1998 06-09MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING JUNE 9, 1998
The regular meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission was
called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Malcolm MacCoy.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Malcolm MacCoy, Byron Smith, Mark Nelson, Tammy de
Weerd.
OTHERS PRESENT: John Prior, Shari Stiles, Bruce Freckleton, Will Berg,Wendy
Huckabay, Boyd Huckabay, Amy Gillum, Marshall Williams, Elaine Estacio,
Wayne Forrey.
MacCoy: It's now 7:00, good evening to you. Last month, the month of May, our
Chairman for the Planning and Zoning retired from that slot after many years of
sitting up here so this evening we're going to have to do some homework, some
business at hand before we get into the actual agenda. We're going to have to
among ourselves up here, elect in open public a temporary chairman for this
evening, I open now for a proposal.
Nelson: I'd like to make a motion that we elect Malcolm for temporary chairman
for tonight's meeting.
de Weerd: I would second that.
MacCoy: Any other motions?
Smith: There's been a motion and a second.
MacCoy: Okay, all in favor of, I guess. Any discussions?
Smith: What are we going to do next week?
MacCoy: Alright the plan is that we pick a temporary chairman for this evening
and next week on Wednesday night we have another Planning and Zoning
meeting and that night our absent member Mr. Borup will be back with us, we will
have a full house that night and we'll vote for the permanent chairman that night.
No discussions?
Nelson: No further discussion.
MacCoy: All in favor? All opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: 2 ayes, 1 abstain.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JUNE 9, 1998
PAGE 2
MacCoy: So I guess I'll continue this evening and we'll conduct this evening's
meeting. First order of this evening's meeting is the minutes of the previous
meeting from May 12th
. Any changes to the meeting minutes?
Smith: I have none.
Nelson: I have none.
MacCoy: Do you have any?
de Weerd: No, I don't have any.
Smith: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion that we approve these minutes
as written.
MacCoy: Do I have a second?
Nelson: Second.
MacCoy: Meeting minutes will stand as read and printed, thank you very much.
Do you want to vote on this?
Smith: Yes.
Nelson: Yes.
MacCoy: Okay take a vote. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: All aye.
MacCoy: Okay meeting's approved, thank you. Before we get into the actual
items I have a memo from our Attorney who has made the motion that because
we're missing some material, that item numbers 10 & 11 will be postpones until
the Wednesday next week the 17th
meeting, at that time we'll conduct that as we
would have tonight so any of you here to take care of business along that line
are free to leave if you want to or stay around for the rest of the evening.
ITEM #1: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION
AND ZONING OF 36.71 ACRES TO R-4 FOR WILKINS RANCH AT THE LAKES
SUBDIVISION BY STEINER DEVELOPMENT LLC – EAST OF BLACK
CAT/USTICK INTERSECTION AND SOUTH OF USTICK ROAD:
MacCoy: Do we have anybody here representing that body to come forward and
speak?
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JUNE 9, 1998
PAGE 3
Bradbury: Mr. Chairman, my name is Steve Bradbury, I'm representing Steiner
Development tonight. I was just chatting with Mr. Campbell –
Prior: Steve, why don't we start off with –
Bradbury: Before we do that part, we were just chatting and caught onto the fact
that you folks have another meeting scheduled for next week and we met with
Shari just before the meeting here and she reminded us that we had not
provided written responses to the staff comments prior to tonight's meeting and
thought that perhaps since you had another meeting scheduled for next week
that we could solve that problem if we could just have a continuance for this one
week, get those responses back before the end of this week and be prepared to
hold these – continue the hearing on that night. I'd like to propose that for –
Prior: Mr. Chairman, maybe we'd ought to ask the City Clerk if there's a – what
the schedule for the 17th
looks like.
MacCoy: Right.
Prior: As wonderful as this schedule I would imagine.
Berg: The original schedule was five different projects that consisted of seven or
eight public hearings and it was just all public hearings at this time until you table
or continue some of these other things for that meeting.
MacCoy: (Inaudible)
Berg: Yes, you did.
Prior: Mr. Chairman, if I could make one more inquiry of Shari Stiles. I noted in
reading the comments and doing my homework prior to the meeting that item
#24 on your specific comments referred to the status of this particular project, is
that something that you would consider constitutes a material change in the
project or would constitute a material change if those items are addressed Shari?
I believe it was item #24.
Stiles: Chairman, Commissioners, Mr. Prior, you're talking about the numerous
issues involved and the changes that are required. We did receive a new plat, I
got it yesterday, I believe it was submitted Friday and I think that the changes
that are required are significant changes, the new plat that we received doesn't
incorporate those changes, we're still going on what our report says from ACHD
and I don't see that those items have been addressed yet.
Prior: And I would imagine Mr. Chairman if I may speak?
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JUNE 9, 1998
PAGE 4
MacCoy: Yes.
Prior: I'm going to anyway. I guess the applicant has a number of choices,
either he can re-submit or if it's up to the Zoning Commission's – it's up to your –
it's your choice, you can either tell him he's going to have to re-submit or we
continue this public hearing until the next available meeting in order for those
items and those things to be addressed. Obviously Mr. Bradbury can offer his
input as well, obviously he's made it clear he has a preference for the 17th
if I
understand him correctly?
Bradbury: Right, yeah that's right. I can tell you a little bit about what – you do
have a revised plat –
Prior: Steve, if we're going to get into the testimony of it we're going to – we're
holding a lot of these folks up and I don't want to drag this thing on. I think if we
can just make a decision one way or the other that would probably expedite
things a little bit.
Bradbury: I thought you asked me to respond?
Prior: Well, all it is that I want a response on is your preference the 17th
or do
you want us to – would that be your preference?
Bradbury: It would.
MacCoy: Since we have continued the public hearing we make a final decision,
is there anybody here from the public that would like to make a statement at this
time or would they want to wait till a later time, we're going to look for to continue
this hearing on the Wednesday, June 17th
, if you care to just hold all that time
that would be fine but I give you a chance to speak now if you want to for the
record. I don't see anybody. Okay, then I'll turn to the Commission, what is your
decision?
Smith: Mr. Bradbury, can you address all these comments by next Wednesday?
Bradbury: I believe we can, sure.
Smith: Okay then I'd like to make a motion that we table these – where's my
agenda items – that we continue this public hearing on items #1, 2 and 3 for
Steiner Development until our June17th meeting.
MacCoy: Do we here a second?
de Weerd: Second.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JUNE 9, 1998
PAGE 5
MacCoy: It's been moved and seconded, do you have any discussion among
the commissioners?
de Weerd: I have none.
Smith: Nope.
Nelson: I have none.
MacCoy: All in favor of the motion that was made by Commissioner Smith?
MOTION CARRIED: All aye.
MacCoy: Everything will be continued on Wednesday May 17th
. John, we did
this at 1, 2, & 3 as Commissioner Smith mentioned, can we leave it this way?
Prior: Basically what's going to happen is we're going to consider the annexation
and – as with any application, we're going to consider the annexation and zoning
first and then after we consider the annexation and the conditional use we'll
consider the preliminary plat at a following meeting, that's generally the policy
that we go by.
MacCoy: That's correct, I was wondering about a second and a third vote so to
speak for items #2 and 3 or can we –
Prior: Well I think you probably ought to go through items #2 and 3 and just kind
of move it along, that would be appropriate.
MacCoy: Okay, that would be legally correct, thank you. Okay, could I have a –
ITEM #2: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY
PLAT FOR WILKINS RANCH AT THE LAKES SUBDIVISION (260 LOTS ON
51.88 ACRES) BY STEINER DEVELOPMENT LLC – EAST OF BLACK
CAT/USTICK INTERSECTION AND SOUTH OF USTICK ROAD:
Nelson: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion that we continue the public
hearing for item #2, the request for preliminary plat for The Wilkins Ranch at the
Lakes until –
Smith: Second.
Nelson: Thanks.
MacCoy: Any discussion?
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JUNE 9, 1998
PAGE 6
Nelson: I have none.
de Weerd: None.
MacCoy: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: All aye
ITEM #3: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT FOR A PLANNED USE DEVELOPMENT FOR WILKINS RANCH
AT THE LAKES SUBDIVISION BY STEINER DEVELOPMENT LLC – EAST OF
BLACK CAT/USTICK INTERSECTION AND SOUTH OF USTICK ROAD:
Nelson: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion that we continue public hearing
for item #3 until our next scheduled meeting Wednesday the 17th
.
Smith: Second.
MacCoy: Any discussion?
de Weerd: I have none.
Smith: None.
MacCoy: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: All aye.
MacCoy: We'll continue the public hearings on all three items on May 17th
.
ITEM #4: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: REQUEST
FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF 4.13 ACRES TO C-G BY EAGLE
PARTNERS LLC:
MacCoy: Is a representative here from Eagle Partners? Not yet we don't, okay.
Commissioner's do you have any comments on what was written?
Smith: Mr. Chairman, I have a number of comments.
MacCoy: Alright, go ahead.
Smith: My first question actually, clarification, Mr. Prior, there was some
discussion earlier about the applicant's non-compliance in his existing facilities
and there was some question as to whether or not those non-conforming uses
were whether we had any kind of stick to hold over the applicant on this project
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JUNE 9, 1998
PAGE 7
based on his non-compliance on other projects within the City's jurisdiction. Is
that in fact true or –
Prior: Under our subdivision zoning ordinance, I believe it's 11-9-613E but don't
hold me to it, if an applicant, party or anybody – an interested party – actually it's
an applicant, party and – applicant party for our purposes is violating any
ordinance in the City of Meridian you do have the authority to turn down this
project if that's your desire. I guess I proceed with caution that you want to make
sure that that applicant is violating an ordinance –
Smith: Well that brings up my next question is there's question of letters being
sent to the applicant on other facilities and he said he never got one and there
was a question with the City as to whether we found those letters or not and
have those letters been found or are they just floating out somewhere in space.
Does anybody know?
Stiles: Chairman, Commissioners, I have not had time to look in Dean Ehlert's
files for that information, I do have records of phone calls made to the applicant
directly and the dates of those but I don't have the times and dates with me
tonight.
Prior: Commissioner Smith, also for clarification, I spoke with Bruce Freckleton
prior to the meeting and he indicated that Ms. Butler – Is Ms. Butler out here?
Yes she is. Ms. Butler can confirm this, apparently Mr. Eddy is working with Mr.
Freckleton and Joann and they're going to try to come to reasonable resolution
of the issue with the lights over on the stores and apparently there's something –
there is a resolution that – and it seems like it's a pretty cost effective resolution
apparently if I'm understanding Bruce correctly.
Freckleton: I don't have any kind of cost estimates or anything but it seems like
a fairly reasonable solution.
Prior: So at this point – in the Findings, if you read the Findings in both -- I
believe under the annexation and the zoning, I included that the Chevron gas
station will submit all plans for any type of lighting and all lighting will be
approved, it was one of the conditions. So in other words the lighting is going to
conform to what you folks want it to conform to if this project goes through at the
other location. As far as the other two locations, if Mr. Eddy doesn't conform and
Chevron doesn't conform that's my problem and I can pursue separately civil and
criminal penalties and sanctions against that particular person and that particular
business as we see fit so I separated the issues and I wanted to make sure that I
addressed the issue of the lighting for this particular project and as far as the
other ones I didn't think it was necessary to hold this project up, if we really want
to make him conform and follow what was set out in the conditional use permit
for the other project, I can do that criminally and civilly on my own without having
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JUNE 9, 1998
PAGE 8
to worry about it holding this thing up and I don't have any problem with doing
that.
Smith: My problem is I cannot in good conscience go ahead and approve this
project, move it forward, knowing full well that we went through the same issues,
I wasn't on the commission at the time but I've been on party to enough of these
public hearings to know that we go over the same issues on every project,
lighting being one specifically and there's nothing going to stop this from
happening again on this project if it's been going on in the other ones, been
notified and that's why I asked the question, I know you addressed it in the
Findings about the lighting but where I'm getting to is until the other projects are
in compliance with the City ordinances there's no reason to allow a third one or a
fourth one or endless more projects to go out there and be problems for the City
and I'd – where I'm getting to with this thing is to put some kind of condition if the
ordinance will allow it prior to the issuance of a building permit to make sure the
other two projects are in compliance with the City's ordinances.
Prior: You're talking about an issue – you're not going to necessarily going to be
able to include that as a condition because one, you're talking about a piece of
property that is collateral to the actual project so you're not going to be able to do
that, I mean if it's your desire and obviously I've heard one voice but if it's your
desire to do that, we can do that under a code section that says the party or an
entity to this project is not in compliance, it can be held up that way but you can't
make it a condition that this person can form his other things in order to get a
conditional use permit or an annexation, we just can't legally do that, we're not
going to get away with that.
Smith: Well that's what I'm trying to find out.
Prior: Well I just told you.
Smith: So in other words, we either delay this thing right now or – let me back up
– we either deny it right now or we approve it and we totally have to disregard
the other projects.
Prior: No, like I said the process is in the works, Ms. Butler has been on the
phone with me, I think I spoke with Joanne just about every day last week and
again she left a couple of messages on my voice mail this afternoon I didn't get a
chance to return and I will tomorrow Joanne and the issues are being addressed,
that's why I felt comfortable with it, she's given me assurances that these things
are going to be addressed and she spoke with Bruce Freckleton in regards to
this thing, it's – I was concerned at the last public hearing about this and a little
irritated when I saw this was happening. She has assured me that things are
going to be addressed and they're going to be taken care of, I'm comfortable with
that, I'll hold her to her word because she in all likelihood will be back here some
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JUNE 9, 1998
PAGE 9
day and if her word isn't any good now I can assure you the kind of treatment
she'll get when she comes back. The other thing is I have no reason to believe
that she's not going to – that Bruce and Mr. Eddy aren't going to work this out so
I don't think that it is something that should hold this project up on. That's my
personal opinion, I probably shouldn't express that but I guess I just did. I'm
sorry we – actually this is our first fight isn't it Byron, we disagreed.
Smith: When we get in a fight you'll know it. I just want to clarify what –
Prior: It's entirely up to you, if that's your desire to do that, that's fine, I just
wanted to make sure that the rest of the Commission were informed as to the
status and Mr. Freckleton over there is working with Joanne and Mr. Eddy and I
think they'll come to a reasonable resolution of this, I don't think it's something
that you know – and besides that I do have an alternative, if they don't come to a
resolution then I'll just pursue it myself criminally and civilly, I can go after them
that way and I'm not afraid to do that, join the list I mean –
Smith: I'm willing to take Ms. Butler at her word and not hold this thing up any
farther then.
MacCoy: Any more comments?
Nelson: Yeah, I would comment that item #4 is actually the annexation, zoning
and maybe more appropriate to discuss that sort of thing on the (inaudible) – if
we plan on –
Smith: Well I got other things to discuss on (inaudible) so –
Nelson: Oh, okay. Well let's do it.
