: -- Well there's a couple where the sidewalk jutted out, so they're
compacted because of depth not the width.
Johnson: Do you have anything with respect to construction materials or what
the building will actually look like?
Michener: Yeah, that all was – we have, you know it's under construction, it's
going to be a stucco –
Johnson: -- That's right we have that, I do recall that.
Borup: We've gone through this before, this is conditional use because of the
restaurant.
Johnson: We're already doing a conditional, that's true, that's my error.
(Inaudible)
Johnson: I guess the question then I would have is Smokey Mountain Pizza it
doesn't become the applicant, we're not looking at any material change in
anything because it might be a different applicant, does that kind of conclude that
or not?
Michener: I can give you my word on that, we'll come back if there's a substantial
change and we can clarify that with anybody, you personally, or anybody else I
guess, Shari or whoever you want to.
Johnson: I was really hoping you'd get them in here I like their food.
Michener: We were too, we still might but –
Prior: I think it would help just in regards to your concern about a material
change, you're able to narrow this down to three or four tenants that are
prospective tenants in this building, is that right?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
February 10, 1998
Page 21
Michener: Well, I don't know if I'd like to name the tenants right now –
Prior: -- I'm not asking you to name them but you have three or four prospective
tenants that are food related tenants?
Michener: Yes very similar, not well I don't know if you'd call Smokey Mountain
fast food or not but no drive-in windows or drive-up or anything like that.
Prior: No fast food restaurants or anything like that?
Michener: Well that's what I would call fast food, right, none of those. Everybody
we're talking to now is of the pizza or sandwich, sit down sandwich type --
Prior: -- Sit down sandwich?
Michener: Well again, they'll have seating inside, yes.
Johnson: Anyone else have any questions for Mr. Michener? (none) Okay thank
you very much. This is a public hearing, anyone else that would like to address
the Commission at this time? Not even you Norm? Norm Crosby, that was a joke.
Okay at this time I'll close the public hearing. This is an application that requires
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.
Borup: Mr. Chairman, I move the City Attorney prepares Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law on this application.
Smith: Second.
Johnson: That motion is second to have the City Attorney prepare Findings of
Fact and Conclusions of Law on conditional use permit item number eleven. All
in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All aye.
Johnson: Well gentlemen, since we deferred a lot of things we're through early.
Any further motions?
Nelson: I motion to adjourn.
Smith: Second.
Johnson: We have a motion and second to adjourn for this evening. All in favor?
Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All aye.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
February 10, 1998
Page 22
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 7:57 P.M.
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
APPROVED:
JIM JOHNSON, CHAIRMAN
ATTEST:
____
WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CITY CLERK