MacCoy: Any other (inaudible). I've got one thing I'd like to point out on page 15
I think it is, if you read starting on page 14, item #4, change of water service, it
goes into some length of discussion on page 15 at the top it says that – it ends
by talking about the booster pumps and being able to get the water to the third
floor of the hotel building which is not part of the thing anymore, the motel was
stricken some time ago and Chevron took it out of the plan so I'd like to have the
material corrected before we pass it on to the City Council. Okay, John?
Prior: Yes. I'll speak with my secretary.
Smith: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion that we approve these Findings
of Fact and Conclusions of Law as written with the exception of item #4, page 14
as noted by Chairman MacCoy to be stricken from the Findings of Fact.
Nelson: Second.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JUNE 9, 1998
PAGE 10
MacCoy: Okay, I've got roll call.
ROLL CALL VOTE: Commissioner Borup – absent, Commissioner Smith – aye,
Commissioner Nelson – aye, Commissioner de Weerd – aye.
MOTION CARRIED: All aye.
MacCoy: Do you have anything else to add? (Inaudible) Alright, is there a
decision or recommendation to be given?
Nelson: Mr. Chairman, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby
recommends that the property set forth in the application be approved by the City
Council for annexation and zoning under the conditions set forth in these
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law including that the applicant or
successors in interest assign heirs, executors or personal representatives either
in a development agreement, enter into a development agreement, that if the
applicant is not agreeable with these Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
and/or is not agreeable with entering into the development agreement the
property should not be annexed.
Smith: Second.
MacCoy: All in favor of this motion?
MOTION CARRIED: All aye.
MacCoy: Any disapproval's? None, so it stands as we move forward –
Freckleton: Excuse me, Chairman MacCoy?
MacCoy: Yes?
Freckleton: One thing I just wanted to bring to light, back in my comments when I
reviewed this application some time ago the legal description that was submitted
for annexation did not include half right-of-way of Eagle Road so we do need to
receive from the applicant a revised legal description that includes that right-of-
way.
Prior: Joanne, you got that?
Freckleton: Thank you.
MacCoy: Okay is that it from the staff? Anything more Bruce? Anything else?
Alright, moving on to item #5.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JUNE 9, 1998
PAGE 11
ITEM #5: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: REQUEST
FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A CHEVRON C-STORE,
MCDONALD'S W/DRIVE-UP WINDOW AND IDAHO POWER COMPANY
CREDIT UNION WITH DRIVE-UP BANKING BY EAGLE PARTNERS LLC:
MacCoy: Any comments on that material?
Smith: Just one thing, I'd asked Mr. Strite during the last meeting about the
required number of parking spaces versus the number provided, there seemed
to be an excessive amount of – there was more spaces provided than what was
needed and we've been discussing the fact that Eagle Road's been more or less
identified as a gateway to the City and I would like to include as one of the
conditions as I stated my desire to do so in the last meeting that we provide only
the amount of parking that is necessary or required and that the remaining parcel
is landscaped exclusive of necessary drives, aisle ways, etcetera.
MacCoy: Any other items?
Smith: That was it.
Nelson: Chairman Smith, are we talking about adding additional I guess on the
Eagle side road try to I guess beautify that side as much as possible, is that the
intent?
Smith: Well the intent is to minimize the amount of paved area, provide
landscaping which screens the parking, those are more or less some of the
intents of providing landscape buffers along that portion of the road.
Prior: You probably need a clarification from Shari Stiles whether that’s going to
constitute a material change by having to do all those things, she doesn't believe
so, that much landscaping, how many parking spaces are we talking about?
Forty parking spaces?
Smith: I don't recall the exact number but there seemed to be twenty, thirty cars
along – I think it's just a matter of – I think all the parking that was facing Eagle
Road could more or less be omitted, not all of it but you know I don't have the
figures in front of me but a good majority of it. That was the only additional
comment I had.
de Weerd: Mr. Chairman, I realize that I'm coming in at the tail end of this so
bear with me but I read in the testimony that the applicant wanted additional
parking because it was requested from one of the tenants or from McDonald's
and does the applicant have a response to this or would the applicant like to
respond to that?
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JUNE 9, 1998
PAGE 12
Prior: We're not at liberty to do that.
de Weerd: Well if this is a major change I think that the applicant should have an
opportunity to respond before you change the Findings of Fact.
Prior: Byron's willing – Byron can include as a condition in that – and this is
merely – it needs to be clarified that as far as the legal – and I'll address Bruce's
issue about the legal description and about the parking. We're merely sending a
recommendation to the City Council, those things can be corrected and there will
be another public hearing in front of a City Council. Byron can include that as a
recommendation that he believes it should be a condition that that area be
turned into parking. Obviously you folks can vote on that as well if that's
something that you want to include as that but that's purely a prerogative for you
but if you disagree with Byron in that regards then we'll put it to a vote but –
de Weerd: (Inaudible)
Nelson: I think it doesn't require a re-design of the site or the parking or anything
like that it's just basically omitting some of the parking that was closest to Eagle
Road, it won't affect the site circulation or the parking just as long as they have
their minimum amount of parking that's required by ordinance and then if they
have a specific number that's desired by the McDonald's tenant but it would not
constitute a major change in my opinion, it's a pretty simple change to make on
the site plan.
de Weerd: Shari did you have any comment?
Stiles: Chairman MacCoy, Commissioners, Commissioner de Weerd, I've never
heard of somebody providing excessive parking, our ordinance requirements are
very minimal, I think you have to look at the historic use and depend on the
experience of the tenants as to what kind of parking they're going to need. The
one concern I would have about the parking on Eagle Road is that it not become
leased parking spaces that turns into a sales lot as seems to have happened
with the neighbor to the south. That's my major concern but I can understand if
some additional landscaping is to be provided if that is your desire, they do have
a 35-foot setback there, I think as part of the conditional use we are also
requiring that they maintain the 30-foot strip that would be adjacent to the
residential neighborhood, they're meeting the minimum number of trees and in
fact they may be exceeding that I'm not sure but – except for maybe breaking up
some of that pavement with some additional landscaping I don't know if I want to
tell somebody that they shouldn't provide anymore than the minimum required by
ordinance.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JUNE 9, 1998
PAGE 13
Smith: Well that's not really what I'm doing either is they had a specific request
from their McDonald's tenant as I understood it to provide additional parking
beyond what was required by the ordinance and I don't have a problem with that
as you said, you know the tenant knows what they need for parking but what I'm
after is to minimize the sea of asphalt we're going to have on that development,
it's cheaper to maintain so it's easier to maintain ten or twenty or thirty more
spaces than it is to do that in landscaping so I'd rather see it in landscaping, I
think it's an important corridor into the City and that's why I brought it up and
that's why I'll make a motion when we get there to do that.
Nelson: Mr. Chairman, I'd also like to comment that if I remember right there was
also room left for future expansion of the Credit Union but there's nothing to say
that there can be temporary landscaping extended also, if that expansion isn't
going to take place for years.
Smith: Well it was my understanding that some of the parking that was being
provided was already anticipating that expansion and therefore there would be
no additional parking required when they did expand.
Nelson: I have no further comments.
MacCoy: Any other comments? No more corrections or anything? What's the
Commissioner's status?
Smith: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion that we approve these Findings
of Fact and Conclusions of Law with the addition of requirement to minimize the
parking provided to the amount required by ordinance plus the additional parking
required or desired by the McDonald's tenant.
MacCoy: Do we hear a second?
Nelson: Second.
MacCoy: It's going to take a roll call vote, Commissioner Borup is absent tonight.
ROLL CALL VOTE: Commissioner Smith – aye, Commissioner Nelson – aye,
Commissioner de Weerd – abstain.
de Weerd: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to abstain since I have not been involved in this
I do not feel qualified to vote either yea or nay.
MacCoy: Okay. What's the recommendation from the Commissioners?
Nelson: Is two a quorum?
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JUNE 9, 1998
PAGE 14
Prior: Malcolm are you going to – I'm sorry I wasn't –
Berg: Excuse me, the motion passes because it's a 2-0 with one abstention.
The quorum is for a meeting, we don't have to have a certain number of votes for
or against.
Smith: Mr. Chairman, 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 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.
Nelson: Second.
MacCoy: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: All aye.
ITEM #6: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A CHURCH PARKING LOT FOR MERIDIAN
GOSPEL TABERNACLE BY BURTON ROBERTS – LOTS 3, 4, 5 & 6 OF
BLOCK 4, MERIDIAN NIDAYS 2ND
ADDITION:
MacCoy: Since we're continuing this hearing is anybody – first place we'll open
the hearing and let you people start right now and then the Commissioners will
have a chance to respond. Is anybody here with –
Prior: Sir, state your name, spell your last name for the record please.
Roberts: Burton Roberts.
BURTON ROBERTS WAS SWORN BY CITY ATTORNEY
Roberts: Following the previous meeting on May 12th
, the first thing that
happened is I had the privilege of meeting with a few of the neighbors following
the meeting and enjoyed some time of conversation concerning our plans and
attempted to assure them of our intent to comply with all City code concerning
the parking lot and doing all we can to make it a beautiful addition to Meridian
and also for your benefit I hired an engineer and had him draw up some new
plans so it would be easier for you to see and understand, I delivered a large
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JUNE 9, 1998
PAGE 15
copy to the P & Z office and I also have a large copy with me if anyone desires to
look at it, the smaller copies are given of course because they're handy to use
and of course this was at a great added expense to us hoping and believing that
this project will go forward, believing that we do have need of it and hopefully
we'll receive approval for that, pledging again along with all the stipulations that
ACHD has given us and their basic approval hoping to move ahead and make it
a as I stated a great improvement to the community and definitely fulfills a need
on our part.
MacCoy: Any questions from the Commissioners?
de Weerd: Not at this point.
Smith: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Roberts, the way you've got this thing phased it
doesn’t work, I mean there's no way for someone who accesses the parking off
the alley for them to get out because the way the parking is designed it's a one
way access to those spaces because they're angled parking and say you come
in off the alley and go towards the Meridian Street side you can park in those
spaces no problem but then there's no way to get out.
Roberts: And as I've stated before, we have some options in striping, the plan is
to show the final project. Our plan at this point would be when phase one is
completed to mark the parking lot so that there is enough parking and enough
space for people to go in and park whether we park vertically on one side or
however we decide to do it at that point it will be lined in phase one so that it can
be properly accessed even though it will minimize the parking for the time being.
Smith: Well yeah and I'm looking at the dimensions on the site and unfortunately
it appears to me that the only way you can have a ninety degree parking area
there is by not doing the landscaping right now at this time and having to park
out –
Roberts: Well the landscaping will be done – whatever we have to do as I've
said, we don't have to go with the parking as lined now in phase one, it's drawn
this way so that the engineer doesn't have to go back and charge me some more
in the final process, the lining will take place in a way that lets us do phase one
sot that it's beautified, it has the curb, gutter and sidewalk, it has all of the
landscaping that we're going to use in the project in place and we will make do
with whatever small amount of parking that adds to us until we're ready to do
phase two, if that means putting six cars on each side of the alley, we'll put just
six cars over there as twelve to twenty cars will help us now so I don't see a
problem with lining it so that it's easily accessed and used in phase one.
Nelson: How many parking spaces are you providing here?
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JUNE 9, 1998
PAGE 16
Roberts: It must be ultimately –
Nelson: I get eighty.
Roberts: That's what I get.
Nelson: With both phases?
Roberts: With both phases, yes.
Nelson: And how many are you going to be able to park at your existing lot once
it's laid out that meet the city ordinance of required aisle widths and space.
Roberts: It would be 54.
Nelson: Fifty-four? So you'd have 134 total spaces?
Roberts: Yes.
Nelson: And how many members of your congregation can you seat in your
sanctuary?
Roberts: According to my figures, the sanctuary by itself is 470.
Nelson: Four hundred and seventy seats and our ordinance calls for one parking
space per five seats?
Roberts: Correct.
Nelson: Which would require you to have 94 and –
Roberts: And we also have a gymnasium that's attached to the building and on
some occasions when you have a wedding, on those occasions the use of the
gymnasium and the use of the sanctuary there are times when we expected to
be full with phase one and phase two in place.
Nelson: Sure. What were your plans for the landscape are? Are you planning
on doing any berming there and how wide is the landscape strip, I really couldn't
tell on the reduction here the dimensions are pretty small and – it looks like about
– yeah, sure – it looks like six-feet?
Roberts: On the outside?
Nelson: Yes.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JUNE 9, 1998
PAGE 17
Roberts: I believe that's right and there's twelve-feet total in the center when
that's completed .
Nelson: Okay. Okay, I'm going to -- I guess before I pass this on I'd like to see a
little more landscaping around here given the adjacent properties and some
more trees and things to help screen this better and maybe consideration of a
berm around the periphery of the site to help screen that in addition to just the
trees.
Roberts: And how much of a berm would you be suggesting?
Nelson: Well six-feet – that's why I was asking about the width because six-feet
isn't going to give you an opportunity to do very much in the way of berming and I
don't know if you can squeeze on that twelve-feet in the center area and free up
that a little bit. Maybe also in addition to that on the Meridian Street side and the
First Street side given the fact that you're required to have 94 spaces and you're
going to be providing 134 maybe you can afford to lose a couple of spaces on
each end, I guess you – you know to pull the landscaping in farther off the street
into the parking area you'd end up losing four spaces on each end to allow you to
–
Roberts: Are you talking about on West First mainly and on Meridian?
Nelson: West First and Meridian as well, that'd give you an opportunity to –
Roberts: You're not talking about berming on Elm, just on the two streets?
Nelson: Actually, I'd like to see it bermed on all three sides but –
Roberts: How high a berm then is my next question. Are we creating – we're
already – I visualize putting in low lights so that they're not bright and bothering
the neighbors, we berm it we make an ideal spot which I just got rid of one for
kids to congregate and do their thing, I mean we build this parking lot and we
berm it in so nobody can see into it, wonderful, let's drive in there and park and
have a beer and throw our can out for Pastor Roberts to pick up, that's why I'm
thinking how high is this berm, are we building an amphitheater for them to hide
in?
Nelson: I can understand your concerns. To be honest with you –
Prior: Where's this church?
Roberts: I'm not talking about our people that park there I'm talking about the
people that drive by, believe me the use of the parking lot gets more than from
our parishioners I can tell you that.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JUNE 9, 1998
PAGE 18
Nelson: I'd have to sit down and do some sketches through – you know section
studies but I'd you know just off the top of my head I'd say in the neighborhood
of three to four feet, something like that, that'd help screen the paving and the
cars when they are parked there and you strike a happy medium between the
screening and the security issues you'd probably come up with something that
works there and plus if you get it wide enough you can slope it such that you're
not really providing any hiding places per say I think and I'd like to see something
like that but I don't know how my fellow Commissioners feel about that, that's
pretty much all my comments on the site plan.
Smith: Mr. Chairman I'd like to comment on that then. Yeah, if you do have an
overabundance of parking I could see where it would be beneficial to the homes
along at least West First or actually probably both, just at least get the berm high
enough that the average size car headlights aren't going to shine into the homes.
I think that's probably a reasonable request.
Roberts: I don't have a real problem with it unless it's – I've seen some berms
that you know as I've driven around and looked at parking lots I've wups! wait a
minute, when they say berm what are they talking about?
Nelson: Yeah, I think the concern is mostly – (end of tape) – headlights and the
–
Roberts: I don’t see a problem with aiming at that, we want to make it as
pleasing aesthetically and we want to get along with the neighbors otherwise I
wouldn't have taken all the steps that we've taken and spent all the money we've
spent already.
Nelson: I still think that a paved parking lot with the trees and some berming is
far better than the lot that's there now.
Roberts: Yes.
Nelson: So I think it's a reasonable request for the neighbors to –
Roberts: Yeah, I don't mind that request. It would be our intent to –
Nelson: I would request though that for the benefit of City Council and – we'd
probably need to – we have phase one and we have phase two, I'm not sure how
far out phase two is planned –
Roberts: We're a little unsure of it ourselves, we keep saying three to five years,
you know part of what we look at is how quickly do we raise that much money
again, you know churches we have to budget and we have to plan and so when
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JUNE 9, 1998
PAGE 19
we say we think in three to five years we'll have enough money to do phase two
we think we will be able to, if we could do it sooner of course we would.
Nelson: Okay and also as far as phase one goes we have a line drawn here that
looks pretty obvious as far as a clean line for the phasing but how extensive did
you plan the landscaping then in phase one.
Roberts: Complete, do it in a way that we can do it complete in phase one and
then when we move on to phase two we just add the compliment of the same
design to follow through into phase two. When we're done with phase one it
should give everybody the picture of how it would be when it was finished.
Nelson: Thank you. I have no further questions.
de Weerd: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Roberts, I just had one question on how you plan
to maintain phase two until you develop it?
Roberts: Each of those lots currently have a rental home on them and so they
will be maintained with lawns and the homes will be kept up until then.
de Weerd: So you would not be extending the sidewalk and landscape through
to the end of phase two then?
Roberts: Right, it would be done in steps unless of course somebody twists my
arm and says the only way you're going to get this is if you take the curb, gutter
and sidewalk and all of that clear by, we'd try to figure out some way to do it, it
sure would not be the easiest or affordable way for us to do it but –
de Weerd: So you would just have some kind of – you would still put in your
storm retention area and so that would kind of block off any access to those lots
in phase two?
Roberts: From the parking, yes.
de Weerd: Okay. I have no further questions.
MacCoy: Mr. Smith, do you have anything else?
Smith: Not at this time.
MacCoy: Okay. I'd like to make a couple of comments to you here, just a matter
of something for you to think about, on the lot size at the bottom section of your
map here you've got two areas, you got an area here where parking is and an
area here in the far corner the same way that could actually be moved in to
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JUNE 9, 1998
PAGE 20
landscaping as part of that (inaudible) instead of just having asphalt there in a
line.
Roberts: On the alley side, is that where you're –
MacCoy: Yeah, the backside in here and in here.
Roberts: Oh okay, yeah right.
MacCoy: You've done the same on First and on Meridian you've done that very
thing, you've actually (inaudible) in there, I'm just saying that you might want to
continue that, think about that at the official planning.
Nelson: A question for you in the manner of you say it's a planter and you show
trees, what do you plan to put in between the trees?
Roberts: We haven't gone that far yet as to know what kind of selection that we
would use, the engineer everything from low lying shrubs to smaller trees and
personally I guess I would go with the low lying shrubs –
MacCoy: Because that will determine the height of your berm see.
Roberts: Yeah, there you go.
MacCoy: Take that into consideration that's why you want to bring up – one
other comment you can talk to your engineer about, is that we in this group here
we understand the symbols that he uses here but in a Council side we don't have
as many people of that understanding so when you show which reads to us as
concrete sidewalk I think you might want to have him denote that as well as
some of the dimensions because I don't know if that's a three-foot sidewalk or a
five-foot sidewalk or anything else and you're going to get questions thrown at
you from the Council so it would be woo of you to go back, either do it yourself or
have him finish the job the same price.
Roberts: Okay. Hopefully.
MacCoy: Do you have anything else to add to this?
Roberts: No.
MacCoy: Okay, since it's a continued public hearing (Inaudible) the public
hearing. Yes, come on up.
Prior: Ma'am, will you state your name and address and spell your last name for
the record.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JUNE 9, 1998
PAGE 21
Newton-Huckabay: It's Wendy Newton-Huckabay, 1513 W. First Street. Oh my
God --
Prior: That's all right, that's all right, I'm a little –
Newton-Huckabay: I've never been in court.
Prior: Me neither but if Byron has his way Joanne and I will be.
WENDY NEWTON-HUCKABAY WAS SWORN BY THE CITY ATTORNEY.
Newton-Huckabay: We had a little impromptu neighborhood meeting over, I
guess it was last night, and we put together a statement and it appears that Mr.
Roberts is addressing a lot of our concerns already so it looks like maybe we're a
little bit closer to resolving the concerns in the neighborhood. I did make copies
of our statement, I didn't know if I needed to bring those and give those to you
folks –
MacCoy: Yes, for the record.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay, do you want me to hand them out now?
MacCoy: If you want to give one to everybody fine, if you leave one for the – we
need one. Does the applicant have a copy of this too?
Newton-Huckabay: No but I have one for him.
MacCoy: Okay would you give it to him.
Newton-Huckabay: This statement is in regards to the proposed parking lot
addition to the Meridian Gospel Tabernacle. As residents of the neighborhood
we are not completely opposed to an expanded parking area, we are concerned
with some of the aspects of the church's plans and continue to question the
need. Our first concern is with the time line. One of the lots for the phase has
been empty for over two years, is this project ready to begin, are they going to
begin the project and finish it as money comes available or is a budget already in
place, is a completion date set? At the last meeting Mr. Roberts indicated that
they would complete the phase two portion of the project several years down the
road. We would like to see the plans for the parking lot modified into two
separate projects, we feel that this would eliminate the half done look that may
result with the current plan, it looks like we would only have one half of a parking
lot for the next few years. We believe that this would be as unappealing as the
current lots. In the event that the second phase of the parking lot does not
evolve the neighborhood would not be left looking incomplete indefinitely. We
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JUNE 9, 1998
PAGE 22
have reviewed the new plans and feel the modifications made for landscaping
could be improved. We believe that the aesthetics of this project would be
maximized by grass around the perimeter and more park-like trees such as
maples, ash or locust. We would also like to recommend that during this project
Mr. Roberts consider making some landscape improvements to the main
property, mainly remove the rocks that are on the corner of Elm and West First
Street, they are constantly in the road and create a hazard. In conclusion we
would like to point out that no one is against the expansion and prosperity of a
church, we would just like the impact that it does and will have on our
neighborhood to be considered. We have been fortunate to be experiencing an
overall evolution of property rejuvenation on our street. We would like the church
to embrace this evolution and make changes to their properties that contribute to
the value, safety and quality of our neighborhood. That's really about all that I
have to say, like I said a lot of these issues it appears that he is addressing, we
did not have opportunity to talk to the church from the last meeting, he never did
come around to our residence on there so as you look at approving this we just
want you to consider we live there seven days a week, a lot of people are at the
church maybe two or three days a week and we look at it every day. Mr.
Roberts, he does live in that area of the neighborhood of the area and he does
look at it too but a more sense of there I think. Thank you.
MacCoy: Wendy would you sign the document you handed over here to us?
Newton-Huckabay: Oh, I have one that was signed by everybody that I'm
speaking on behalf of.
MacCoy: That would be what we need, we need that. Okay, thank you very
much. Is there anyone else here who would like to make a statement?
Commissioners do you have anything you want to call for now?
Nelson: I'd like –
Smith: I don have one other thing to point out on the site plan. Sorry Mark.
Nelson: That's alright, you're faster than me.
Smith: Mr. Roberts, these first stalls in phase two on the side that it joins the
adjacent property owners, the first one on the Meridian Street side and the first
one on the East First Street side, they don't work because what you need to do
on those spaces you need to be able to pull back straight out of the space and
pull in from a straight on shot and these would require you to both pull in and
back out at an angel and you really can't use those spaces – I mean if you were
driving a Honda Civic or something you could probably use those but –
Roberts: I think those were intended for motorcycles.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JUNE 9, 1998
PAGE 23
Smith: Good one.
Prior: We're trying to keep it a little light tonight.
Smith: When you sit down with your engineer again and make some of the
modifications that I hope you'll address that I have asked you to look at that you'll
consider a – you'll have to look at that too so – that's all.
MacCoy: That's all for you? How about Mr. Nelson?
Nelson: Yes Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask Mr. Roberts to respond for the
record the issue about the time line and also what we can do to try to soften the
connection so that if your three to five years turns into ten to twenty it sounds like
the residents were concerned about that.
Roberts: Concerning the time line, the first part of the letter and I really
appreciate things in writing like this by the way, thank you neighbors for making it
easy for me to understand your desires. The first concern is with the time line of
the lots for phase one, you're right, there's been an empty lot for two years and
the project is ready to begin, all we need now is approval, the project would be
finished depending on how fast the wheels of all of this turn weather allowing, the
intention is to finish it this fall. Moving as quickly as we could the budget is
already in place, there's no way to set a completion date because we don't know
how long this part of the process will take and we don't know what the weather
will do in the fall but it would be in the intention as soon as we have an okay to
begin to move toward the completion of phase one. As in regard to phase two
the only way that I can respond to that is I really believe that it would be five
years maximum, it would be my intent and I would be doing everything I could to
see that it came to pass within five years, I've been wrong before but that would
be my intention and I guess at this point that's all I can pledge is that we would
move quickly as we could to phase two and do all we could to keep it within a
reasonable time frame because I understand their view point on that.
Nelson: Okay, thank you.
de Weerd: Mr. Roberts, I would hope that when you go to do phase two you
keep in good faith your neighbors and not move the houses two years prior and
leave that a weed infested lot.
Roberts: I have no intention of doing that. I appreciate your comment.
MacCoy: Before you leave, do you have any other comments to make
concerning what you just were handed or –
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JUNE 9, 1998
PAGE 24
Roberts: Well concerning what was just handed, you know reading over it
quickly and listening as it was read, I agree, the rocks at the corner of Elm and
First Street must – somebody else must have made that decision besides me,
I'm sorry for that, I really am sorry that that's turned out the way it's turned out.
We thought that was going to be an improvement, it's turned out to be a hazard
and I agree that it is that and not only that my wife reminds me of it every time
we walk by it so it will be our intention to try to do something about that, we have
not addressed it to the point of deciding what to do but they are right, something
needs to be done there. The other improvements, hopefully everything in the
letter that they have concerns about in the existing property I would like to be
able to say we would do it, I don't know when but I agree that there needs to be
some upgrading there and would be all I can do to pledge to say they're right,
we'll work on it.
MacCoy: Okay, very good. Thank you. What's the favor of the Commissioners?
Nelson: Mr. Chairman I would like to make a motion that -- (inaudible)
MacCoy: (Inaudible) Okay, we'll close the – since there's nobody else that has
come forward to speak toward this we're going to close the public hearing and
now I give it over to Commissioner (inaudible) – Okay we've got one over here
before we close.
Prior: Just restate your name again so we know who –
Newton-Huckabay: Wendy Newton-Huckabay.
Prior: Just for the secretary when she types this up.
Newton-Huckabay: I just would like you to address the half-done look issue,
whether it would be some temporary trees planted along there or something but
when I look at the plan, which I spent some time doing over last week, it's just a
parking lot cut in half and now we just have a house that's being moved today
and an empty lot and a parking lot cut in half isn't a whole big improvement so if
we can have half a parking lot that just looks like a narrow parking lot would be –
it would make me a lot happier and I think that I speak on behalf of the
neighborhood when I say that. Thanks.
MacCoy: Okay –
Smith: I just have one more comment along those lines, I know I've brought up
before but I'm just concerned about the phasing and how the parking is laid out it
really is dependent upon both phases being complete and I don't know how the
City Council's going to feel about having a parking lot layout here that really
doesn't work until the second phase is done and it could be five years down the
road before that happens. It might be a good idea for you to look at what your
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JUNE 9, 1998
PAGE 25
temporary parking layout would be and have that available for the City Council
when this item goes before them next month or whenever. That's it.
MacCoy: Okay, good point. Any other questions, answers, what have you from
the public? If not, we'll close the public hearing and now Commissioners what is
your direction?
Nelson: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a motion that the City Attorney
prepare Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.
Smith: Second.
MacCoy: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: All aye.
MacCoy: Aye's have it, it'll be moved forward.
de Weerd: One comment Mr. Chairman, this will go to public hearing again at
City Council and so the neighbors should have a chance to look at the temporary
drawings so you will have a chance again to comment at that time what that first
phase would look like and I would like to compliment the church for drawing up
what you have and putting some time and effort into that.
MacCoy: Thank you. Moving on to item #7.
ITEM #7: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: REQUEST
FOR ACCESSORY USE PERMIT FOR HOME DAY CARE IN AN R-4 ZONE
FOR FIVE OR FEWER CHILDREN BY ELAINE ESTACIO – 232 S. OUTFIELD
WAY:
MacCoy: Coming forward.
Prior: Ma'am there's no need for any testimony so you can just have a seat if
you'd like. This is an approval of Findings of Fact, it's not necessary for you to
say anything.
MacCoy: Okay, I thought you were just coming forward to tell me something else
here. Commissioners, do you have anything you want to say on this?
Nelson: I have no comments.
Smith: I guess the only comment I've got is the Findings we are looking at
approving a family child care home which allows up to five children maximum
and I'm just concerned that that number is going to be complied with and I just
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JUNE 9, 1998
PAGE 26
wanted to make that a matter of record again and I'm not going to dwell on it or
comment on it anymore because I know that the applicant has stated that she
has eight children, three of which were foster children that were going to go to
another day care and I guess I just want to bring that up again.
Prior: Just for your satisfaction Commissioner Smith, the City has at least two
additional Code Enforcement Officers that have been hired within the last couple
of weeks, obviously these Code Enforcement Officers will be making routine
checks around the City and this is one of the areas that they'll be emphasizing
and checking up on if – and it does say that in the Findings, if they discover that
there are more than five children at here home this permit will be revoked and if
she continues to fail to comply – I want to make clear, I'm not threatening
anybody alright, we'll take necessary actions okay so there will be a point where
we have Code Enforcement Officer's out there checking on these things so you
can rest assured that she'll have five children there and then she assured us I
believe at the hearing that there would be five kids and I think she addressed
that issue.
Smith: Right, I realize, that so I'm not going to drag it out any further.
MacCoy: Anything else? Commissioner Smith, anything else?
Smith: I'd like to make a motion that the Planning and Zoning Commission of the
City of Meridian hereby adopts and approves these Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law.
MacCoy: Okay, we'll have a roll call – do we have a second on that?
de Weerd: Second.
MacCoy: Thank you. Keep me straight here. Roll call on this.
ROLL CALL VOTE: Commissioner Smith – aye, Commissioner Nelson – aye,
Commissioner de Weerd – aye.
MOTION CARRIED: All aye.
MacCoy: And what is the decision?
Smith: Mr. Chairman, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby decides and
approves the accessory 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, more particularly set forth in paragraph 12 of the
Conclusions of Law and that the property be required to meet the water and
sewer requirements, fire and life safety codes and the uniform building code and
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JUNE 9, 1998
PAGE 27
other ordinances of the City of Meridian. The accessory use shall be subject to
review by the City upon notice of the applicant.
de Weerd: I second that.
MacCoy: All in favor.
MOTION CARRIED: All aye.
MacCoy: Very good. Okay as you look at your agenda on item #8 and 9, they're
going to be switched, they were placed inadvertently in the wrong direction,
preliminary plat comes after we discuss conditional use permit.
ITEM #9: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: REQUEST
FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR PLANNED USE DEVELOPMENT (7
TOWNHOUSES AND 2 SINGLE FAMILY UNITS ON 1.15) IN PROPOSED
MAWS SUBDIVISION NO. 3 BY TEALEY'S LAND SURVEYING – NORTH OF E.
PINE AND WEST OF LOCUST GROVE:
MacCoy: Anybody have any statements for that?
Smith: I have none.
Nelson: I have none.
de Weerd: I have none.
MacCoy: What is our desire then?
Smith: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion that the Meridian Planning and
Zoning Commission hereby adopts and approves these Findings of Fact and
Conclusions.
MacCoy: Do I hear a second?
Nelson: Second.
MacCoy: Thank you. (Inaudible)
ROLL CALL VOTE: Commissioner Nelson – yea, Commissioner Smith – aye,
Commissioner de Weerd – abstain.
MOTION CARRIED: 2 aye, 1 abstain.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JUNE 9, 1998
PAGE 28
MacCoy: Now we'll go over to item #8. (Inaudible) Does you have a conclusion
on that? Does anybody have –
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 if the permit is approved the applicant shall satisfy the
conditions as 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.
MacCoy: Is there a second?
Nelson: Second.
MacCoy: All in favor? Abstention or negative?
MOTION CARRIED: All aye.
ITEM #8: TABLED MAY 12, 1998: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR
MAWS SUBDIVISION NO. 3 (7 TOWNHOUSES AND 2 SINGLE-FAMILY UNITS
ON 1.157 ACRES) BY TEALEY'S LAND SURVEYING – NORTH OF E. PINE
AND WEST OF LOCUST GROVE:
MacCoy: Commissioners, do you have anything you want to first put into this?
Smith: Mr. Chairman, I only received one copy of Findings of Fact on this item
#8 and 9.
Prior: There's a preliminary plat that's involved, there's no Findings (inaudible).
Berg: Findings of Fact are not prepared for preliminary plats, recommendations
to City Council and whatever –
Smith: So we just need to make a motion?
Berg: To whatever you want to give to the –
Smith: So since we just voted to deny the conditional use permit I'd like to make
a motion that we deny the request for preliminary plat for Maws Subdivision No.
3.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JUNE 9, 1998
PAGE 29
MacCoy: Do I have a second to that?
Nelson: Second.
MacCoy: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: All aye.
ITEM #10: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: REQUEST
FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF 121.897 ACRES TO R-4 FOR
PROPOSED THOUSAND SPRINGS SUBDIVISION BY FARWEST
DEVELOPERS AND MARTY GOLDSMITH – NORTH OF VICTORY AND WEST
OF EAGLE ROAD:
ITEM #11: TABLED MAY 12, 1998: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR
THOUSAND SPRINGS SUBDIVISION (330 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON 121.897
ACRES) BY FARWEST DEVELOPERS AND MARTY GOLDSMITH – NORTH
OF VICTORY AND WEST OF EAGLE ROAD:
MacCoy: Item #10 and 11 I had made the announcement earlier that that was
deferred until the June 17th
Wednesday meeting next week –
Smith: Mr. Chairman, point of order, don't we need a motion on that?
MacCoy: Well I had a -- okay go ahead – I had a letter from the attorney on that
one.
Prior: I still need a motion on that.
MacCoy: Alright you need one, we'll give you one.
Prior: So you folks can require me to do –
Berg: Excuse me Mr. Prior, would you speak into the mike if you're going to
speak, thank you.
Prior: I'll try to, Mr. Clerk. God, it's only 8:30 –
MacCoy: If you can compose yourself do you mind –
Prior: I'll try to here – I made the request for the deferment, obviously if you guys
don't approve it I'm going to be outside doing Findings while you folks wait so –
I still need a motion on that though.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JUNE 9, 1998
PAGE 30
MacCoy: Okay, you need a motion, some Commissioner here.
Smith: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion that we defer action on the
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law on items 10 and 11until our June 17th
meeting.
Nelson: Second.
MacCoy: All in favor.
MOTION CARRIED: All aye.
Smith: Although I should point out that – it was pointed out to me on the last
item that we don't have Findings on a preliminary plat which is item #11 so –
MacCoy: You included it, that is what you did. We can move on now.
ITEM #12: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR AN ACCESSORY USE
PERMIT FOR HOME CHILD CARE BY AMY GILLUM – 2347 E. APRICOT
DRIVE:
MacCoy: Commissioners, any statement first? Public hearing is now open. Is
the applicant here for this one tonight?
Prior: Hi ma'am, would you state your name and address and spell your last
name for the record for me.
Gillum: Amy Gillum, 2347 E. Apricot.
AMY GILLUM WAS SWORN BY THE CITY ATTORNEY.
Gillum: My intention is just to take in one to two children in my home so I can
care for my own children at the same time. I'm not it to bother my neighbors or
cause disruption I just want to care for my children.
MacCoy: Is that all you have to say about it?
Gillum: Yeah.
MacCoy: Commissioners, do you have anything you want to ask her?
Nelson: Yes Mr. Chairman, I'd like to – it looks like there's a letter here in my
packet from Frank Sweigart, have you had an opportunity to read that letter?
Gillum: Yes, I have.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JUNE 9, 1998
PAGE 31
Nelson: Do you want to make any comment to that or address that at all?
Gillum: There are issues where the noise level and I'm going to have an infant
myself in October and my time outside with the children is going to be limited, I
may keep it an infant only day care where I can't leave an infant in the house
asleep while I go play outside with other children. Like I said, I'm not in it to
cause disruption to my neighbors.
Nelson: Thank you.
MacCoy: I'd like to add a little bit to that. Okay, after your pregnancy is into real
life then down the road since this is a permanent goes on and your child grows
and – what are your plans then?
Gillum: Well, I have a three and a half year old right now, in two years he will be
in school, that's going to reduce the number of children in my house by one. I
don't allow or I won't allow them to be running outside screaming, there's other
children in the neighborhood that are in their backyards and it would be no
different than if I had three children of my own.
MacCoy: Okay. Commissioner Smith?
Smith: Mr. Sweigart's letter, he referenced CC&R's for your subdivision are
something to the affect of prohibits in-home businesses, are you familiar with the
content of your CC&R's and I do want to point out that it's not the City's or this
Commission's duty to review or enforce CC&R's, we have no jurisdiction over
that but I was just curious if that was indeed the case and if you were familiar
with the CC&R's?
Gillum: Like the covenants?
Smith: Covenants, codes, restrictions.
Gillum: Yes and I've been speaking with the community property management at
Dove Meadows and they urged me to write a letter to the Board of Directors
seeking approval and that –
Smith: That's what you need to do to get your neighborhood's approval?
Gillum: Yes and that a gentleman by the name of Mike Farlow assured me that
the Board never turns these down.
Smith: Okay, thank you.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JUNE 9, 1998
PAGE 32
MacCoy: Commissioner de Weerd, do you have any questions?
de Weerd: I have no questions at this point.
MacCoy: Okay, is there anybody here that would like to speak for or against?
Sims: Okay, now what do I have to do?
Prior: You have to state your name and address.
Sims: Sarah Sims and it's 2363 E. Apricot.
SARAH SIMS WAS SWORN BY THE CITY ATTORNEY.
Sims: Well I have some questions about what the permit really is and I'm sure
you've already answered them but does the five include her children?
Nelson: If I may respond to that Mr. Chairman, when they say five or fewer it
includes the children already in the home and it also includes the total number
allowed to be registered with the daycare provider so and that's how traffic
patterns are determined so it doesn't mean that she could use a half day for one
and a half day for another later on or anything like that, it's a total of five and her
children are included in that.
Sims: And does it take care of the hours of operation like from six to six or can it
be anytime during the day or anytime at night?
Nelson: I think that in most cases it's been a 7 to 6 but I guess we haven't
discussed that for the record.
Sims: Okay there is no expiration date on these permits?
Prior: The process is simple, if we get a complaint that needs to be reviewed the
City Council has an opportunity to review these things and they can be brought
before for review upon notification to the applicant. That's the way the process
works.
Sims: After the permit, are they at all inspected, are the homes inspected?
Nelson: They are – this only gives them the opportunity to get a permit, they're
still subject to the Health Department and the fire codes so there's other
inspections.
Sims: So this is the first step but they have to go through the others also.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JUNE 9, 1998
PAGE 33
Nelson: They have even more stringent requirements for –
Prior: Ma'am, they still have a city – no, they don’t have a city council, never
mind. I almost misspoke. Never mind, just disregard what I said. I’m tired.
Nelson: But, yes, this only gives them permission to start requesting from the
governing agencies –
Sims: And then they start – so actually this isn’t the final step then?
Nelson: No.
Sims: Okay. And do all the daycares here in Meridian have to have a permit and
go through these steps? I mean you have to have a permit to have a daycare,
right?
Nelson: Yes.
Sims: Let’s see if I have any other questions.
Nelson: I’m sure not all do.
Sims: Pardon.
Nelson: I’m just commenting I’m sure there’s some that aren’t.
Sims: I really don’t have any objection because I know she has the three and a
half year old, and he would actually be happier having someone else to play
with. You know, you are going to have a baby and the three and a half year old.
It’s just that when I first saw the thing and it said five children. You’re thinking
five more people coming in the morning and five people coming in the afternoon,
and that’s a lot of traffic. And the people who come and pick up their children
don’t really care about your yard. They are just there to pick up their children.
To them, it’s no big deal. So if it’s – so as long as –
Prior: It’s a total of five, ma’am.
Sims: Total of five. Okay, well, I guess that all I’m going to say then. I just had
some questions about the permit and the city, and if someone does come out
and inspect the house every now and then, then I really don’t – yeah, I think it’s
okay to try it maybe.
MacCoy: I would like to answer one thing that you brought up there. You asked
the question about daycare centers in the City of Meridian. There is a county-
wide, and we are part of that listing that is kept up and reviewed every three
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JUNE 9, 1998
PAGE 34
months, and a list comes out. Each city receives one of those, and the
inspections and so on have to be tallied at that time. So it is a constant thing,
and if you find somebody or know somebody that has a daycare center that
didn’t go through this, all you need to do is come in and tell us about it, and they
will go out and get inspected. But yes, they must have permits.
Sims: Okay, all right, thank you.
MacCoy: Anybody else now? Yes, sir.
FRANK SWIGER 2318 E. GRAPEWOOD DRIVE MERIDIAN WAS SWORN BY
THE CITY ATTORNEY.
Swiger: Well, I’m against anyone having a daycare center, whether they have
two children or five or whatever. I bought there originally. I bought the first lot in
that subdivision. I knew that there were covenants and regulations against any
businesses being held in there, run from in there. I bought it because it was
quiet, and I wanted it to be quiet and now right behind me, a daycare center.
Children are going to make noise. That’s the way children are. You can’t stop
them, and you can’t shoot them for doing it, and no matter what you say we all
have children or had children, and you can’t do this. Now, I’ve got a bad heart.
That’s the reason I moved from in town out there and built my own house
because it was quiet, and I want it to stay quiet. I have to pay money there. In
the way of home owner’s dues, and the covenants specifically say, no
businesses shall be ran from there. Now what recourse do I have from this now?
As the attorney, sir, I’ll ask you?
Prior: I’m not going to do legal advise.
Swiger: All right. I don’t need any. I have an attorney for that. But still it don’t
make sense to me. They read the rules when they bought in there. And now
they are trying to advert these rules. Well, there’s children in there. They have
children. The other people, one other family there next to me has two little
children, and they are good little children. They don’t bother me. But anymore
than that out there, and it’s going to get over bearing. I just can’t go on with this.
I’m too nervous. I go in the hospital again Friday for a little hear operation, and
now they are going to put a child care center right behind me, and I bought there
for peace and quiet and agreed to pay the dues. Now, what am I suppose to do?
Smith: Mr. Swiger, I’m not going to purport to give legal advise either, but as I
stated earlier to the applicant, the city has no jurisdiction or authority in any
shape or form to enforce a neighborhood CC&R’s and it seems like to me that
your issue would be with the same board of directors that the applicant is going
before for approval of this as an exception to the CC&R’s and that would be who
I would suggest you go to and try to address your concerns because quite
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JUNE 9, 1998
PAGE 35
frankly we can’t address your CC&R’s. We can’t even acknowledge that they
exist.
Swiger: Okay.
Smith: All we can do with CC&R’s is check and make sure that they don’t
conflict with the ordinances with the City of Meridian, and that’s as far as we go
with it.
Swiger: Now my wife and Mike had several conversations on this subject. And
another lady had conversations with Mike on this subject too.
Smith: Excuse me sir, who is Mike?
Swiger: The manager of our home owners association, and he knew nothing
about this subject. It was completely foreign to him. Now maybe within the last
four or five or six days, he might have got some information on it, but he is
concerned about this and they are going to bring it up at the board meeting, and
they are going to take action, but I don’t know what the action is going to be.
Maybe it’s to approve the application. But then I have my recourse, and that’s all
I can do.
Smith: I can sympathize with your concerns sir, but there’s nothing really other
than reviewing the application and complying with the city ordinances, there’s
really nothing that we can do.
Swiger: Okay, now that I understand your position in that, I know which way I
have to go, sir, and that’s all I can do. And for no information, I thank you, John.
Prior: It seems like Byron gave all kinds of information.
Swiger: You said you hadn’t been in court. What am I suppose to expect from
you?
Prior: You are not going to get anything from me.
Swiger: Thank you gentlemen, lady.
MacCoy: All right, thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to make a
statement? All right.
Gillum: I just want to comment that I did speak with Mike Farlow at the
community property management about two weeks ago, and he was very upbeat
about it. He said that I just needed to write a letter to the board of directors, and
that he’s never seen them disapprove it, and again I just want to state to Mr.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JUNE 9, 1998
PAGE 36
Swiger that I do not want to disrupt his life and his home. There are children in
the other neighborhoods around his house. It’s not going to be any different than
those children playing outside. When I moved in, which was after Mr. Swiger, the
dealings of the subdivision were handled by Dave Leader who is a subdivision
developer. It was not turned over to the home owners association until maybe
six months after we moved in. I don’t agree that he knew that he had covenants
because the home owners association because it wasn’t handled by the home
owners association. It was handled by Dave Leader.
MacCoy: Any questions you want to add? Okay, all right. Thank you very
much. Okay hearing that, do you have a comment to come back with? Okay.
Swiger: As far as the CC&R’s, we had to go through a realty company which is
the way you know it’s handled, and at the time we bought the lot, and we were
the first people to buy a lot. They said there’s a home owners association, and
you’ll get a copy of the CC&R’s, and the dues are this and so forth. Now I
thought that was a requirement.
Prior: Sir, that’s probably something that you can bring up with your board. I
don’t think that has anything to do with the conditional use permit at this thing,
and I don’t think it’s really relative to these proceedings.
Swiger: As the first buyer in there, I got all this information, and as the 30th
buyer, she said she didn’t know anything about it.
MacCoy: Anyone else that would like to step forward? Commissioners, do you
have any people you want to talk to here or any statements you want to make?
Nelson: I’d like to make a statement, Mr. Chairman. The proposed application is
the least restrictive, or excuse me, the lowest level I guess of daycare center
available for the home in this subdivision, and in most cases I encourage or in
favor of home daycares. We approve these subdivisions and the only alternative
if we don’t have home daycares, is we have more commercial daycares, and
people won’t like the traffic that causes either. So in this particular case I would
be in favor of the home daycare. This is the lowest level, and it would appear
also that she’s not even using the full five children access that she has available,
but just for the record, I’d like to point that out.
MacCoy: Anybody else up here? Mr. Smith? Mrs. De Weerd? Staff? Bruce,
Shari, do you have any comments to make at all at this point?
Prior: Do you know what we’re talking about? Daycare centers.
Stiles: I have no comment.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JUNE 9, 1998
PAGE 37
MacCoy: That wasn’t appropriate.
Nelson: I have no further comment.
MacCoy: Okay, I’m going to close the public hearing at this point, and
commissioners, I’d like to hear statement as to what we should do.
Nelson: Mr. Chairman, I’d like a motion that we have the city attorney prepare
Facts and Findings for Item number 12.
Smith: Second.
MacCoy: Okay, all in favor.
MOTION CARRIED: All ayes.
ITEM NO. 13: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR AN ACCESSORY USE
PERMIT FOR HOME CHILD CARE BY KRISTI RICHMOND – 2311 MONACO
WAY:
MacCoy: Is the applicant here?
KRISTI RICHMOND 6857 MAXWELL LANE, BOISE WAS SWORN BY THE
CITY ATTORNEY.
Richmond: My husband and I are working on a lease to purchase at 2311
Monaco Way, and it is pending right now.
Prior: Hold it. Before we get into that, why don’t we swear you in. I didn’t
anticipate you going through that oratory.
Richmond: Anyway my husband and I are working on a lease to purchase at
2311 Monaco Way, and it is pending on this accessory use permit. Before we
even started the paperwork on the home, I did go door to door and spoke with all
the neighbors that were around the home, and there were no complaints. All the
neighbors were fine with it, and so we did pursue because it would be optimal for
me to work out of my home. I’m a teacher. I work at the Children’s School. My
background is in early childhood. It would be optimal for me to work out of my
home. It is for five or fewer children. It’s not large. The complaints were noise,
traffic, and devaluation of property. 2311 Monaco Way is right by an elementary
school; a block and a half practically. As far as noise level, I have been in the
neighborhood a lot working, my husband and I have been working on the lawn,
working on the house, and we did hear some noise just coming from the school.
She might be worried that more noise level will come from five more children, but
with the fencing and the trees, I don’t believe that would be problem. As far as
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JUNE 9, 1998
PAGE 38
traffic, we have a good parking that is available for parents. It wouldn’t be out in
the street, and there definitely wouldn’t be a devaluation of property. We would
like to do a lot of work in the house and that’s all I have to say.
MacCoy: Any questions of the applicant?
Nelson: Yes, I have a few questions, Mr. Chairman. Do you have any children of
our own? Are they part of this five?
Richmond: No.
Nelson: And what’s kind of the target age group?
Richmond: It’s birth to two and a half. It’s infant toddler program that I’m working
on.
Smith: What do you anticipate your hours of operation be?
Richmond: 7:30 to 6:00.
Smith: That’s all I had.
De Weerd: I have a question. Does that have an apartment in the basement?
Richmond: It’s just a house. It’s split level. So we would be living upstairs, and I
wanted to separate the infant toddler program downstairs.
De Weerd: So have you read the comments by the fire chief?
Richmond: What’s that?
De Weerd: Have you had a chance to read the comments by our Chief of the
Fire Department? He states that all code will need to met, smoke detector, fire
extinguisher, no children can be on any upper floor. If the house has a basement
and any children are located in the basement, there will need two exits. Only
that exit outside directly.
Richmond: There are three exits downstairs.
De Weerd: Downstairs, okay.
Richmond: Right when you enter the house, there are stairs going down, stairs
going up. That’s one exit. The garage was made into a great room, so there’s
an exit there, and there’s also another exit towards the backyard.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JUNE 9, 1998
PAGE 39
Prior: (Inaudible)
Smith: She stated that it was a split level. I don’t know if that would be
technically considered a basement or not.
Prior: I just want a clarification. Is there a basement in this house?
Richmond: It’s split level house.
Smith: Mr. Prior I don’t know that a split level home, the lower level would be
interpreted as a basement by code. I don’t think it is.
MacCoy: No, a basement is a separate story. Split level is just what it states.
Smith: This is a separate story, but it’s not –
De Weerd: I just have one further question. You are pursuing licensing?
Richmond: Okay, thanks.
MacCoy: Any other questions from the applicant? Okay, you can sit down. This
is an open public hearing. Anybody here would like to make a statement?
MARSHALL WILLIAMS FOR 2281 MONACO WAY WAS SWORN BY THE CITY
ATTORNEY.
Williams: The applicant has come over and talked with my mother. Her
concerns, of course, are the increased traffic. If anybody has been on Chateau
Way and Monaco, they will realize why they needed a light at Linder and
Chateau, and the timing of when this operation will commence. The hours,
things like that, you have already addressed in the prior conversations, and then
also the number of children. Anytime it’s up to five, that means that there’s going
to be five more vehicles early in the morning and five more vehicles later that
evening. The traffic and noise, and it’s not just perhaps maybe the traffic going
by, but the slamming of the doors, the starting and stopping of vehicles. It cause
more noise than just a car driving by. The concerns of the time of day, possibly
to a senior citizen, 7:00 in the morning is the middle of the night. So there is an
aspect there that my mother being a senior citizen and her hours, sleeping in,
possibly the noise across the street is not going to be something that is very
attractive. The devaluation of property, it’s not likely that she’s wanting to move,
but who is going to buy a home that has a daycare next door? We’ve heard that
from the previous people that it’s not likely wanting to move because of the noise
in the neighborhood. So there’s concerns there that seem to me that there are
possibilities of causing disturbance in the neighborhood by just the scheduling of
the hours and the traffic problems. And then we’ve also answered a question on
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JUNE 9, 1998
PAGE 40
how it’s regulated and monitoring of this. It’s five or fewer. Well, is someone
going to sit out there and actually see how many people come and go? And are
these hours where their children are is it going to be two people come at noon
and pick them up and the other three come later? So you have a concern there
of what is the traffic problem, the noise. And she lives right across the street, so
it’s not like those cars are going to be just passing by. So that’s our concerns.
MacCoy: Any questions from the commissioners?
De Weerd: Well, just a statement. I understand your concern. I do know
Monaco is going to be extended into a new subdivision going in behind it, so I
think the child care traffic is not going to add as much as that subdivision will. I
think that improvements already have been made on that house. We do live on
W. Chateau, and I am please to see that things are starting to look better on that
corner. We can hear the elementary school from our home, and so I do not think
that kids from birth to two and a half are going to make that much more noise
than what the elementary school is already making. So I do understand your
concerns for your mom. But at this point, we can only look at the accessory use
permit, and if they comply, and it’s good that they are going through this process
and not doing illegally.
Williams: Well, the age of the children is not the concern because the traffic, it
doesn’t matter what age it is, there’s going to be a car coming by and picking
them up and take them away, whether they are six months or five years old.
MacCoy: Any other questions? Okay, thank you. Is there anybody else here
who would like to make a statement.
TROY RICHMOND 6757 MAXWELL LANE, BOISE, WAS SWORN BY THE
CITY ATTORNEY.
T. Richmond: I just wanted to say that traffic is a problem on that road. We’ve
been out working on the yard. That’s one of the things, I don’t know if this is a
planning and zoning issue or a city council issue, but they need speed bumps,
and that’s one of the things we are going to try and get because we know that
having kids, we don’t want our neighbor to think that we are going to come in
with a bunch of kids. That’s not our objective. We are just going to run the five
or fewer children. Like Kristi said, and make improvements on the place. We
don’t want any problems, and we’re not looking to grow a big business or
anything there. As far as the traffic goes, we’re talking only four cars in the
morning and four at night, and we’ve actually had four people that want child
care there, quality child care, because my wife, she’s educated, she has two
degrees in this. It’s not a fly by night thing. She knows what she’s doing, and
mostly I just want to address that it’s not going to be a big unorganized type of
deal and to have four cars in there in the morning and then four cars at night is
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JUNE 9, 1998
PAGE 41
better than some other alternatives that are out there. I had the police over at
my townhouse the other day. Three of them because our neighbors deal drugs,
and child care is not that bad. So, that’s all I got.
MacCoy: Good statement. Anybody else want to make a statement.
GORDON SCHOENFELD 2311 MONACO WAY WAS SWORN BY THE CITY
ATTORNEY.
Schoenfeld: We’re presently living there and like you said we have done a lot of
improvements on the house. When we were first in, it was a mess, and since
then we have done a lot of improvements. I think that that has helped in that
type of neighborhood as far as the property value of the house. We’ve been by
the house just recently before we came to the meeting and saw that the
improvements that the people have done on that house too. We’re also
concerned about the property value and I had Ashley Seymour with Realty
Center do a study as far as other daycare centers that have gone into areas.
And would it be, have him come up and state what he found as far as property
values with other daycare centers? Is there any complaints?
Prior: After you are done speaking, if he wishes to address the commission, he’s
more than welcome to do that.
Schoenfeld: As far as the noise traffic, like you said, there is an elementary
school there, and I see as far as four more cars, I don’t know if really that would
cause any more than that, because we used to live there, and early in the
morning you can hear the kids walking up and down the sidewalks yelling and
screaming, you know, it’s hard to control kids walking up and down the
sidewalks. There is another subdivision going in there, any more traffic, four
more cars, I can’t see where it’s going to do that much more damage. Thank
you.
MacCoy: Do you want to come before and make a statement?
ASHLEY SEYMOUR WAS SWORN BY THE CITY ATTORNEY.
Seymour: I’m the listing agent for the Shoenfeld’s property. I live at 2604 Odle
Way in Boise. I did agree to do a little research on daycare facilities as to what
impact they had on the neighborhoods. It was quite difficult to pull up off the
multiple listing service, because there was no comments that you could search
by daycare center, and in the comments that we normally put into the listing,
when I did a string search for anything to do with daycare, nothing at all came
up. So I had conversations with my broker, the other selling agent, and a
number of other agents that I had contact with, and the consensus was there
was no negative impact on it. As I heard Commissioner Nelson speak, he feels
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JUNE 9, 1998
PAGE 42
it’s a desirable and I do also in a neighborhood because as part of one of the
things that makes a neighborhood vibrant. You know you don’t want to get an
over-concentration of a facility like that or almost any kind of facility, but that does
give an opportunity for home owners in the neighborhood, you know, they do
have small children, the convenience of having someone close by as opposed to
always having to drive them across town to a facility that might be quite a
distance away. I did have experience on financing a – I used to work at a bank
and there was a daycare center on the corner of Ustick and Rugby, which I was a
loan officer on about ten years ago, and that was 100 unit daycare center. And it
was desirable to have in the area, but also it was not in my opinion the only way
or the best way to necessarily take care of daycare needs. Not only would it not
have an impact on the value of the house, but again I think just because a small
scattered number of daycare centers in a subdivision like that would not a
negative impact on the other houses either.
MacCoy: Any questions for him?
Smith: Just point of clarification. So, you don’t have any statistical data to show
that a daycare would devalue or improve the value of the homes. That’s your
opinion, your broker’s opinion and the other listing agents?
Seymour: I could not find any information that would confirm it either one way or
another. They didn’t even speak to it, so the (inaudible) information generally is
an indication that it’s not a significant factor. I mean I could search a lot of
features on houses, bedrooms, bathrooms, square footage and lot size, and I
could come to opinions as to what impact that has, but when you don’t have any
information to go on, it’s mostly experience, and I’ve shown and sold houses that
had been operated as daycare centers before, and I have not seen any negative
impact on the condition of the home, and when I did search through the
neighborhood any impact on the values of those homes, so it’s in a sense
(inaudible). It’s just difficult. I couldn’t find anything that would support or deny
that issue.
MacCoy: Anyone else?
Williams: There is a – I don’t which house it is, but there is another daycare
facility down the street on Chateau within a couple of blocks according to the
signs that are in the yard and on Chateau and Linder, and so within just a couple
of blocks, there is another daycare. I don’t know the description of it or anything
else, but it is within a couple of blocks over.
MacCoy: Okay, thank you. Anyone else? Anything else you want to ask of the
people we have had before us?
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JUNE 9, 1998
PAGE 43
Nelson: I have no more questions, but I would make comments similar to the
previous item in that I support the five children daycare, and without dismissing
the weight of the neighbors’ concerns, but I do support that.
Smith: Nothing.
De Weerd: Nothing.
MacCoy: Anything else from out here? Okay, I’m going to close the public
hearing, and what is our action?
Nelson: Mr. Chairman, I’d like to make a motion that we have the city attorney
prepare Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for item number 13.
Smith: Second.
MacCoy: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: All ayes.
MacCoy: It’s now 9:00, and we have to take a break for ten minutes and we will
be back.
RECESS TAKEN.
MacCoy: We would like to reconvene now. If you will please. We’re on item 14,
it a public hearing.
ITEM NO. 14: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY AND FINAL
PLAT FOR 2.67 ACRES BY STEVEN K. RICKS – MIDTOWN SQUARE PARK
NO. 2:
MacCoy: Will the applicant please come forward?
STEVEN RICKS 1560 N. CRESTMONT DRIVE, SUITE B, MERIDIAN WAS
SWORN BY THE CITY ATTORNEY.
Ricks: Ladies and gentlemen of the commission, this application is in response
to a need for a request by my financing people to split this commercial park into
two lots. We first platted this property back in ’94 and developed it in ’95. It’s a
office park called Cherry Lane Center on the corner of Cherry Lane and
Crestmont here in Meridian. On the construction, however, we phased it into two
phases. That has subsequently created the need for this proceeding before this
commission. In the first phase, which was the west two thirds of the property, we
built two buildings in the 1995 and presently they’re nearly full of tenants. We’re
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JUNE 9, 1998
PAGE 44
in the process of constructing the last two buildings on phase two on the east
end of the project. Earlier this year I sought for and received a financing
commitment for phase one, and that’s the buildings that have already been built
which are occupied by tenants, and as we went through the procedures and
paperwork of the lender, the lender saw that Midtown Square Park was one lot,
and that there would be four buildings in two phases in this one lot. Because of
concerns which they had, they asked me and I also talked to Shari, they asked
me to proceed with whatever was required by the City of Meridian to split this
office park into two lots so that they would have a secure legal description to
phase one and then there would be secure legal description to phase two rather
than a meets and bounds of a legal description, so they wanted a lot one or two
of block one as a legal rather than a meets and bounds, so I talked to Shari and
she said the fastest thing we can do for you is do a preliminary and final plat
combo., get your stuff in here by May 14th
, and we’ll put you on the calendar for
tonight which I did and she did. So that’s why we’re here. It’s basically to meet
the financing requirements of my lender which is a life insurance company in
New York. The comments that Bruce gave me. I can concur with all of them. I
didn’t receive this until this meeting, but there’s nothing here that’s out of the
ordinary. We can do all of those things. The only one that we cannot do since
the office park is already built, parking is already there, the buildings are all there.
We cannot comply with Central District Health’s comments, which they indicated
that we recommend that a storm water be pre-treated through a grassy swale
prior to discharge to the subsurface. There’s no opportunity to create a grassy
swale on the office park, because it’s already been built out, however, we do
have five subsurface on site drainage disposal pits, and we dispose of all of our
on site water on site. The only other comment that might create a little question
in the commissioner’s mind was from Nampa Meridian Irrigation District. They
also did not know that this is a project that is already been done, and when I
talked to John Anderson last week he sent me a letter indicating that he had no
more interest or Nampa Meridian Irrigation District had no more interest in this
project as we have excluded ourselves from the District, and we keep all of our
water on site. I have a letter to that effect if the commission is interested in that.
That concludes my presentation. Do you want that Will? Okay. I’d be happy to
answer any questions the commission has.
MacCoy: Commissioners? No questions? Well, it’s a public hearing, anybody
else in the room that wants to get up and talk about this? I guess not. Anybody
have any questions here? With that I guess I’ll close the public hearing. What is
your request?
Nelson: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a motion that we forward this to city
council for recommendation for approval.
Smith: Second.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JUNE 9, 1998
PAGE 45
MacCoy: Any discussion? All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: All ayes.
ITEM NO. 15: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING
OF 1.18 ACRES BY WILLIAM C. HUMPHREY FOR 939 E. PINE:
MacCoy: Is Mr. Humphrey here? Okay would you come forward please? While
he’s walking forward, we’ll open the public hearing.
WILLIAM C. HUMPHREY 939 E. PINE WAS SWORN BY THE CITY
ATTORNEY.
Humphrey: I just request annexation for the purpose of building a family dwelling
to enhance my family’s living. At which time I found out within the last two days
that this is pretty much all for not at this time because of the fact that hearing
from the hydrologist I do live in a flood plain there, and it doesn’t seem like this is
going to be able to work because of the flood plain.
Prior: Are you withdrawing your request?
Humphrey: Well, no. Not really, I just at this time it doesn’t seem like I’m going
to be able to proceed with my plans. The annexation is going to be inevitable
anyway someday I’m sure. This is the second hearing I’ve been to on this. I’ve
already applied for all the permits, sewer, water, trash is there, everything is
there. It’s just at this point, I’m kind of stymied right now. I don’t know which way
to go.
MacCoy: Mr. Prior, do you have any comments on this at this point?
Prior: Specifically in what regards? Well, I mean if he wants to try to annex the
property, it’s not going to affect the fact that he’s not going to be able to do it, and
it’s a separate issue. I’m just saying that if he’s not planning on doing anything
with it –
Humphrey: Well, at this time it doesn’t look like I really have a –
Prior: It could be an expensive proposition to comply with all the requirements. I
haven’t had a chance to go through them all, but you may want to reconsider this
and hold off until maybe you have something more –
Humphrey: If I could reconsider and approach the council and the commission
at another time when things develop differently, that would probably –
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JUNE 9, 1998
PAGE 46
Prior: That may require that you would have to reapply. We can table this item if
you would like to do that. I got you, Shari. We can table this item if you’d like,
and we can table it for short period of time, but we cannot table this indefinitely. I
mean we can’t keep having this on the agenda tabled for the next six eight
months. If you are requesting that we table consideration of this item at this
point, obviously the commission can take that under advisement and – well, you
don’t want to continue the public hearing. I think we want to table it actually, do
we not? Because he doesn’t want it considered. He doesn’t want it open for
another public hearing next time. He wants – we can close the public hearing,
we table it and then at some later time reconsider. I believe that would be the
appropriate –
Smith: Which is reopen the public hearing.
Prior: Well, you can’t do that then.
Smith: So, what’s the difference between continuing and tabling something?
Nelson: Access to the public hearing.
Berg: Yes, when you continue the public hearing, which is in the best interest,
you are keeping the public hearing open. And whatever information is gathered
from time to time is contained for that hearing and for your decision. When you
table it, you’re stopping all the information from coming forth and he may have
some vital information or some comments to some specific issue that our staff’s
comments have been addressed.
Prior: But by continuing it, we’re keeping it on the agenda at least –
Smith: By tabling it, we’re basically just delaying our decision.
Prior: So he can testify at this time and we can make the determination whether
we want to table or continue based on whether we want to allow any further
information entered into this thing. What I’m saying is if we table it though, we
can table it indefinitely. We continue it. This thing will be on the agenda next
week as a continued public hearing, and –
Smith: But we’re only required to continue it to a date certain, right? We don’t
have to continue it to next week. We can continue it until next month.
Prior: Correct.
Smith: And if I understand you correctly, you want to do a little more research,
find out what the implications are of you building in the flood plain, what the
ramifications are of what you are going to have to do with the structure and so
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JUNE 9, 1998
PAGE 47
forth to meet the county requirements or whatever of constructing in a flood
plain.
Humphrey: It would be (inaudible) whatever they determine. I have an option
that I will be researching. So apparently if we do table this and I will be able to
come back and if that does bring some enlightenment to this situation, then I can
present it at that time.
Smith: Okay, well, it sounds like to me what we want to do is continue this public
hearing, so I would like – when is our July meeting?
De Weerd: Will you have the information by July?
Humphrey: I hope. I may have it as soon as tomorrow.
MacCoy: I think the question is do you want one month or do you want it two
months?
Humphrey: One month would be more than sufficient. I could know as soon as
tomorrow.
MacCoy: Okay, so when we get ready to do it, one month would be okay.
Anything else you want to add to this?
Humphrey: Not at this time.
MacCoy: Okay, I’ll ask anybody here that would like to make any comment?
WAYNE FORREY 3045 THAN PLACE, BOISE WAS SWORN BY THE CITY
ATTORNEY.
Forrey: Members of the commission, my wife, Karen and I are developing
property immediately east of Mr. Humphrey, and I learned tonight about his
unfortunate situation in the flood plain, but I came to testify in favor and support
of the annexation, and I hope Mr. Humphrey can work that out. I do have some
flood plain information because we’re developing next door, and I’ll share that
with Mr. Humphrey and give support what I can, but we wanted to testify in favor
or that location. I hope he gets annexed.
MacCoy: Okay, thank you, Wayne. Anyone else would like to make a comment?
All right. Any comments from the commission? What do you want to do?
Smith: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a motion that we continue this public
hearing until our July 14th
commission meeting?
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JUNE 9, 1998
PAGE 48
Nelson: Second.
MacCoy: Any discussion? All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: All ayes.
ITEM NO. 16: R C WILLEY SITE PLAN REVIEW BY CSHQA – EAGLE &
FRANKLIN ROAD:
MacCoy: Do you want to swear him in for anything?
Prior: I will swear at him if you want.
MacCoy: No, shut up John.
Prior: Well, you’re getting the hang of it.
MacCoy: You can step up to the podium and give us your presentation.
Lowe: My name is Jerry Lowe. I’m with CSHQA Architects, and I’m here
representing R C Willey. R C Willey is a major home furnishings company based
in Salt Lake City. They have several store in that area. They are a very sizable
firm, and they purchase land on the corner of Franklin and Eagle. A 22 acre site,
and they would like to construct (inaudible) and 50,000 square foot (inaudible).
Eagle Road north up this way Franklin Road on the corner. If you’re familiar with
this site, the site drops off pretty significantly from Franklin Road to the north,
there’s about a 15 to 18 foot drop from the street and about a hundred feet, so it
drops off and then it’s pretty level. There’s a railroad track that borders and then
Evan’s drain borders the north side of the property, and this was part of the
previously submitted preliminary plat for 64 acres plus or minus to the east. This
is about 22 acres. The agreement between R C Willey and the previous owner,
Ron Van Auker, was to allow access from Eagle Road through the property to the
Van Auker’s property to the east. The only permitted access off of Eagle is an
alignment with Lanark Street, and in order to optimize a use of this site, we’ve
routed a road which will be built to ACHD standards around the perimeter and
then connect back up on Franklin Road right along the property. We’re
proposing that we construct half the street on Willey’s site and half the street on
Van Auker’s property per their agreement, the sales agreement. By default
because of the requirement to align Lanark with the alignment across the street,
we’ve ended up with a piece of property that really Willey had no intention of
developing anything more on this site. We’ve ended up with a small piece of
land here that has the potential for future development, but there’s no plans at
this time of what that might be or how it will be handled. The site, in order to
maximize visibility, where (inaudible) the building towards the intersection of
Eagle and Franklin so that because visibility is critical to the sales (inaudible) with
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JUNE 9, 1998
PAGE 49
parking out in front. We’re proposing in this plan, it’s 550 spaces required by
ordinance and we’ve shown 591 in this location with the possibility of parking lot
expansion into this area should the customer count, should business be really
good. We’ve got a landscaping plan here that indicates our planning and
preliminary. Staff’s comments about planning along Franklin and Eagle Road,
the client is very sensitive to the visibility of this, and would like to propose that
there be minimal blockage of visibility from this street. At this point, we’ve
indicated lawn area, grass area, that would be immunable to additional
landscaping if we could keep it in a lower nature as opposed to trees which
would block visibility from the intersection. There’s an irrigation drainage
collector on the north side of the property. By city ordinance we are required to
pipe that, which we will, and from an irrigation standpoint, we also plan to use
that drainage as part of our source for irrigation. I didn’t bring elevations.
MacCoy: We have those in our package, yeah.
Lowe: I have photographs of previous projects that they have done that they
have created an image that they would like to maintain architecturally.
Superimpose this image on to those elevations. They’ve got a colored barrel
balled roof, concrete (inaudible) awnings, which is their color theme. These
canopies would be over the main entrance. The barrel balled arch and the
colored canopies on the side. With that I’d entertain any questions, comments.
Smith: Jerry, I’ve got no clue with what you are doing with the grating out there.
I know the site drops off quite a bit as you have mentioned there, and I was real
curious as to how you were going to work with the existing grating and integrate
the parking and building and so forth into the site. Are you raising part of it up or
–
Lowe: Yes. I can explain. The natural drainage is basically in this fashion as to
the drain. We’re going to provide a storm water detention pond back in here,
and with a combination of razing grades and cutting, we’re going to pipe our
parking lot paving over into this storm water detention. Other parts that will work
around the building we’re going to work to gradually work the grates to flow
surface drainage back to the storm water detention area.
Smith: So through your cutting and filling of the site there, are you going to need
to put any retaining walls along Eagle Road or Franklin?
Lowe: We may have to do two to three foot retaining wall back in here because
of the cut back into this. Most of the drop off appears in this first half. Shari, do
you have that Lanark deal? It shows some topography on that and gives you
some sense of – (End of Tape)
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JUNE 9, 1998
PAGE 50
Lowe: On this, this is part of the preliminary plat. Franklin Road here, you can
see the grade drops off right in here.
Smith: Yeah, I’m pretty familiar with the site.
Lowe: We are going to be cutting in this fashion here. We’re gonna have to
bring our building grade up probably two, two and a half feet in order to make
this thing –
Smith: So you’ll have to bring some fill off site to make that happen. You won’t
be able to get it all from the cut.
Lowe: No, we’re not going to be able to balance it.
Prior: I go by there all the time. That’s quite a drop. Are they going to be able to
landscape that okay? You were concerned about visibility from above.
Lowe: And that’s why we haven’t proposed putting in any landscaping along that
higher part which would further block it.
Prior: What are you going to do with it, just grass?
Lowe: That’s what we propose. Now, Shari has some other view points.
Prior: Well, what about the trees?
Lowe: There’s another influence on here. There’s a high voltage, Mark’s got his
power line that runs right down here, which is going to impact what we can plant
under that power line, so anything we have to do would have to be further down
the hill which I don’t know.
Prior: So, you’ll have to (inaudible) all your trees off in that far left corner that you
don’t want to – (inaudible)
Lowe: What I would like to suggest is that we take Shari’s concerns and I’m
assuming your concerns and work on this to see if we can strike a compromise
to do something more than just lawn area. But something that allows, maintains
the openness of the visibility from portions of it. Obviously not all the points are
going to be critical. We can do more landscaping in this point. The main
concern is from Eagle Road and Franklin, but the further we get down here
towards the center you’ve either passed your opportunity to see it, or you are
coming upon it, so it would be an opportunity probably in the center to do a little
bit more to break that up.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JUNE 9, 1998
PAGE 51
Smith: I guess the biggest problem I have with the site plan is all the parking is
located right on the corner, and the building’s behind it as opposed to flip flopped
the other way and having the parking back on the backside of the lot and
screened from the streets, Franklin and Eagle. It just strikes me as a real high
visibility corner, and I hate to see just a big sea of asphalt out there, and you
know with the building back on the backside.
Lowe: And I appreciate that. If you can appreciate from the marketability
standpoint and visibility, the main entrance is the primary selling point as a
business aspect venture to put that in there, so from that aspect, it needs to front
on the front row, and given that, then the parking is extremely inconvenient to put
behind the building so it’s –
MacCoy: There’s some advantages here by setting it back the way you have
because that corner there, Franklin and Eagle is a high point, and if you got the
thing too close to that corner, you would see only the roof, and this way you will
see the big picture you want to show is the vaulted arch and the colors.
Lowe: And that’s exactly –
MacCoy: And I hope they don’t see too much of the parking. Half of that will be
lost to you because it will be – you’ll out. You’ll look out towards the building and
you’ll only see that last part of the parking as a driver driving by and you’ve got a
monument sign there at the corner, which everybody is going to pick up on. Plus
you’ve got a monument sign down there and down there. So you’ll have plenty
of visibility.
Smith: How much are you looking to raise the pad up?
Lowe: I’m guessing right now. We haven’t gotten into that, probably two, two
and a half feet.
Smith: Okay, and earlier you said there was a drop of about 18 feet.
Lowe: Eighteen feet from Franklin down to where this thing starts to level off but
the majority of it you can see –
Stiles: Do you need a scale?
Lowe: I can’t make out what these are. (Inaudible)
Smith: Okay, so about 18, you raise it up two and a half feet, say that’s 15 ½ and
it looks like your lowest parapet is 21’ 4” so that would be five feet above the high
point on Franklin and Eagle. I don’t know, I’m just – I don’t like the parking in the
front.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JUNE 9, 1998
PAGE 52
MacCoy: Yeah, but I don’t think you can see but half of it because of the
location.
Nelson: This street on Lanark, that’s the only one that – that’s the only access
they are really going to give you off of Eagle. That’s the only thing you can do
there.
Lowe: The requirement is to align it here. Ideally if we can get it back here, it
allows us a lot more opportunity to maneuver this. Lanark’s right about the
bottom of it.
Prior: How close it that Lanark to the railroad tracks? I know that’s right next to
what – Coors is over there, is it not?
MacCoy: It’s across the track, yeah, right there.
De Weerd: Mr. Chair, I guess I just have one comment, I would gather from all of
this is your landscaping is going to be very important to this design in drawing the
person’s eye to your building and also making that corridor into Meridian visually
attractive. Is there any chance that you have a concept plan on what that
landscaping is going to look like?
Lowe: This is a proposal for – we’ve designated types of trees and so on, sizes
and species.
De Weerd: I’m sorry, this is my first meeting.
Stiles: I think she’s – if I’m hearing you right, what I’m concerned about is what is
it going to look like on Eagle Road and Franklin Road? I mean is it just grass?
Is there any berming to it? Is it – you know, grass is nice, but it would be nice to
have a really aesthetically more pleasing than just grass.
Prior: Flowers, bushes.
Lowe: We can certainly work with that again if we could work with maintaining
the visibility aspect of it. We just completed Blue Cross down the road from here,
and there’s not an awful lot of tree planting in there, but I think it’s been
successful from the visibility standpoint. It’s lawn area, it’s got some berms
which are strategically placed and there’s certainly with doing that. I don’t know
that berming -- again this drops off Eagle too so I think some type of lower
growth plantings would be something I would like to suggest that we propose.
Stiles: Something with some color.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JUNE 9, 1998
PAGE 53
De Weerd: Yeah, and there are some very nice low growing shrubs and rock
interests that you can put in there that would not limit the visibility down into your
project, but that would be my comment. If you could help visualize what that
area will look like, it will certainly help in being able to give an idea of what you’re
proposing.
Lowe: And I agree that the landscaping is an amenity that works as a marketing
tool at the same time as breaking things up.
MacCoy: I’m glad to hear that you did Blue Cross, because I think you did a
good job there, and I thought I’d point that out to you.
Nelson: The developer owns this lot and the one to the east.
Lowe: Van Auker owns this property basically, you can see this is the property
line that was sold off. He owns all this.
Prior: There’s still 60 acres to the east, is there not?
Lowe: I think there was 64 total and this is 22.
Prior: (Inaudible)
(Inaudible)
MacCoy: What is the latest on sewer out there?
Lowe: We met with the Mayor last week. I understand that they started
condemnation proceedings on – not true?
Prior: I’m just smiling.
Lowe: I understand that there’s a hold up with the property owner allowing
access back over here.
Prior: In all likelihood, just to add some insight. In all likelihood, it’s probably
going to be at least 90 days, I’m guessing, before the sewer situation is taken
care of. Mr. Clerk, this is John Prior. It’s going to probably be at least 90 days
before the sewer situation is addressed and at least the proceedings are – at
least it’s clarified. I don’t want to get into it too much. It’s going to be at least 90
days.
Lowe: The agreement that was made in the sale of the property was that Van
Auker would have sewer to the property by August 31st
. Now, from the use of
this property our schedule is to be open Memorial Day of ’99, so that would still
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JUNE 9, 1998
PAGE 54
work to make that tie in. That’s why we’re here. (Inaudible) thanks to your help,
we’re going to get that through.
Stiles: What’s the dollar amount? Do you have an estimate on the building?
Lowe: It’s 150,000 feet, probably total six and a half million, including the site
development. There’s some requirements that –
Prior: This is a furniture store, is it not?
Lowe: Furniture store, they do home furnishings, they do electronics. It gives
you some flavor of interior and exterior, but 100,000 square feet of (inaudible).
(Inaudible – off the mike)
MacCoy: Is there any more comments here? Commissioners?
Smith: I guess I’m pretty much the only one that feels this way obviously based
on the comments, but I still feel that there’s some creative solutions that probably
could be looked at to get the parking or at least the majority of the parking off the
corner. I don’t know that your main entrance to your building necessarily has to
be your only identification to motorists going on Franklin or Eagle that here’s R C
Willey Furniture Store, and this is where you go in to the building. But I guess
the only other comment I have is take a little closer look at the loading – the
receiving area and customer loading service area and those areas have a
tendency to be kind of unattractive and if there’s some things that you can do to
be a little more sensitive to the screening of that with the landscaping and those
areas, that would probably be helpful too, and then I can’t take credit for this
comment. Commissioner Nelson’s comment, but that little chunk up there in the
upper left hand corner looks like a good site for a Chevron Station.
Lowe: We’ve got a sign, sold a sign that’s visible from the interstate.
Prior: (Inaudible) we’re talking about the signs.
Stiles: That’s another time.
Lowe: We’ll be coming in for a sign, they’re gathering data on the types of sign
that we would like to propose.
Smith: I’m unfamiliar with the site plan review process. This is the first one
we’ve done since I’ve been on the commission, and I don’t know, do we prepare
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law or are we just offering input? I mean
what are we doing?
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JUNE 9, 1998
PAGE 55
Nelson: Thanks for asking.
MacCoy: I understand we are just looking at this to give him a chance to
understand to where we’re coming from, so he can continue on with this. We are
not required to give a vote.
Stiles: When it was initially annexed, the first attempt at annexation, we were
requiring conditional use permit for every single use on the site. But it was an
industrial review area. It wasn’t in one of those mixed plan use development
areas. So they came back and said we really don’t want to have to go through
that for everything and we don’t think we’re required to and they stated that they
would undergo the site plan review process, which you can place conditions on
it. You could ask for modifications to it to an extent, and as far as the signage of
course we are going to review that on a case by case basis, but there is no
process. I think that I had tried to submit some plans council for site plan review,
and they said what are you doing here? So, I think you as the Planning and
Zoning Commission are the better board to go through the site plan review than
the City Council, because City Council is going to see a six and a half million
dollar project basically and great, go. So, you might be seeing a few more of
these and that might be one of the discussions we need to have at our
workshops, is what do you want? Do you want an application? What kind of
things you want to do and see as part of a site plan review, because you will
probably be seeing more and more of this kind of thing to not have the lengthy
conditional use permit process for every single lot.
Smith: I don’t even want to waste our time looking at these site plan review
processes if we’re not going to be able to make any comments and hold any
water. It’s seems silly to me. It’s just a formality. You said we can request
modifications to a certain extent. What is that?
Nelson: That’s better than having no say. At least maybe Jerry and other
architects would consider our opinion. You would, wouldn’t you Jerry?
Stiles: Some others might not.
Nelson: So I guess – I would prefer it to a conditional use. It’s not so stringent
upon tying up months of development time.
Stiles: And I think that any of these projects, if there’s something that you had a
consensus that you felt strongly enough that needed changed, they would be
required to comply with that.
Nelson: If that were the case, how would we officially make that wish known?
Stiles: Can they make a motion?
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JUNE 9, 1998
PAGE 56
Prior: The only problem I have with this whole thing is that you are talking about
certain mix use area, and I think specifically in this particular mixed use area, a
conditional use permit process is required.
Stiles: This isn’t a mixed use area.
Prior: That isn’t mixed use over there?
Stiles: It was an industrial area in the comprehensive plan, and also as part of
the annexation –
Prior: Doesn’t part of the Eagle Road corridor along there under mixed use, that
doesn’t –
Stiles: It’s not. On the map, it’s not a mixed planned use. It’s not orange.
Prior: I don’t have my book with me, all right? The problem I have is how are
you going to distinguish when you are going to use site plan review and when
you are going to use conditional use permits? How are you going to draw that
distinction? Who is going to make that decision?
Stiles: Council.
Prior: So, it has to go before the council and they have to make a decision as to
whether they are going to apply a – or are you going to try to make some type of
amendment to our zoning and subdivision ordinance? Is that what you intention
is here?
Stiles: This was a specific requirement for the annexation of this site. This
whole thing, I know Jerry’s had one of his employees come and look through the
file because they called me and I said you know that was so long ago and such a
strange annexation. The conditions they agreed to as part of the annexation –
Prior: Was that why they had to do a site plan review?
Stiles: The site plan review. The applicant also agreed that they would be
bound by any zoning and subdivision ordinance amendments that we might
make in the future. So they were leaving themselves wide open.
Prior: What you are doing is part of the site, so in other words, part of the
annexation, and I wasn’t a party to this. That’s why I’m inquiring. So part of the
annexation and zoning, one of the requirements was that they do a site plan
review.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JUNE 9, 1998
PAGE 57
Stiles: Yes.
Prior: So all that needs to be done is the Planning and Zoning Commission just
needs to make a recommendation and can attach conditions to this thing if they
deem that necessary and then we move on and that’s the process.
Stiles: And it will not go to council. It’s not going to council.
Prior: There won’t be any requirement for any conditional use permit either as
far as that’s concerned. That’s my understanding as well.
Stiles: If this is acceptable to the commission and they had water and sewer
there to meet the requirements for a building permit, they could come in
tomorrow with the building permit application. And get going.
Prior: But all of these things have to be approved by this commission as far as
whether they approve of everything, and if there’s anything that they don’t
approve of or they want some more clarification, it’s their prerogative to go
forward.
Stiles: They could ask for additional information. They could ask for additional
details. I mean I think that’s totally within their right.
Prior: That’s right, under the ordinance. Actually under the statute, they can ask
any requirements they want. Request anything they want. Anything.
De Weerd: Well, we would all have to agree on them. Right?
Smith: We would have to agree on a majority vote.
Prior: And since this is relatively new to me I’d have to check to see and you are
assuring me that a conditional use permit isn’t required for any of this stuff. I’m
going to confirm that anyway even if you tell me it isn’t, but I’m going to confirm it
in my own mind.
Stiles: It’s a single parcel, the 22 acres. They are –
Prior: The annexation and zoning has gone through?
Stiles: Yes.
Nelson: When did that take place?
Stiles: Two years ago.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JUNE 9, 1998
PAGE 58
Prior: And was it a condition of that annexation and zoning that they hook up to
sewer and water?
Stiles: Yes.
Prior: So in other words, this thing is going to be on hold until they hook up to
sewer and water.
Nelson: So you could hold it for a long time.
Prior: No, I won’t. But, you know.
Stiles: The Mayor is going to be out digging trenches in a couple days.
Prior: I don’t even want to go there. I didn’t mean it, Mayor. I think it would
behoove us for you folks to make any type of a recommendation, but I still think it
ought to go to the city council and allow them to at least take a look at it. I think
that would be at least appropriate. I don’t think it’s required. But I think it would
behoove you folks to make it a condition that you at least send this forward to the
city council to allow them to consider it as well as maybe just as a courtesy.
MacCoy: I was going to say, it should be a courtesy. Because no one here
would know more about that than they would. And I’ll say that right with Charlie
standing right here. I don’t care. He served on this board before.
Smith: I’d really hate to pass up an opportunity to be the final word on
something.
Stiles: You are on accessory use permits.
Prior: Can we move this along because I do plan on getting some sleep tonight.
MacCoy: Are you ready to shut off the discussion now?
Prior: Spit it out.
Nelson: I was just thinking then it sound appropriate then to request that this go
to city council as a courtesy review. At the same time request the assistant city
attorney to review those – so that the commission doesn’t have the same
discussion that we are having right now, --
Prior: I don’t think under our ordinance it requires Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law. In fact I’m pretty sure there’s no Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law. I think what we need to do is you can send on – like I said
make it a condition that as a courtesy you send it forward to the –
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JUNE 9, 1998
PAGE 59
Nelson: For comment in then if we could give them a short narration as to why
it’s coming their way so they don’t wonder if they get a vote on it or what.
Prior: And Shari that’s listed as like you said light industrial?
Stiles: It’s zoned C-G, but in the comprehensive plan, it shown as a light
industrial area.
Prior: And as a light industrial, this is a permitted use.
De Weerd: Now, Shari, they have mentioned that city council doesn’t want to
deal with this, so why are recommending – is that what you said?
Stiles: I don’t think that it needs to go to the city council. I think that this is the
appropriate board to design review.
Prior: That’s your judgment?
Stiles: Yes.
Prior: That’s nothing you’ve heard from the power above who pay my check.
Stiles: With a lack of a process, we punt.
Prior: And I’m not aware of any process for the record either.
MacCoy: Shari, will we get this back after having made our comments and
discussion, will we see this again?
Stiles: If you want to see it again, you can. If you are requesting modifications
that you want to see the final result.
MacCoy: I think out of courtesy, it goes both directions. I think we spent some
time on thing, and I think we have enough concern and enough interest in this
thing because of our backgrounds, I’d for one would like to see this come back to
this commission again with some of your input in this thing. See what you come
up with.
Smith: What is that input? Have we actually asked him to –
MacCoy: Well, we asked him to look at the landscaping and parking and position
of the building and he’s been trying to give us some view point as to what they
had envisioned for this, and I got the indication that you’ve got some things in
mind that you are going to planting with to see if it comes out.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JUNE 9, 1998
PAGE 60
Lowe: (inaudible)
De Weerd: Can you speak into the microphone?
Lowe: I would like to suggest some compromises to the landscaping that we
proposed but I’m not real confident that I can convince my client of the parking in
the back of the building.
MacCoy: It’s been noted that we’ve got interest in that, and I think you take it
back to your client and you’d work this thing out. I’d like to see what you come
up with. I would say Commissioner Smith sure would.
Smith: If you are coming back, I’d really like to see some grading and maybe a
site section cut through Franklin. North south and one east west just we can see
how you’re – you know maybe something showing existing grading and the
proposed grading with the retainage, you know because there’s no retaining wall
on there indicated, and I you know, I mean I drive by this site every day twice a
day, so I’m pretty familiar with it and I’m pretty sensitive to the – the typical strip
development where you see just the parking. Just a big – the Fairview Avenue
syndrome, and I haven’t sat down and worked through the perimeter that your
clients set down for you, so I don’t know what – I know some of the things that
you’ve been – been placed upon you that have shaped some of your design
decision, but I would feel a lot better if these other items of input as far as the
siting and orientation and so forth were at least considered and looked at. I
guess I feel I went through this same kind of issue with another project here a
few months ago, and basically I think they just more or less shined us on and
didn’t even attempt to look at revisions and changes to address some of those
concerns. I’d feel better if I felt like you guys were making a good faith effort in
trying to address the orientation and siting issues. I would like to see some site
sections with some grading.
Prior: I think as a commission, you folks should give him a specific direction as
to what you want him to address, because I want to make it clear. You know
Byron is talking about the positioning of the building and everything else, but the
other commissioners haven’t made it clear what their thoughts are on the
positioning of that building and I think it’s important that rather than just saying,
and speaking in generalities, we need to tell him specifically what you want him
to specifically look at as a commission as a whole, not just one member of the
commission. I think give him some direction so at least when he comes back, it
will be the last and final time hopefully that he has to do this, so I think you folks
need to be clear and specific as what exactly you want him to look at and what
exactly you want him to do and then after he comes back, if you ask him to go in
front of the city council as a courtesy, that’s great, but I think you need to be
specific as what you want him to do so this thing does not drag on needlessly
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JUNE 9, 1998
PAGE 61
any longer than it has to. I would just ask that you be specific with him at this
point.
Lowe: If I could make a comment, I very much appreciate that. Your neighbor to
the east here in their design review process has very explicit, the staff makes
recommendations, allows the applicant and public to comment and then votes on
which conditions will be impacted on that, and it’s very clear what we as the
client needs to do to respond to that then the process goes on from there. So if
you could put it in that format, it would make it a lot easier for myself as well as I
believe, so we’re not here all summer looking at trees.
Stiles: The city council has also indicated that they don’t want a design review
committee. They don’t want the Boise deal where they get down to every little
species of shrub and –
Lowe: I’m not saying to the same extreme, but at least there’s perimeters that
are established so –
Prior: Are you going to hold them to the 180 trees that he needs to put on that
property, minimum?
Stiles: Yes.
Prior: That’s a given. Right. Do you want the lawn to be landscaped with grass
or do you want flowers, rocks, bushes? You know I mean that’s what I’m telling
them.
MacCoy: We ask him to look into to it to see what he’s –
Prior: I don’t think you should tell him to look into it, I think you ought to tell him
to come up with something, and this is really what you want, because if we tell
him to look into it, this thing is going to go on forever and ever and ever.
MacCoy: I don’t think so. I think he’s got a good knowledge the same as we do
about looking at a piece of property. He just admitted he did the one down the
street.
Prior: I just think that you should give him direction as to what you would like to
see as a commission and then we move on, and I think in specifics would be –
Nelson: Yeah, I think if we are going to require him to come back, we got to have
something to compare to. If not, we should just forward it to the discretion of
staff with our recommendation as to what we would like to see.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JUNE 9, 1998
PAGE 62
Smith: Well, I’ll get specific then with that and try to help Jerry with what I’m
looking for from a site planning standpoint. I would like to see what it means to
orient the building more towards the corner and put more of the parking around
the side or the rear of the building. Whether or not the entrance reverses, flip
flops, I don’t want to be that specific to where I start tying your hands from being
able to do design work either. Certainly putting the main entry on the –
conceptually if the thing just got flip flopped, your main entrance would be on the
north side and the back of the building which is pretty obscure and plain would
be the one the most visible corner, you’d also have problems screening your
receiving area and so forth, so maybe there needs to be some juggling around of
the relationships to the warehouse and showroom and that kind of thing, so I
think conceptually I’d like to see the building closer more of the parking off of the
corner of the lot.
Prior: So you don’t have an objection to the building facing the road, because
his selling point of his whole business is that when those people drive by, they
see R C Willey.
Smith: No, what my objection is having 590 spaces between the building and
the corner.
Lowe: If we move parking over here, transferred part of this parking over to
where we plan for future parking. We have a bigger green space buffer in here.
Prior: Move the building up a little bit?
Lowe: No, I’m saying – the building where it is but take this portion here, those
number of spaces and transfer them over here to this side where we have a
bigger buffer.
De Weerd: You know I might add, I’m not technical so this is just a comment, but
you can’t see that corner from the roads, so I don’t know why we’re concerned
about the parking on that corner because until you get into the parking lot, you
don’t even know really it’s there.
Smith: Well, I don’t think you can even say that though because we have no
idea what’s going on with the grading.
De Weerd: Well, perhaps then maybe the condition would be that we would like
to see what aesthetically you are going to do along those sides of those road and
maybe you could show some drawings on what the vision is going to be from –
what people are going to see off of Franklin and off of Eagle into that so we know
what visually –
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JUNE 9, 1998
PAGE 63
Lowe: I made comment, Commissioner, that the gradings on that change
(inaudible) We are going to be raising and lowering, but it’s not a dramatic
change from what we’re doing here.
Smith: Well, and the other thing too is when you start talking about parking and
distributing around a site and a building is there’s really no reason why
employees can’t park on the back side of the building.
Lowe: And that’s – essentially we (inaudible) employee parking around the side.
Would it ease the situation if we (inaudible) this up more, more landscaping.
MacCoy: That would help.
Smith: That would help. I’d still like to see us get more of it back, you know,
even we can you know do some pulling and maybe it pulls down just like due
south and maybe some of that parking can go on the back and you can put some
more landscaping up front.
MacCoy: Let me ask a question of you. That parcel which is up in the northwest
corner there, that roadway, and you said you had a connect across the way.
Was that dictated totally in the way you’ve written this on your drawing? That
form or can you –
Lowe: There are some restrictions about stacking distance that we have to go
before we can make curbs so we –
MacCoy: Okay, that’s what I wanted to find out.
Lowe: We can gain a little bit here, but not significantly.
MacCoy: Yeah, because I was wondering if we could use that spot better.
Nelson: I guess I have a general question. Is the building of this size and
considering the amount of money they invest in their exterior, is this the best
location on Eagle Road to place it?
Lowe: Are there some other sites for sale? Actually, this is not the best site for
them because of the visibility.
Nelson: I was just wondered if there was other developments.
Lowe: -- because of the drop off from that.
Nelson: Yeah, I was just wondering if there was other developments that would
be more flexible in a site like this. Of course that’s anything you are current –
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JUNE 9, 1998
PAGE 64
Lowe: If we don’t dedicate this as a public street, and this is just side access,
that allows us a lot more flexibility to where we just enter our site here and then
we can work our building in a lot of different fashions, and I’m not really sure,
Shari do you know, does this street have to be a public street. If we were to deal
with this as just a (inaudible).
Prior: Shari, maybe we better grab the microphone and do it this way.
Stiles: That would really have to do with what Ada County Highway District’s
requirements are. In order to build anything else on this site, you’re going to
have to have public access as far as I’m concerned when you’re platting it, --
Lowe: But if we were not to subdivide this in any way, not break it up. If we were
to just enter here and not loop this around. We pull this road and then we don’t
even need this road from that access off of Franklin to it. Access off of here and
not deal with a future development.
Stiles: Isn’t that part of your agreement with Van Auker that you have public
street access to his site from Eagle Road?
Lowe: If we do build a Lanark Street, that’s the way it’s worded, but it doesn’t
say we have to build a Lanark Street. It’s kind of a cooperative type of approach.
(Inaudible)
Stiles: So, it’s going to have to be public access? At least an easement?
Lowe: We could do an easement across there. We could tie from here over to
here in some fashion and it doesn’t have to be in the right-of-way.
Stiles: I don’t know that it makes any difference to us as long as it’s built to their
standards and has sidewalks on both sides whether it’s a pubic street or not, I
don’t think makes any difference with the city.
Lowe: If I can make one final comment here that being in Idaho the requirement
for parking adjacent to the door is paramount that people will not use a facility if
they have to walk. That’s why we’ve got a drop off area here to tie the thing. It’s
just a fact of our culture that people aren’t prepared to walk any more than they
have to. So given that the main entrance is critical to the marketing of their
business, then there needs to be parking next to that main entrance, so I really
am going to have a difficult time convincing given your sensitivity to aesthetics of
the site to move the parking away and force people to walk around the building.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JUNE 9, 1998
PAGE 65
Smith: Don’t misinterpret what I’m asking for. I’m not asking for the parking to
be located on the opposite side of the building as the main entry. Because I
agree with you. That doesn’t work. People won’t use it. But that’s where I think
that we as architects start getting into being creative with the shape of the
building and the orientation on the site and not just – this is no know on you or
CSHQA or anything like that, but a lot of these companies like R C Willey, they
have preset building design and they’re building it off one façade and all the
other ones are substandard from a aesthetic standpoint to those, and that’s why I
think that we can probably do some creative things with it and not make it cost
prohibitive or drive it up to where it would be higher cost than what we’re looking
at now and then still perhaps address some of those concerns. And like I said, I
haven’t sat down and tried to work out the layout with the perimeters that you
have so I don’t know.
Prior: In order to expedite this a little bit, can you just give the what I said fifteen
minutes ago, give them the specifics and let them know what you want to do. I’m
getting impatient. What do you folks as a commission want to do?
Nelson: Malcolm had just mentioned that apparently there’s a history to this site
and that other developers have tried to make this thing work, so we don’t want to
overly restrictive or they’ll also move on. But anyway, I don’t have any specific
concerns, but I would be willing to support whatever – I think you already kind of
proposed that you – you can just reiterate that and I’ll –
Smith: Do you want me to be any more specific or do you kind of got the gist of
what –
Lowe: I guess my biggest concern is the timing to work through this process
given that the goal for having this project completed in less than a year now. If
there is a methodology that we can do a work session to come in with some
other plans rather than the public hearing for them, or if you have some other
types of avenues for us to –
Smith: I’m more than willing to sit down outside of a commission meeting and in
fact I met this morning with an applicant in my office that was going over some
things on one of the projects they were going to be reviewing tonight, you know,
I’m four blocks away from your office, so anytime I’m more than happy to sit
down myself and I’m sure my fellow commission members would be more than
happy to sit down with you outside of a meeting. I mean I can’t speak for them,
but you know, I’m more than willing to do it, more than happy.
De Weerd: I guess my question is, what do you need? Does you concern just
the view in on the building and so what we can request is what their landscaping
is going to be and if they can add some more trees to it to make it more
aesthetically appealing. Is that what you are wanting, Byron? I just don’t know
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JUNE 9, 1998
PAGE 66
what you want. All I think that what staff has said in their letter is that they would
like to also see landscaping, and I think at this point, that’s all I want to see. I
would like to make it condition that you just show what the view from the road is
going to be and aesthetically how you are going to prepare that so it’s pleasing to
the corridor into Meridian. So that’s my comment.
Smith: I guess I’m asking for more. More than a couple of trees.
MacCoy: Well, the cut you asked for across the property is a typical thing
anyway, if you do a job like this, so it should be made available.
Lowe: That would be part of the permit process.
MacCoy: Well, you are going to have to do it anyway. So, it’s just not something
we are going to ask you to do for us.
Smith: Looking at the site section, it might be pretty obvious that (End of Tape)
Smith: -- there’s was section studies made – you know, make it blatantly obvious
that repositioning the building doesn’t work.
Prior: So, if we have this clear then, you want him to do some type of section
study for you, and you also want him to specifically state what type of
landscaping he’s going to propose other than lawn along the outer perimeter
along the corridor into the city. Is there anything else you want?
Smith: And I’d like him to study the – he knows how do it. Site studies of moving
the building closer to the intersection and distributing the parking around –
Prior: And the feasibility of that possibly.
Smith: Yeah.
Prior: Okay, is there anything else?
Smith: No.
Prior: Great.
MacCoy: Question for you. Have any of your people done some elevation
sketch from each one of the two major, like Franklin and Eagle, what it would
look like property if you were driving down say the middle of Eagle?
Lowe: We haven’t done that.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JUNE 9, 1998
PAGE 67
MacCoy: Not even the sketches or anything.
Lowe: No, other than these elevations.
Nelson: Yeah, I’d be curious to see how much from, driving across there, how
much of the bottom of the building are you not even going to see?
Lowe: And Byron’s got a good point here by cutting, you’ll see that you are
going to be looking down on top of these things from Franklin and for a good
portion of –
Prior: I think all you are going to see is the front of that building, and I think you
are going to look right over that parking lot, to be honest with you, because that’s
a pretty darn deep slope.
De Weerd: I think, Malcolm, that’s what I asked for.
MacCoy: Yes.
Prior: Does that help you?
Lowe: Can we set up a date here?
Prior: Yes, how about a date for him?
MacCoy: We can do that.
De Weerd: Can we not do it at our June 17th
meeting?
Lowe: I’ll have them done before then if that would help things.
Prior: The June 17th
meeting, which is in eight days. You’re going to be held up
by this sewer condemnation, I’m telling that it’s going to take three months to –
Lowe: But we can start construction and we’ve been advised that we can start,
get a permit prior to that.
Prior: You are assuming then that the condemnation proceedings are going to be
successful.
Lowe: How does condemnation not be successful other than time?
Prior: Other than the other side getting an attorney who manages to fight it and
you lose. I mean you are never guaranteed that it’s going to happen.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JUNE 9, 1998
PAGE 68
Stiles: And the city has never done it.
Prior: Well, actually it’s being contracted out. I just discovered the city council is
contracting that out, and Wayne is not involved with it.
MacCoy: Well, we have come to about the end of this now.
Prior: Yes, can we close it up?
MacCoy: Wait a minute. Do you have enough information that you can go on?
Lowe: Yes, sir. I believe so.
MacCoy: Can you deal with Will here to find out what’s a good date for us to get
together? I mean it’s up to you. When you get the material done and want to
meet with us. It’s really on your ticket as to when.
Nelson: And does that meeting have to be here?
MacCoy: Where do you want it to be?
Nelson: Well, I was just curious as to if it’s a meeting with a couple of us –
De Weerd: Can we not just do it at our next meeting?
MacCoy: Well, it can be, but I’m trying to figure out timing on this situation. We
got some space at the next meeting.
Berg: If there’s guarantee that the public hearings went as smooth as they did
tonight, you’d probably have time. But you’ve got different issue to deal with at
the other public hearing.
Prior: And I may have these Findings done for you for the next meeting too.
Berg: Two options. You can meet individually or by pairs, but if you meet with a
quorum, we have to have it for a public meeting. So, it’s up to you, how you
would like to arrange it.
MacCoy: You probably got to have us all at one time is probably what you’d
prefer if you could.
Lowe: If you would all like to attend that would be the best. And I guess your
point is one meeting. That would be preferable.
Prior: So the 17th
, is that what you folks are looking at now? Is that a yes?
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JUNE 9, 1998
PAGE 69
MacCoy: Well, will you be prepared to do that, or is that too quick for you?
Lowe: I’ll use my resources to – you set the date.
Berg: Let me just qualify a point, just that you guys might want to think about.
We have announced that our public hearings will be at 7:00 on June 17th
. Now,
we haven’t noticed for the special meeting yet. We could notice it as 6:30. You
could come in and talk to him at 6:30, but you couldn’t start your public hearings
until 7:00 as noticed.
Prior: That’s excellent folks.
De Weerd: That’s a great idea. I’d like to move that we meet at 6:30 on the 17th
to discuss the design review.
Smith: Second.
MacCoy: Any discussion? All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: All ayes.
Nelson: I’d like to make a motion we close this.
Smith: Second.
MacCoy: Everybody in favor of that?
MOTION CARRIED: All ayes.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:38 P.M.
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JUNE 9, 1998
PAGE 70
APPROVED:
_______________________________
MALCOLM MACCOY, ACTING
CHAIRMAN
ATTEST:
_______________________________
WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CITY CLERK